# Baptism and the 2 questions I have



## Joseph Scibbe

Ok, as of last night I am reall riding the fene between credo and paedo baptism. I can see either one being a legitimate option. I get paedo from the passage on the Phillipian jailer and his whole family being baptised and its covenantal roots but also in Romans 6 where it says that we are baptized into Christs death and ressurection so I read from there that we are identifying ourselves with the dead and risen Christ and I dont see how we can baptize babies and identify them with Christ if they are not believers. Does that make any sense? Please help.


----------



## JML

Considering that I see you hold to the London Baptist Confession and you most likely currently believe in credo baptism, let me recommend this book by Gary Crampton who used to be a paedo baptist but is now credo. He answers the question of the Philippian jailer and other questions as well.

*From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism*
Gary Crampton

From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism


----------



## Herald

Joseph, the first thing I would counsel you to do is s-l-o-w down. Baptism, while not determining your salvation, is an important issue. If you're unsure about your position don't feel compelled to make a decision just so you have a position to hold. I say this no matter which side of the baptism position you finally believe. 

This thread has the potential to get out of hand quickly. Baptism threads are prone to this eventuality. But to address the question in your post, I suggest you add some books to your reading list on the subject. From the credo position I highly endorse Dr. W. Gary Crampton's new book, "From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism." It is an easy read and approaches the subject from a unique perspective that is missing in most other treatments. Another convincing credo resource is Fred Malone's "A String of Pearls Unstrung." As you search the scriptures, and read the suggested resources, keep this point in mind; nowhere in the New Testament do we read of infants being baptized. The passage your cited (Acts 16) never mentions infants. It does mention the jailer's household, but it does so in the context of first believing. Acts 16:31 And they said, "_*Believe *_in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household." Belief is the condition of baptism. Just two verses later we read, Acts 16:33-34 "And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, _*having believed in God with his whole household*_." So, those who were baptized first believed. No one was baptized who did not believe. Keep that in mind.

May the Lord bless your consideration of this very important Christian doctrine.


----------



## Marrow Man

Joseph, I have pre-ordered John Fesko's book on baptism (you can read the introduction here), but on a recent thread where the book was discussed, one PBer posted a couple of lectures/sermons by Dr. Fesko that help explain baptism from a perspective that is more broadly Scriptural. Go here and scroll down to comment # 6.


----------



## Marrow Man

Herald said:


> Just two verses later we read, Acts 16:33-34 "And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household." So, those who were baptized first believed. No one was baptized who did not believe. Keep that in mind.



Bill, this has been discussed before with regard to the jailer and his family, and this is not quite correct. The participle "having believed" in verse 34 is masculine and singular and says nothing of the family with regard the "believing." The end of the verse literally reads, "and [he] was extremely joyful with his entire household, [he] having believed in God."

I would also add, as Calvin stated many years ago, we also do not have not one example in the New Testament of a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper. Let's be consistent with the discussion.


----------



## Howlin' Wolf

I'm no scholar, but I have found a comfortable niche between the two forms of baptism. I believe that baptism is the new circumcision and have no problem with parents baptizing their children into the covenant. I also have no problem with waiting until faith is confessed to baptize a person. When I was growing up in a Southern Baptist Church, I prayed the sinner's prayer when I was 12 and was then baptized. My faith did not become real and I did not follow the Lord until I was 21. The church I was attending, along with the International Mission Board, told me that I had to be re-baptized. At the time, it made sense. Now, I do not see the need for that.


----------



## MW

Unashamed 116 said:


> but also in Romans 6 where it says that we are baptized into Christs death and ressurection so I read from there that we are identifying ourselves with the dead and risen Christ and I dont see how we can baptize babies and identify them with Christ if they are not believers. Does that make any sense? Please help.


 
Elect infants are saved by Christ, WCF 10.3.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> I would also add, as Calvin stated many years ago, we also do not have not one example in the New Testament of a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper. Let's be consistent with the discussion.



Tim, we're not dealing with apples and apples here. There is a distinct categorical difference between who is able to partake of the Lord's Supper and who is a valid recipient of baptism. The Lord's Supper is to be partaken by all those who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and who are capable of self-examination. 1 Cor. 11:18-21 deals with this from the negative as Paul addresses the corporate body of believers (male and female).



> 1 Corinthians 11:18-21 18 For, in the first place, when *you come together *as a church, I hear that divisions exist *among you*; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be *factions among you*, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. 20 Therefore when *you meet together*, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for *in your eating each one takes his own supper first*; and one is hungry and another is drunk.


The positive injunction is that all who have examined themselves are to partake.



> 1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.


The use of ἀηθροπος is 11:28 does not men the male gender only. It's simply a term used to describe mankind. 

The qualifier is different when we discuss baptism. A not-so-obscure paedobaptist, Matthew Henry, wrote about Acts 16:34:



> The voice of rejoicing with that of salvation was heard in the jailer's house; never was such a truly merry night kept there before: He rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house. There was none in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the harmony; but *they were unanimous in embracing the gospel*, which added much to the joy.


Using a modern author, Dr. Gary Crampton writes:



> There is not a single example of infant baptism in the whole of Scripture. This is admitted by paedobaptist theologians. John Murray acknowledged that "there is no express command to baptize infants and no record in the New Testament of a clear case of infant baptism." Thomas Boston said that "there is no example of baptism recorded in the Scriptures, where any were baptized, but such as appeared to have a saving interest in Christ." "Regrettably," asserted Peter Toon, "there is no clear scriptural teaching on whether or not children and infants were baptized."


Tim, I wasn't going to defend my statement to Joseph until you inferred I wasn't being consistent in my argument. I'm going to leave it at this so as not to hijack the OP.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> There is not a single example of infant baptism in the whole of Scripture.
Click to expand...

 
1 Corinthians 10:2, "And were *all baptized* unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Verse 11, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written *for our admonition*, upon whom the ends of the world are come."


----------



## Marrow Man

Bill, that demonstrates precisely the point I was making about women and the Lord's Supper. You stated, "nowhere in the New Testament do we read of infants being baptized," and I was simply pointing out that nowhere in the NT do you read of women taking the Lord's Supper. Can it be inferred from texts such as the ones you cited? Absolutely. But you are utilizing a hermeneutic principle that allows you to make inference in the case of one ordinance and not in the other. If you do not think that in inconsistent, so be it. We both have attempted to make our point.

But also understand that this was a very minor comment that I was making in my post. I would not have responded to your comment had you not made the statement about the jailer's family in Acts 16, implying (or so it would seem, since you even went back and highlighted that part of passage!) that the text states the whole household believed, which is grammatically not the case. That was the point I was trying to clarify. I am more interested in what Luke actually says.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but also in Romans 6 where it says that we are baptized into Christs death and ressurection so I read from there that we are identifying ourselves with the dead and risen Christ and I dont see how we can baptize babies and identify them with Christ if they are not believers. Does that make any sense? Please help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elect infants are saved by Christ, WCF 10.3.
Click to expand...

 
Hello Matthew,
While elect infants are indeed saved by Christ and made partakers of the covenant by Spirit baptism, the Romans 6 passage quoted by unashamed 116 he is speaking on non elect infants. Romans6 cannot be applied to unbelievers. I do not think the language and condition of the persons described by Paul can be applied that way.

and also here;


> Today 08:00 PM #8 Herald
> View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries Visit Homepage View Articles Add as Contact
> 
> No posts for you!
> 
> Join Date:Aug 2005
> Posts:14,232
> Blog Entries:15 Originally Posted by Marrow Man
> I would also add, as Calvin stated many years ago, we also do not have not one example in the New Testament of a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper. Let's be consistent with the discussion.
> Tim, we're not dealing with apples and apples here. There is a distinct categorical difference between who is able to partake of the Lord's Supper and who is a valid recipient of baptism. The Lord's Supper is to be partaken by all those who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and who are capable of self-examination. 1 Cor. 11:18-21 deals with this from the negative as Paul addresses the corporate body of believers (male and female).
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11:18-21 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
> The positive injunction is that all who have examined themselves are to partake.
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
> The use of ἀηθροπος is 11:28 does not men the male gender only. It's simply a term used to describe mankind.
> 
> The qualifier is different when we discuss baptism. A not-so-obscure paedobaptist, Matthew Henry, wrote about Acts 16:34:
> 
> 
> The voice of rejoicing with that of salvation was heard in the jailer's house; never was such a truly merry night kept there before: He rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house. There was none in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the harmony; but they were unanimous in embracing the gospel, which added much to the joy.
> Using a modern author, Dr. Gary Crampton writes:
> 
> 
> There is not a single example of infant baptism in the whole of Scripture. This is admitted by paedobaptist theologians. John Murray acknowledged that "there is no express command to baptize infants and no record in the New Testament of a clear case of infant baptism." Thomas Boston said that "there is no example of baptism recorded in the Scriptures, where any were baptized, but such as appeared to have a saving interest in Christ." "Regrettably," asserted Peter Toon, "there is no clear scriptural teaching on whether or not children and infants were baptized."
> Tim, I wasn't going to defend my statement to Joseph until you inferred I wasn't being consistent in my argument. I'm going to leave it at this so as not to hijack the OP.
> Bill Brown
> Elder
> Grace Baptist Church
> Maryland
> 
> Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
> Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us Did you find this post helpful?
> 
> Reply Reply With Quote Blog this Post Thanks .
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Today 08:12 PM #9 armourbearer
> View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message View Blog Entries View Articles Add as Contact
> 
> Moderator
> 
> Join Date:Jun 2006
> Posts:8,324 Originally Posted by Herald
> There is not a single example of infant baptism in the whole of Scripture.
> 1 Corinthians 10:2, "And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Verse 11, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."



This is speaking of identification with Moses at that time, and the failed example of the many are used as a warning against falsely identifying with the people of God in our time.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> While elect infants are indeed saved by Christ and made partakers of the covenant by Spirit baptism, the Romans 6 passage quoted by unashamed 116 he is speaking on non elect infants. Romans6 cannot be applied to unbelievers. I do not think the language and condition of the persons described by Paul can be applied that way.



That the elect only are truly united to Christ is beyond question, but the elect are to be found amongst adults and infants. That there are non elect who are baptised is likewise beyond question, but these non elect are to be found amongst adults and infants; they cannot be confined to infants. The objection to baptising infants on the basis that they are not elect and therefore not united to Christ is unfounded.



Iconoclast said:


> This is speaking of identification with Moses at that time, and the failed example of the many are used as a warning against falsely identifying with the people of God in our time.


 
Yes; so we can agree that this text provides a clear scriptural example of infant baptism and of the continued distinction between external and intenral covenanters in the fulness of the ages.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, as usual we will just have to agree to disagree won't we Matthew? We just don't see eye to eye concerning the differences of the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Baptized into Moses is not the same as Baptism into Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

To the main question (OP),

There are a couple issues that I see.
1) if you think that baptism is principally about what the _baptized_ says or does, then you are more likely to question the validity of an infant's baptism. On the other hand, if baptism is principally about what the _baptizer_ says or does, the objection (as it was presented) based on Rom.6 is unfounded.

Joseph, you have there "...*we* are identifying *ourselves*..." This view has the effect of rendering any baptism's validity principally contingent on the correctness of the _baptized's_ will and motive. But, there is nothing (but a prior commitment to an invariable temporal order) that forbids the view that an understanding of union-with-Christ as meaning behind ritual baptism may not follow the application of the sign.

There is an issue, then, as to the significance of baptism, a theme I've recently addressed on the PB. If baptism portrays a monergistic work of God, then what I have to say about his work is secondary in every case, even to an adult. The union-with-Christ is not effected after my "decision", but the union actually prompts my "decision." So, what I have to say about identifying with Christ's death and resurrection comes after what he says about identifying with me.

2) The objection that "we" are identifying the infant with Christ is really unfounded, since as men we aren't willing to make so bold that pronouncement. We make a gospel proclamation in baptism, not an "election" proclamation. Furthermore, if the objection were valid, it would militate against the former circumcision (if you agree that it represents the same essential facts as baptism does). That is to say, God made bold to identify infants-in-the-church with Christ in the Old Testament by authorizing the sign, and declaring its rightful recipients. Such is the nature of any and all outward acts of religion.

Therefore, to state that it *cannot* be so, is plainly false; if one says that _now in this age_ it *shouldn't* be so is a bit more defensible, in my opinion.


----------



## Porter

Marrow Man said:


> I would also add, as Calvin stated many years ago, we also do not have not one example in the New Testament of a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper. Let's be consistent with the discussion.



Tim,

Yet, unlike paedobaptism, there is support from explicit references (to women in the church), in the immediate context. Also, unlike paedobaptism, the arrival at legitimate distribution of the bread and the wine to women can be deduced by the good and necessary use of _good and necessary consequence_ (that is, it is not arrived at by this interpretive principle - deduction - in the face of contrary witness which is _expressly set down_ - perspicuous and explicit evidence). You cannot compare _women and the Lord's Supper_ with _Paedobaptism_.


----------



## Marrow Man

I'm not the one who made the original comparison. It was Calvin who originally made the comparison:



> Every one must now see that pædobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we nowhere read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family (Acts 16:15, 32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years, and that, therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection of Christ, during which pædobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.



So, obviously one _can_ compare the two, since he does it in 3:16:8 of the _Institutes_. But the point still remains that we do not have a single explicit reference for women partaking of the Lord's Supper in the NT. Not one.

However, since my comment was made in response to another PBer (who has since stepped out of the discussion for the very noble reason that he did not want to hijack the thread) and it was only a secondary comment at that and really has nothing to do with the OP, let us leave it at that and not further derail the thread.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Joseph:

You may want to consider the Great Commission which commands us to Baptize disciples. The question then to ask, "Are the children of believers considered disciples?" I believe that the Scriptures teach that the children of believers are disciples. Because of this we should baptize our children.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Phil D.

Hello, all. This is my first posting on the PB. As I have done quite a bit of studying on the issue of baptism over the last ten years or so (especially on the issue of mode), I thought I’d chime in on this thread – specifically with regard to the baptism of the Philippian jailor’s household. Personally, when its taken in its full context I don’t find it (or the other household accounts) to provide compelling support for infant baptism.

First of all, we find the hearing of the gospel expressly attributed to all of the subjects involved in the report (v. 32). It is also true that the only description of personal faith actually having been exercised is individually connected to the jailor (v. 34), as the ESV’s literal translation aptly conveys. Without getting too technical, this rendering is due to the fact that the form of the Greek word for believe (pisteuo) is in the singular and masculine form (pepisteukos). Some have then insisted that this fact, combined with the knowledge that his family was indeed baptized, proves that infants (and apparently others) can and should be baptized by the simple virtue of a head-of-household coming to faith. 

However, such a stringent interpretation goes well beyond what is actually stated, exegetically demanded, or even contextually suggested. Even though only the jailor’s faith is specifically mentioned, there is no logical reason to suppose, let alone to insist that therefore he was the only person saved. Both the explicit fact that all those under consideration had indeed heard the gospel, and the overall account of events strongly militate against such a conclusion. Consider what is necessarily implied in thinking that only the jailer was saved: (1) The whole household heard Paul’s salvation message. (2) The jailer believed the gospel, but the rest of the household didn’t. (3) They were all baptized anyway, regardless of whether they were infants, adolescents or, presumably, other adults. (4) And, the entire family was overcome with joy that only the head-of-household had believed and acted upon a message that the rest either weren’t capable of comprehending, or had willfully ignored or rejected.

It is far more reasonable to think that while the jailer’s personal salvation may indeed have been the object of the household’s joy that is most specifically referenced by Luke, this could have been on account of his instrumental role in the rest of the family having then been introduced to and ultimately accepting the gospel as well. (Or maybe, given the nature of his occupation, the jailor had been a “rough” individual, and the family realized that through his conversion he was a changed person—who knows). Notably, even some very literal translations plainly prefer the “household conversion” perspective, such as the NASB, where verse 34 reads: “And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.” (See also NKJV.) 

With all things considered I tend to agree with Pierre-Charles Marcel concerning this particular vein of evidence: “We state here with all desirable precision that these [household] passages have never served and still do not serve, in good Reformed theology, as a basis or justification of infant baptism.” (The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p.196)

Even if one believes in infant baptism, we have to be careful and consistent in the evidence we present as support for our position. In my estimation, by far the strongest, and perhaps the only substantial scriptural support for the practice is that derived from the continuing-covenant and corresponding circumcision-to-baptism motifs.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil, thanks for the comments. I would say that I agree that the Philippian jailer passage cannot be used as a "proof text" for infant baptism for the simple fact that infants are not mentioned (if they were, the matter would be largely settled!). The reason the text is often raised is because it presents a problem for the antipaedobaptist in the sense that only the faith of the Philippian jailer is mentioned (as you mentioned, a masculine singular participle is used) but an entire household (or family) is baptized. Luke was perfectly capable of using the plural form of the same participle (e.g., Acts 15:5) and yet did not do so in this passage. Had he done so, that part of the debate would perhaps be settled. But he did not, and it is not sound exegesis to import something into the verse that is clearly not there. We instead need to ask why it is not there and seek to determine the reason why.

No infants are mentioned in the text; that much is equally plain. Would infants have been considered part of the household? I do not see how that can be denied. It would seem that if infants were present, then they would have likewise been baptized (being part of the household). But they are not specifically mentioned. However, since the majority of the Christian baptisms mentioned in the NT are of the household variety (excusing the instances when families were obviously not present -- Pentecost, the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul, the disciples of John), it would seem unlikely that every such case would have been a household sans infants. Since Scripture would seem to indicate that children are part of the covenant promises of God (e.g., Deuteronomy 30:6; Jeremiah 31:36-37) as well as included in the church (Ephesians 6:1ff) and part of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 19:14, et al), it would seem odd and unexpected to exclude them in this respect. Of course, I am reading that with Presbyterian eyes, but they are also former Baptist eyes as well.

I say all that, however, to point out that there is one other possibility that I think you may have not considered. In the pagan Roman world, it was customary for the entire household to adopt the religion of the head of the household. So if the head of the household converted, it would not have been usual for others to have done the same (and I would guess even on the spot). This may be the reason that only the faith of the jailer is mentioned, even though the others present obviously would up receiving baptism as well. And note that nothing is said of Paul and Silas correcting this understanding of how this practice worked (I have not looked at this part in-depth, but I don't think this would be radically different from conversion to Judaism with the head of a household -- i.e., the entire family would be expected to come along). You do have exceptions to this, of course. For example, if a wife converted while her husband remained a pagan, she was not obliged to follow her husband's practice (this is part of the background for Peter's statements in 1 Peter 3:1ff). This may also be behind Paul's statement about the husband and children in 1 Corinthians 7:14; in some sense the spouse's faith "sanctifies" the other members of family (as opposed to making them unclean, which seems to have been the supposition of the Corinthians). Looking at 1 Corinthians 7, there certainly were situations where a spouse may have refused to convert but yet remained with the believing spouse.


----------



## Phil D.

Rev. Phillips,

Thanks for your interaction. You do bring up some interesting and valid points. 

Nonetheless I still think that Luke's explicit notation that "all" in the jailer's household heard the gospel has direct and significant bearing on the connected point that this household was subsequently baptized _and_ rejoiced. This is in line with what we also find with respect to other household accounts, when all of the information related to them is considered. (Acts 10:1, 44-48; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16, 16:15) 

It seems pretty clear to me from all of these instances that only those old enough to comprehend, receive, and experience the transforming effects of the gospel are specifically in mind, i.e. _being talked about_. In other words, it appears that the defining point of commonality in all these household accounts is indeed personal faith in Jesus Christ. This theme is especially brought out in Acts 18:8, where both Crispus’ collective household and the generic term “many others” are assigned the common denominator of belief, followed by baptism. I would go so far as to say that this is almost certainly Luke’s intended point in all of his household narratives—that is, to the glory of God, entire families were _converted_ to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ, upon which their baptism naturally followed. 

If it had been Luke's intent to convey the idea that even unbelieving members (of any sort) in these families were included in baptism, then he could very easily and directly have made that point (cf. Acts 8:12). This seems especially germane in that, as most scholars deduce, Luke's initial target readership would largely have been Gentiles, and thus they wouldn't necessarily have been as familiar with the inclusion of children under the covenantal ordering of things as the Jewish people were.

It is also interesting to consider the historical usage of these household accounts. While most modern presentations supporting infant baptism prominently employ them as a confirmation of their practice, as I researched the subject I found that more often than not earlier paedobaptist writings don’t assert them as evidence. Very notable in this regard is that no pre-modern Protestant confession or catechism mentions any of the household passages, either as part of their main comments on infant baptism, or in the Scripture proofs they offered as supporting that practice. While I certainly wouldn’t claim to know all the reasons behind such an omission, two possibilities must surely be considered here: (1) Perhaps these early writers simply, yet somewhat remarkably (considering the intense disputations they had with the Anabaptists of their day) missed the possibility that these cases would have been good biblical examples with which to support their position, or, (2) perhaps they indeed concluded that considerable difficulties are created if infants are presumed to be involved in all the cognitive themes, circumstances, and actions that these household passages revolve around. 

Of course all this is just my humble and honest opinion.

Best regards, 

Phil D.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil, thanks again for the comments. First, this still does not explain why only the faith of Philippian jailer is mentioned. That is a grammatical construction of the text that must be dealt with. To say that it must mean "all believed" is special pleading and question begging. That is not to say that Luke (and the Holy Spirit!) did not have a good reason for writing as he did; I just think reading a modern notion of individualism into the text is not the way to go.

You mention that Gentiles "wouldn't necessarily have been as familiar with the inclusion of children under the covenantal ordering of things as the Jewish people were." Perhaps not in the same way, but community and corporate principles would not have been that much different, would they? I've already mentioned the expectation of household conversions within pagan religions (attested in ancient sources); do you not think that would play into the Gentile mindset? You mentioned Marcel's book in your previous post; if you have the same edition I do, then you have read the story about the missionary who comments on how completely different the understanding of those cultures would have been different from our modern western notions. I really think we read too much of that into these accounts.

I am somewhat confused by your later paragraph as I am not certain of the precise time frame to which you refer. You are correct, for example, in that the Westminster Confession does not make use of the passages (and not only is that a good point, but it is likely because infants are not specifically mentioned in the text) as proof texts, but in the quote from Calvin I posted above, he clearly does make reference to these accounts. Perhaps I am not understanding your exact reference, though.


----------



## Phil D.

Rev. Phillips,

In my first post I actually did posit a couple of possible reasons why the jailer's faith might be specifically referenced. Evidently the translation teams involved in versions like the NASB and NKJV also had their reasons for rendering it as they did. I also stated several contextual reasons why I think it is reading more into the account than is actually there (and thus intended) when the assumption is made that infants must be in view. My point regarding the _relative_ lack of pre-modern (pre-18th century) usage of these accounts is that if they were in such fact strong evidence on which to build the case for infant baptism, then why wasn't this done more often than it was? And as I said, I find the lack of their use in consensus documents like our confessions and catechisms to be especially notable. 

I guess we've both stated our reasons for thinking that these passages either do or don't provide solid evidence for infant baptism. With neither one of us having apparently convinced the other, I am content to leave it at that. 

Best regards, 

Phil D.


----------



## Leslie Koster

Wow now I understand why my husband likes this board so much..I appreciate the comments on this thread and that it has not go to the negative.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil, I do appreciate your insights, and thank you for bringing up the info about the confessions. That was really a very interesting point.

Yes, you did come up with some possibilities in your earlier post; I was simply pointing out there may have been another possibility (the expected adoption of the religion of the head of the household in the Greco-Roman world).

I think at this point two conclusions would need to be conceded on the passage from Acts 16: 1) only the faith of the jailer is mentioned, which would mean that insisting upon only adult believers, each of whom demonstrated faith, is an assumption that is not rooted in the text; 2) infants are not mentioned in the text either, which would make insisting on this particular passage as proof of infant baptism to also be conjecture. There may have been all adults (or near-adults) in the household, or there might have been infants, but there is not enough evidence either way to be definitive with a conclusion. And it is at this point that both sides begin reading their presuppositions into the text.


----------



## Calvibaptist

I find it odd that the same group of people who argue for the RPW in almost all aspects of Congregational life argue against the RPW when it comes to Baptism. Paedobaptists can't point to one positive command to baptize infants (who, by definition are unbelievers) but rely on supposed principle that Baptism = New Covenant circumcision and also rely on conjecture that there were probably infants in the household baptism texts.


----------



## steadfast7

one cent: looking at the practice of the earliest churches is key for me. There is no evidence of infant baptism prior to the 3rd century. The catechesis for new converts was rigorous, suggesting adult only baptism. Stander and Louw, both paedobaptists, mind you, wrote a book arguing that infant baptism was NOT the practice of the ancient church (why they are still paedos, I'm not sure).

two cents: the RPW demands that _explicit _command be given in scripture for the worship of God. It's always struck me as strange that infant baptism slides through unnoticed. 

thoughts?

---------- Post added at 08:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 PM ----------

Correction, 3rd century is perhaps a little late. I think Tertullian mentions it. apologies.


----------



## steadfast7

Rev. Phillips, if I might get in on your intesting discussion here, you're making the point (rightly) that the text cites only the jailer's faith, leading to the subsequent baptism of his entire household (regardless of faith). If this is the case, let me ask: is this something that would ever be sanctioned in a presbyterian church? - ie. baptising the entire family based on the faith of the male head? this action is not only problematic for the credo, but also for the paedo as well, wouldn't you say? 

In fact, this scene is not so far removed from our experience. I've actually seen this before, having come from a Korean presbyterian background, parents converting later in life and forcing their 30-something year old son to join the new faith and get baptised together as a family - no evidence of any conversion or commitment yet to be seen on the part of the son ... 

Was this a legitimate baptism, rightly administered, according to the Standards? Would you have performed this baptism in good conscience, considering how close this parallels the jailer and his family? 

What I'm trying to get at here is WCF 28.4 speaks of professing believers and their infants. What about the pagan teenager or 40 year old idol-worshipping half-brother who are willing to be baptised as a show of family solidarity but isn't about to trust Christ any time soon? Are they to be included in the covenant?

earnestly looking forward to your thoughts, cheers.


----------



## Marrow Man

In Suk, you ask a good question, but two things: 1) this question has been discussed before (for example, here); 2) this (along with the discussion of the RPW) seems to go beyond the OP (other than it involving the Philippian jailer). My advice would be to read the previous thread, and if that does not answer the question, start another thread dealing specifically with that issue.

Calvibaptist, I find it even more odd that someone who chooses "Calvin" as part of his username who be so "un-Calvinistic" in his view of baptism. But that's just me. At any rate: 1) you seem to have a misunderstanding of the RPW, and I would advise to go back and review the statements in both the WCF and the LBC and see how even 17th century Particular Baptists understood the different enough to state the matter in a different way (e.g., 1:6 -- "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" v. "necessarily contained"); 2) the thread is not intended to venture into a debate on baptism itself; the OP mentioned two specific passages of Scripture, and the discussion needs to be confined to that area; 3) please fix your signature (it is entirely missing); instructions for doing so may be found in my signature below. 

Let me also add one other thing: Raising questions about infant baptism is valid enough, in the proper context. However, also understand that many of the concerns raised have been raised many times before. A search of the various baptism threads will see many of these things have already been discussed. Also, they have been discussed throughout church history. For instance, I referenced Calvin above, and he deals with many of the exact same suggestions in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Another excellent source is the chapter on objections in Samuel Miller's _Infant Baptism: Scriptural and Reasonable_ (available online here).


----------



## Phil D.

Nova,

The first _undisputed_ reference to infant baptism in the patristic authors (in the negative, just to be factual) was indeed in Tertullian's work, _On Baptism_, which scholars generally date to about 202-206 AD (3rd Century). 

Best Regards,

Phil D.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Phil D: Tertullian actually believed that water baptism cleanses away sins. Therefore, he argued that you should be baptized later in life - almost before you die - so that you do not sin against your baptism.

As far as the jailor goes: I, also, do not believe that the household baptisms in Acts are *direct* evidence of Infant Baptism. What they illustrate is that the Federal headship that was in place in the Old Testament is now relevant to the Gentiles as well. *If* Covenant Theology was now an individualistic "free for all" that the Credo-Baptists claim, then the emphasis in these household baptisms would have been on the individual. What we see, however, is the pattern of the head of the household coming to salvation and being baptized, and then the rest of the household being baptized. The question then is: Would the rest of the household have been saved/baptized if the head of the household was not? The pattern in the Book of Acts is following the pattern given in Genesis 17: Abraham believed God, chapter 15, and then he and his household were given the sign of the Covenant, chapter 17. Now that the New Covenant is given to both Jews and Gentiles alike - the demonstration of the application of Federal headship was given to the Jews through these household baptisms, Acts 11:15-*18.* These household baptisms, therefore, are *indirect* evidence of Infant Baptism, and they explain Paul's statement in 1 Co 7:14 rather well. Consequently, the Covenant headship given to the Jews in the Old Testament is now given to both Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament. This headship extends to the whole household, and would include infants if there are any in such a household.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## greenbaggins

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Well, as usual we will just have to agree to disagree won't we Matthew? We just don't see eye to eye concerning the differences of the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Baptized into Moses is not the same as Baptism into Christ.


 
There are, of course, continuities and discontinuities between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. However, is the status of children part of the continuity or part of the discontinuity? Matthew's point relates more specifically to the fact that here is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants. Would Paul have phrased himself this way if he didn't mean for us to infer a parallel case to us? Especially since he actually explicitly draws a typological connection between the Moses case and us in verse 6. Is the baptism into Moses not part of the typological connection to us? If not, why not?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Iconoclast said:


> While elect infants are indeed saved by Christ and made partakers of the covenant by Spirit baptism,



You just lost the argument, my friend. If "Spirit baptism" belongs to these infants, who can deny them water baptism in the name of the Trinity, which points to it [Spirit Baptism]?


----------



## steadfast7

greenbaggins said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as usual we will just have to agree to disagree won't we Matthew? We just don't see eye to eye concerning the differences of the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Baptized into Moses is not the same as Baptism into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are, of course, continuities and discontinuities between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. However, is the status of children part of the continuity or part of the discontinuity? Matthew's point relates more specifically to the fact that here is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants. Would Paul have phrased himself this way if he didn't mean for us to infer a parallel case to us? Especially since he actually explicitly draws a typological connection between the Moses case and us in verse 6. Is the baptism into Moses not part of the typological connection to us? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

 
I don't mean to split hairs unnecessarily here, but the "baptizo" is _not _clearly being used of infants. Let's look at the text closely:



> 1For I want you to know, brothers, that *our fathers *were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.



If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.


----------



## greenbaggins

Nova said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as usual we will just have to agree to disagree won't we Matthew? We just don't see eye to eye concerning the differences of the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Baptized into Moses is not the same as Baptism into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are, of course, continuities and discontinuities between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. However, is the status of children part of the continuity or part of the discontinuity? Matthew's point relates more specifically to the fact that here is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants. Would Paul have phrased himself this way if he didn't mean for us to infer a parallel case to us? Especially since he actually explicitly draws a typological connection between the Moses case and us in verse 6. Is the baptism into Moses not part of the typological connection to us? If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't mean to split hairs unnecessarily here, but the "baptizo" is _not _clearly being used of infants. Let's look at the text closely:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1For I want you to know, brothers, that *our fathers *were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.
Click to expand...

 
All the fathers were baptized, no matter what age they were. That includes infants. Therefore, baptizo is being used of infants in this passage.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Calvibaptist said:


> (who, by definition are unbelievers)



Here you betray a presupposition that needs to be further considered. I do not agree at all with defining all infants as unbelievers simply because they are not able to profess faith in the way an adult would in adult language which is plain and clear to us adults. Jesus said we adults need to become as little children to enter the kingdom. He did not say that infants need to become adults to enter the kingdom.


----------



## steadfast7

greenbaggins said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as usual we will just have to agree to disagree won't we Matthew? We just don't see eye to eye concerning the differences of the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Baptized into Moses is not the same as Baptism into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are, of course, continuities and discontinuities between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. However, is the status of children part of the continuity or part of the discontinuity? Matthew's point relates more specifically to the fact that here is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants. Would Paul have phrased himself this way if he didn't mean for us to infer a parallel case to us? Especially since he actually explicitly draws a typological connection between the Moses case and us in verse 6. Is the baptism into Moses not part of the typological connection to us? If not, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't mean to split hairs unnecessarily here, but the "baptizo" is _not _clearly being used of infants. Let's look at the text closely:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1For I want you to know, brothers, that *our fathers *were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3and all ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the fathers were baptized, no matter what age they were. That includes infants. Therefore, baptizo is being used of infants in this passage.
Click to expand...

 
But isn't Paul highlighting that it's not merely Israelites, young and old, but those forefathers who ate and drank spiritual food? He may even be referring to the eucharist in some subtle way. Yes, it's important that we highlight his use of the word baptizo, but we must we not also highlight the term "ate spiritual food" ?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Nova said:


> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.



So wouldn't the male ancestors (of the Hebrews to whom Paul is writing,) who passed through the sea as infants qualify as "fathers" in the same sense as the adult males who passed through with them?


----------



## steadfast7

Willem van Oranje said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wouldn't the male ancestors (of the Hebrews to whom Paul is writing,) who passed through the sea as infants qualify as "fathers" in the same sense as the adult males who passed through with them?
Click to expand...

 
Yes, yes. I'm only challenging the argument that there "is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants" (Rev. Lane). It's only by inference and assumption that we can say anything of infants, same here as with the Philippian jailer's house. If we wanted to get REALLY technical, he only speaks of fathers (male). If this text were to be used in conjunction with circumcision replacement theory, then the text might have us only baptise male infants. There are just so many gaps that theology needs to fill. As one historian/commentor once said, "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology."


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Nova said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wouldn't the male ancestors (of the Hebrews to whom Paul is writing,) who passed through the sea as infants qualify as "fathers" in the same sense as the adult males who passed through with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes. I'm only challenging the argument that there "is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants" (Rev. Lane). It's only by inference and assumption that we can say anything of infants, same here as with the Philippian jailer's house. If we wanted to get REALLY technical, he only speaks of fathers (male). If this text were to be used in conjunction with circumcision replacement theory, then the text might have us only baptise male infants. There are just so many gaps that theology needs to fill. As one historian/commentor once said, "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology."
Click to expand...

 
Certainly it is indisputable from the context that infants were included among the "fathers" who passed through. They didn't leave them on the west bank of the sea for the Egyptians.


----------



## greenbaggins

Nova said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wouldn't the male ancestors (of the Hebrews to whom Paul is writing,) who passed through the sea as infants qualify as "fathers" in the same sense as the adult males who passed through with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes. I'm only challenging the argument that there "is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants" (Rev. Lane). It's only by inference and assumption that we can say anything of infants, same here as with the Philippian jailer's house. If we wanted to get REALLY technical, he only speaks of fathers (male). If this text were to be used in conjunction with circumcision replacement theory, then the text might have us only baptise male infants. There are just so many gaps that theology needs to fill. As one historian/commentor once said, "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology."
Click to expand...

 
Inference is a legitimate method of interpretation. The point that has been made before about women partaking in communion is helpful here when speaking about interpretive method. There is no direct evidence and no direct command that women should partake of communion. Does that mean we shouldn't give women the Lord's Supper? Absolutely not. Are there differences between Baptism and the Lord's Supper? Absolutely. Does 1 Cor 11 speak of those differences? Yes, it does. However, the hermeneutical method used by way of inference here is the same. Baptists use inference to determine that women should partake of the Lord's Supper, but then say that paedobaptists can't use inference when speaking of whether infants were baptized into Moses in 1 Cor 10 (which is then typological for us). This is the real issue, in my opinion. It seems absolutely clear to me that all the fathers, no matter what age they were at the time, were baptized into Moses. He makes no exception or qualification of infants. He does not say "all the fathers who were of age at the time." Chapter 11 then qualifies the issue of the Lord's Supper, that it not be given to infants.


----------



## Phil D.

Rev. Wieland,

I don't think it is quite accurate to portray Tertullian's position as having been that one should wait "almost before death" before being baptized. While later church fathers (4th century and onward) often did express such a sentiment (for the reason you stated), Tertullian's preference was that people should be baptized "while they are instructed why they are coming." Here is his statement in context:

"According to the circumstances and nature, and also age, of each person, the delay of baptism is more suitable, especially in the case of small children [Latin: parvuli]. What is the necessity, if there is no such necessity, for the sponsors as well to be brought into danger, since they may fail to keep their promises [i.e. to raise the child to become a true Christian] by reason of death, or be deceived by an evil disposition which grows up in the child? The Lord indeed says “Do not forbid them to come unto me.” Let them “come” then while they are growing up, while they are learning, while they are instructed why they are coming. Let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. In what respect does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? Should we act more cautiously in worldly matters, so that divine things are given to those to whom earthly property is not given? Let them learn to ask for salvation so that you may be seen to have given “to him who asks.”" (_On Baptism_, 18)

Also, I would still characterize the evidence for infant baptism per the household accounts as being "so indirect" as not to provide sufficiently solid ground on which to convincingly build the case.

Best regards, 

Phil D.


----------



## steadfast7

greenbaggins said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted to be really technical, the "all" refers to the _fathers_. Infant inclusion here is presumption. And what did these fathers do? They ate spiritual food, drank spiritual drink which was Christ. If anything, this passage supports adult baptism more than infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wouldn't the male ancestors (of the Hebrews to whom Paul is writing,) who passed through the sea as infants qualify as "fathers" in the same sense as the adult males who passed through with them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes. I'm only challenging the argument that there "is a clear case of "baptizo" being used of infants" (Rev. Lane). It's only by inference and assumption that we can say anything of infants, same here as with the Philippian jailer's house. If we wanted to get REALLY technical, he only speaks of fathers (male). If this text were to be used in conjunction with circumcision replacement theory, then the text might have us only baptise male infants. There are just so many gaps that theology needs to fill. As one historian/commentor once said, "infant baptism is a practice in search of a theology."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inference is a legitimate method of interpretation. The point that has been made before about women partaking in communion is helpful here when speaking about interpretive method. There is no direct evidence and no direct command that women should partake of communion. Does that mean we shouldn't give women the Lord's Supper? Absolutely not. Are there differences between Baptism and the Lord's Supper? Absolutely. Does 1 Cor 11 speak of those differences? Yes, it does. However, the hermeneutical method used by way of inference here is the same. Baptists use inference to determine that women should partake of the Lord's Supper, but then say that paedobaptists can't use inference when speaking of whether infants were baptized into Moses in 1 Cor 10 (which is then typological for us). This is the real issue, in my opinion. It seems absolutely clear to me that all the fathers, no matter what age they were at the time, were baptized into Moses. He makes no exception or qualification of infants. He does not say "all the fathers who were of age at the time." Chapter 11 then qualifies the issue of the Lord's Supper, that it not be given to infants.
Click to expand...

 
Fair enough on the Moses typology, but you haven't answered my question as to whether Paul wants to say something of their having eaten spiritual food. I think this is equally, if not more significant to his overall point. It is not good hermeneutics (in my opinion) to bring infants to the foreground in this text, when it clearly has nothing to do with Paul's thrust. The whole context has to do with right Christian conduct and fleeing from idolatry by communing at the table of demons. What does seem a wee bit clearer is that those who were partaking of Christ were those baptised into Moses. The eucharistic emphasis, in fact, becomes all the more explicit a few verses later: 16" The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Again, I think the credos could very well take this text to support their argument as well.

---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------

My best stab for the rise of infant baptism: Early on, Christians developed the superstition of baptismal regeneration. As more Christian families had children, some died without being baptised, to the dismay of the parents. This led to paedobaptism. Tertullian probably wrote to swing the pendulum the other way toward more traditional practice. In his other writings, there is still a very high sacramental view of the waters of baptism. I would note that covenantal continuity with Abraham and circumcision plays no part (that I know of) in the baptismal theology of the early church. So, arguments that the theology is so clear from the scriptures simply cannot be substantiated given it's utter silence through the centuries. If someone can find me a reference in the Fathers that looks like the Reformed theology of infant baptism, I would love to read it.


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> My best stab for the rise of infant baptism: Early on, Christians developed the superstition of baptismal regeneration. As more Christian families had children, some died without being baptised, to the dismay of the parents. This led to paedobaptism. Tertullian probably wrote to swing the pendulum the other way toward more traditional practice. In his other writings, there is still a very high sacramental view of the waters of baptism. I would note that covenantal continuity with Abraham and circumcision plays no part (that I know of) in the baptismal theology of the early church. So, arguments that the theology is so clear from the scriptures simply cannot be substantiated given it's utter silence through the centuries. If someone can find me a reference in the Fathers that looks like the Reformed theology of infant baptism, I would love to read it.



In Suk, first I would caution you to rethink this sort of speculation. And it is pure speculation -- you have absolutely no evidence that this is true in the manner you have stated. Second, the comments about concerning Tertullian are not quite accurate. True enough, he question the baptism of infants, but he also questioned the baptism of the unmarried as well. And it was not strictly for theological reasons, but for practical ones -- because of temptations to sin that infants and the unmarried had not yet faced. If you were to continue reading the paragraph while Phil quotes above (the very next sentence!):



> 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.



So, if someone wishes to use Tertullian as an authority, he will be excluding far more than infants! In addition, as much as we can ascertain, Tertullian was a lone voice in this objection. It certainly was not a matter of controversy; in fact, when a council met to discuss the issue (c. 250 A.D.), the controversy was over the age of the child (i.e., whether 8 days was the appropriate age), not over whether the practice was biblical. If it were a matter of controversy, we would expect to see some manner of writings objecting to the practice, which is precisely what we do not find (save Tertullian).

Now, why do you suppose the 8 days was a point of discussion? Because it was connected to circumcision in the Early Church. From Cyprian's Letter 58 to Fidus (c. 250):



> In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council.



Thirdly, if we are going to make "Reformed theology" the criterion of the Early Church, then we are going to run into some problems elsewhere. For instance, are we going to find a fully-orbed doctrine of justification by faith alone? How about penal substitutionary atonement. You may find traces here and there of early forms of these doctrines, but you are not going to get full expressions of these things until roughly 1100 for atonement and 1500 for justification. And if we make the Early Church the criterion, that actually poses more of a problem for the anti-paedo position, as Samuel Miller noted:



> I can assure you … that, for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, there was not a single society of professing Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on any thing like the grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren.



Now, you might not like that or agree with that, but the point is that the Early Church does not support the position you are postulating, and speculation is not a solution to that problem.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Rev. Phillilps for this post. I stand corrected.


----------



## greenbaggins

Nova said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough on the Moses typology, but you haven't answered my question as to whether Paul wants to say something of their having eaten spiritual food. I think this is equally, if not more significant to his overall point. It is not good hermeneutics (in my opinion) to bring infants to the foreground in this text, when it clearly has nothing to do with Paul's thrust. The whole context has to do with right Christian conduct and fleeing from idolatry by communing at the table of demons. What does seem a wee bit clearer is that those who were partaking of Christ were those baptised into Moses. The eucharistic emphasis, in fact, becomes all the more explicit a few verses later: 16" The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" Again, I think the credos could very well take this text to support their argument as well.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 AM ----------
> 
> My best stab for the rise of infant baptism: Early on, Christians developed the superstition of baptismal regeneration. As more Christian families had children, some died without being baptised, to the dismay of the parents. This led to paedobaptism. Tertullian probably wrote to swing the pendulum the other way toward more traditional practice. In his other writings, there is still a very high sacramental view of the waters of baptism. I would note that covenantal continuity with Abraham and circumcision plays no part (that I know of) in the baptismal theology of the early church. So, arguments that the theology is so clear from the scriptures simply cannot be substantiated given it's utter silence through the centuries. If someone can find me a reference in the Fathers that looks like the Reformed theology of infant baptism, I would love to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of points in response (and I'm glad for the congenial atmosphere that this thread has. All too often, mods have to come down and arbitrate among overly-zealous advocates of either position who wish to condemn the other side to Hell).
> 
> Firstly, I wasn't aware that I was bringing infants to the center of what Paul was saying. My position is that one (not the only) proper inference from 1 Cor 10 is that infants were baptized into Moses. This is of course not Paul's main point here, which is the typology of the entire people of Israel to the entire church today, and the implications that has for idolatry, sexual immorality, and the other sins he mentions.
> 
> Secondly, as to children eating spiritual food, is this impossible? I think not. They all ate and drank of Christ, the children included. I'm not sure how we can come to any other conclusion. There is nothing in the text to prevent this understanding. Children (and even infants) are capable of far more than we give them credit for. Otherwise, how could David say that he trusted in God even from the time he was nursing at his mother's breast? This is not saying that such spiritual feeding happens regardless of whether a person is aware of it or not. And yes, Paul gives us discontinuity between the feeding of the time of Moses versus the Lord's Supper: that discontinuity happens in chapter 11. I see no reason to conclude, therefore, that verse 16 argues for the credo position, unless one assumes the very thing Baptists have denied on this thread, which is that Baptism and the LS must be identical in the application.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> Thanks Rev. Phillilps for this post. I stand corrected.



You are welcome. None of us are experts on these things, and we all need to have our thinking corrected from time to time. I find myself having to ask the Baptist brothers from time-to-time concerning confessional issues (my understanding of the LBC) and matters of church government, and they have always been very respectful and helpful to me in that regard.

As Lane points out above, for some reason this matter tends to make folks rather over-zealous -- and this often extends to both sides of the issue. I can think of only a couple of other issues on the PB that the same can be said for, and both of those have been relegated to moderated threads! I hope that does not happen to baptism. I've noticed that a lot of folks just steer clear of the issue. Most of us don't really change our minds on our positions. The best we can do is make our case clear, have the other side agree that we are dealing with the matter Scripturally (even if we disagree with the interpretation of Scripture), and leave the discussion as respectful brothers and sisters in Christ.


----------



## Phil D.

Just as fodder for the discussion, here is what Stander and Louw (paedobaptists) write on the historical development of covenant theology as related to infant baptism:

"...The idea of the covenant played no role whatsoever in the theology of the early church leading up to the institution of infant baptism. As a matter of fact, the washing away of sins as a _sine qua non_ [something “without which (there is) nothing”] to enter the kingdom of heaven was the main theological argument for conferring baptism as early as possible.

"...It is also remarkable that the link between baptism and circumcision became relevant only when the issue of the age of the one to be baptized became crucial. And even then one should not assume that the third and fourth centuries saw a fully developed doctrine of baptism replacing circumcision. It was more a matter of analogy than dogma. This also explains why the Abrahamic covenant is hardly ever mentioned. These aspects belong to a later stage of development for which the theologies of the fourth century laid the foundation." (_Baptism in the Early Church_, 139f, 185)


Here is an account of things proffered by Paul Jewett (a credobaptist):

"Now if one views the sacraments evangelically as outward signs and seals of an inward grace secured to those who worthily receive them by the efficacious working of the Spirit, and not as guaranteeing, in themselves, the grace which they signify, then the traditional reason for baptizing infants—that they be cleansed from the guilt of original sin, regenerated, and thus made members of Christ’s church—is deprived of all force. But then why should infants be baptized, if it does not secure their salvation? 

"It was [Ulrich] Zwingli [1484–1531] who first pioneered the answer to this question. Caught between the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholics, who made the baptism of infants necessary for salvation, and the innovations of the Anabaptists, who refused even to allow infants to be baptized, he sought a via media. He decided to walk with the Fathers and contrary to the Anabaptists in retaining the usage of infant baptism, but at the same time to walk with the Anabaptists and contrary to the Fathers by denying the necessity of infant baptism.

"We can thus appreciate the significance of a sentence from the opening paragraph of Zwingli’s treatise on baptism [_De Baptismo_; 1521]. Having observed that the doctors “have erred from the time of the apostles, by ascribing a power to the waters of baptism which they do not possess,” he concludes that “at many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries.” 

"This new path, says the reformer, opens up before one when he perceives that Christ has transformed the blood of circumcision into the water of baptism. By this Zwingli meant that infant circumcision, as the mark of the covenant between God and the seed of Abraham, is the final _raison d’ être_ for infant baptism. As circumcision was the sign between God and the seed of Abraham, so now baptism is the sign between God and the seed of Christians who are the true heirs of the covenant made with Abraham. 

"The argument, to be sure, was not absolutely new...Prior to Zwingli, however, it had enjoyed only an ancillary place in giving propriety to infant baptism. But with the Swiss reformer it became a full-orbed theological principle, moving into the center of the argument, a position which the centripetal pressures of the subsequent debate—especially in the Reformed tradition—entrenched and fortified. Calvin called it, very candidly, the sum of the matter [_Institutes_, 4.16.24]...Besides Calvin and the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism [1563; Kaspar Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus], many another illustrious theologian have followed Zwingli down this path, smoothing, widening, straightening the argument, until the concept of the “children of the covenant” has become the main highway connecting an evangelical view of the sacraments with the practice of infant baptism." (_Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_, 80f.)

Like In Suk, I would genuinely be interested if someone can offer specific (historical) evidence (as opposed to simple conjecture) refuting this version of events. Personally, I haven't come across anything really contrary to it in the course of my research (i.e. something from a primary source). If it is in fact accurate, then what might the implications be?

Genuinely seeking the truth - whatever it in fact is,

Phil D.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> Genuinely seeking the truth - whatever it in fact is,



Then I would again recommend to you John Fesko's book on baptism, just released. Here's a link (and there's a pdf of the intro online as well). I received an email yesterday that my copy has now shipped.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Furthermore,
The "spiritual food and drink" spoken of in 1Cor.10 is _*not*_ a reference to Passover, but to the manna and the water from the rock--which things were most certainly partaken of by any and all the Israelites, regardless of age.

Since 1Cor.10 cannot in any case be interpreted apart from Ex.12-15, it is absurd to say that infants (along with all the others in the text) aren't being spoken of as _baptized_ into Moses. In actual fact, the youngest of them are counted as "fathers" of those to whom Paul is writing, the plain import of what he writes.


As for explicit directions for baptisms, there is nothing--not a single passage in the NT--that expressly lays down any "order" or didactically identifies the proper recipients of baptism. Narrative texts, commonly appealed to, cut both ways--that is, the rules of inference apply equally to both sides in the discussion. There is a rigor to the logic that I am unwilling to grant any "quarter" on. The "is-ought" fallacy is (unfortunately) rampant here. If the Baptist insists on his right to infer a great deal of his practice (and he most certainly does), then he has lost the right to criticize the Presbyterian _on those grounds_. 

He can criticize my procedure, my conclusions, etc. But let us be done with the sort of "I can do it, but you can't" sort of sniping that goes on all too often.

Why should we Presbyterians accept the criticism that we err by following the rational procedure of studying out a theology of baptism (a whole-Bible theology, not just a NT theology), which is then checked against the apostolic practice? As far as I'm concerned, the error is to study the examples of baptism in the NT, from which a whole theology of baptism is then built out. Theology derived from practice? "Explicit" (i.e. uncontroversial) examples, from which it is then supposed the apostle's drew forth spiritual lessons? With all due respect, that is an unstable methodology. And, as the case of women's participation in the LS, it is not even followed out consistently by those who claim the rule.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Phil: I am not a Pastor, yet, but thanks for the sentiment! 

It seems that Tertullian had two arguments concerning infant baptism. The first can be found in his _De Anima_ chapter 38, section 2, which, in part reads: Sin after baptism "drives man out of the paradise of innocence" (De Anima 38:2). That is, water Baptism cleanses the soul and makes it "innocent." Consequently, sin after water Baptism "drives man out of the paradise of innocence." This type of Baptismal Regeneration as an argument against Infant Baptism is not worthy to be considered.

The second argument is as you have stated: "It follows that deferment of baptism is more profitable, in accordance with each person's character and attitude, and even age: and especially so as regards children. For what need is there, if there really is no need, for even their sponsors to be brought into peril, seeing they may possibly themselves fail of their promises by death, or be deceived by the subsequent development of an evil disposition? It is true our Lord says, Forbid them not to come to me. So let them come, when they are growing up, when they are learning, when they are being taught what they are coming to: let them be made Christians when they have become competent to know Christ. Why should *innocent infancy* come with haste to the remission of sins? Shall we take less cautious action in this than we take in worldly matters? Shall one who is not trusted with earthly pro-puberty be entrusted with heavenly? Let them first learn how to ask for salvation, so that you may be seen to have given to one that asketh." (De Baptismo 18:20 ff, bold mine.) 

Tertullian argued that infants were "innocent" i.e. devoid of sin - which is a denial of Original Sin. It did not seem rational to him to cleanse someone from sin when the infant had no sin. If someone were to argue along these lines today, then I think that such a person should be brought up on charges by denying Original Sin.

I do not know what your understanding of Covenant Theology is, but the establishment of the Federal headship understood in the OT among Gentile believers in the NT seems to me rather solid ground to argue for the Baptism of children in Christian families either Jew or Gentile.

Blessings,

(Just plain old) Rob!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> The "spiritual food and drink" spoken of in 1Cor.10 is not a reference to Passover, but to the manna and the water from the rock--which things were most certainly partaken of by any and all the Israelites, regardless of age.





It is also no mistake that when Christ fed the multitudes He did so in the wilderness.


> THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE AND THE BREAD OF LIFE DISCOURSE (6:1–71)
> Chapter 6 is replete with OT allusive material. Jesus’ question in 6:5 to Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” echoes Moses’ similar question to God in the wilderness, “Where can I get meat for all these people?” (Num. 11:13). This is one of several parallels between John 6 and Num. 11. Other parallels include the grumbling of the people (Num. 11:1; John 6:41, 43); the description of the manna (Num. 11:7–9; John 6:31); the reference to the eating of meat/flesh (Num. 11:13; John 6:51); and the striking disproportion between the existing need and the available resources (Num. 11:22; John 6:7–9).
> In 6:9 mention is made of a boy who has five barley loaves and two fish. In a similar account in 2 Kings 4:42–44, Elisha fed one hundred men with twenty barley loaves and some ears of grain (see Ridderbos 1997: 211–12; Barrett 1978: 275). The use of the word paidarion (“boy”) both in 6:9, which is its only NT occurrence, and several times in the LXX of the 2 Kings passage (there referring to Elisha’s servant [2 Kings 4:38, 41]) is one major verbal connection between these two narratives. Other links include the mention of barley and the overall mode of narration, including a question of disbelief, the command to distribute the loaves, and the fact that all ate with food left to spare.
> 
> 
> Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (443–444). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos.


----------



## steadfast7

Sure, infants may very well be a part of the historical background of the text, but they are not his primary, or even secondary referent. Paul must be speaking of people who are capable of eating spiritual food and drink (be that manna or whatever, although the allusion to LS is also strong as well, considering the wording and the discussion on the LS a few verses later). He says also that these things "occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did." The passage is certainly not meant to teach us about baptism, but meant for those who are tempted to worship idols. Adults seem to the general practitioners of these things. Again, I'm not saying infants can't do these things, but just because they may be present in the backstory, doesn't mean are really in view in Paul's mind in his admonition. To use this as didactic for infant baptism is highly suspect, to be sure.

Regarding Rev. Phillips alerting me to the circumcision-baptism reference in the early Fathers, on closer inspection, it seems Fidus was a lone voice suggesting the link between 8th day circumcision and infant baptism. However, Cyprian is silencing this minority view on decision of the synod saying,


> For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came, it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.


 In conclusion, I'm still not convinced that the link has significant presence in the Fathers to be considered clear and obvious.


----------



## Marrow Man

In Suk, you miss my point. The link was there (enough to warrant a council to be discussed); Cyprian was not denying the connection, but that baptism should not be delayed because of it (e.g., what would happen if a child died before the eighth day?). Once again, insisting on a fully formed Reformed view of infant baptism is asking for too much, and is, in fact, anachronistic. If that is the criterion, then we will find ourselves rejecting doctrines like justification and substitutionary atonement. I'm not sure that connection is being made. If we are insisting upon finding a particular view clearly and indisputably within the Early Church Fathers, then the baptistic view will likewise need to be rejected, and doctrines like baptismal regeneration accepted.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Rev. Phillips, I apologize for the signature faux pas. I haven't been on PB for about 2 years, since I had to take a job outside the church. I had linked a signature from our church's website, which has since been deleted and I didn't realize it. My basic info is back on.

I've gone all over the baptism threads, and, although I have learned a lot from both sides and appreciate both the paedo and credo views, I have found that they do not profit much in the long run. I will choose not to comment further on this thread, but rather continue reading...

---------- Post added at 10:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------




Willem van Oranje said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> (who, by definition are unbelievers)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you betray a presupposition that needs to be further considered. I do not agree at all with defining all infants as unbelievers simply because they are not able to profess faith in the way an adult would in adult language which is plain and clear to us adults. Jesus said we adults need to become as little children to enter the kingdom. He did not say that infants need to become adults to enter the kingdom.
Click to expand...


An infant, may in fact, be elect. An infant may be regenerate. But it is physically and spiritually impossible for an infant to be a believer. A little child I have no problem with. Jesus did not say we should become as infants. He said we should become as little children.


----------



## Marrow Man

Calvibaptist said:


> Rev. Phillips, I apologize for the signature faux pas. I haven't been on PB for about 2 years, since I had to take a job outside the church. I had linked a signature from our church's website, which has since been deleted and I didn't realize it. My basic info is back on.



Doug, please call me Tim (the same goes for In Suk and Phil). See, I couldn't say that before, because I didn't know your name! Welcome, good to have you back on the PB.



> But it is physically and spiritually impossible for an infant to be a believer.



"Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts. Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb." (Psalm 22:9-10)

Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## steadfast7

Marrow Man said:


> In Suk, you miss my point. The link was there (enough to warrant a council to be discussed); Cyprian was not denying the connection, but that baptism should not be delayed because of it (e.g., what would happen if a child died before the eighth day?). Once again, insisting on a fully formed Reformed view of infant baptism is asking for too much, and is, in fact, anachronistic. If that is the criterion, then we will find ourselves rejecting doctrines like justification and substitutionary atonement. I'm not sure that connection is being made. If we are insisting upon finding a particular view clearly and indisputably within the Early Church Fathers, then the baptistic view will likewise need to be rejected, and doctrines like baptismal regeneration accepted.


 
Thanks Tim. I was bringing up the patristic issue only because I've heard it said by paedos that circumcision leading to infant baptism was a natural and obvious transition for the early church, and that the Abrahamic covenant connection to baptism is clear in the scriptures. Are there any writings other than this incidental one that might point to the covenantal connection? Of course, patristic testimony is not the rule of faith and I'm not seeking Reformed theology in the fathers to validate it, only to argue that it wasn't so ubiquitous a position as we might have expected had it been so clear. There are not really any seeds of covenant theology in the fathers, as there are seeds of justification and substitution.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk,

Nobody is arguing that there is clear Patristic writing that demonstrates a uniform understanding on the reason why infant baptism was practiced.

There are, in fact, seeds of covenant theology in the patristics That does not mean they were applying it in a systematic way to baptism but you can see some Federal theology in Chrystostom.

A covenantal understanding of baptism is tied up in the Gospel itself as it's tied up in the Covenant of Grace. The Reformed Baptist that goes back to the patristics has to ask, as much as the paedobaptist, why an understanding of the Covenant of Grace as clearly articulated in the Scriptures is not "ubiquitous" in the patristics.

The fact of the matter is that something can be perspicuous and understandable by ordinary means but men can still twist the meaning of the Scriptures. Your same argument can be applied to the Trinity. Cults use your same logic to point out all the early Church Fathers that have confused notions on the nature of Christ. Nicea is considered a patristic period and you can find plenty of sources from that time that would deny the Deity of Christ. What makes you think there is going to be uniform understanding of the Covenant of Grace if the Deity of Christ was confused by the same writers?


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> In Suk,
> 
> Nobody is arguing that there is clear Patristic writing that demonstrates a uniform understanding on the reason why infant baptism was practiced.
> 
> There are, in fact, seeds of covenant theology in the patristics That does not mean they were applying it in a systematic way to baptism but you can see some Federal theology in Chrystostom.
> 
> A covenantal understanding of baptism is tied up in the Gospel itself as it's tied up in the Covenant of Grace. The Reformed Baptist that goes back to the patristics has to ask, as much as the paedobaptist, why an understanding of the Covenant of Grace as clearly articulated in the Scriptures is not "ubiquitous" in the patristics.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that something can be perspicuous and understandable by ordinary means but men can still twist the meaning of the Scriptures. Your same argument can be applied to the Trinity. Cults use your same logic to point out all the early Church Fathers that have confused notions on the nature of Christ. Nicea is considered a patristic period and you can find plenty of sources from that time that would deny the Deity of Christ. What makes you think there is going to be uniform understanding of the Covenant of Grace if the Deity of Christ was confused by the same writers?


 
I think we need to appreciate that doctrine has become clear to us because we are recipients of a long train of development and debate, and thank God for it! For me, it would mean a lot in swaying my decision toward paedo if I saw clear traces in the fathers of Abrahamic-circumcision thinking in the formulation of infant baptism theology. But there is an eerie silence with regard to this until the Reformation (but I'm always willing to be shown wrong on this). What we know is that it sprang up around the same time the church believed in a form of baptismal regeneration, which cannot be coincidental. What some historians say is proving true: it has always been a practice _in search of _a theology.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> ...Insisting on a fully formed Reformed view of infant baptism [in the ECFs] is asking for too much, and is, in fact, anachronistic. If that is the criterion, then we will find ourselves rejecting doctrines like justification and substitutionary atonement.



Tim -- and thanks for the invite to address you informally like this  -- I agree with the first part of what you say here. However, I think there is an appreciable difference between the ECFs' treatment of infant baptism and soteriological doctrines like justification and the atonement, in this sense: While in the case of the latter they often had things mixed up in term of their role and relationship to each other, they certainly were aware of and widely discussed the various components that to this day all Christians would agreed are rightly involved in them (e.g. faith, works, sacraments, etc. in justification). These various aspects of the equation were then better understood and articulated over time (primarily by Protestants). On the other hand, when it comes to their discussions of infant baptism, there is virtually no discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant as a grounds for the practice - let alone a comprehension of it as "the sum of the matter" as was claimed by Calvin and other Reformed theologians. And as Jewett pointed out, rightly in my estimation, when circumcision was occasionally mentioned it was used more in terms of a simple analogy rather than making a theological point.

Best regards, 

Phil


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> What we know is that it sprang up around the same time the church believed in a form of baptismal regeneration, which cannot be coincidental. What some historians say is proving true: it has always been a practice _in search of _a theology.


 
We know no such thing. I'm not sure how much you've studied the differing types of Biblical criticism but "Scholars" claim the same kind of "true history" for the Bible that you've just broad-brushed for the history of this practice. The fact of the matter is that we have no evidence that the Church ever practiced anything other than infant baptism. "Scholars" have theories to account for the writings they find later on. A favorite is to say that "NT scholars" universally agree now that there's no evidence of a theology of infant baptism in the New Testament and then trace backward from Tertullian and his writings to assert that it must be the case. That's not scholarship but guesswork.

Have you ever considered that there isn't a peep of complaint from any Patristics when infant baptism was supposedly introduced some time in the 2nd or 3rd Century according to these theories? Not a peep. These men fought against every aberrant theology of the time and we find no Church Father writing a single letter protesting the aberration of infant baptism as a widespread practice.

In the end, as I said, I don't need to import a more fully developed understanding of theology on the Patristics to benefit from them. Any more than I won't retreat from the Creeds that were worked out in the first several centuries, I'm not going to retreat from the light granted to the Saints as they recovered the Scriptures in their original languages in the 16th Century and unpacked some Truths that were in seed form and reformed many aberrations that had crept in from years of neglect of the Word of God.

I also think your demand for evidence is one-sided. What Baptist Covenant theology can you find supported in the writings of the Patristics that causes you to historically favor an anti-paedobaptist view?


----------



## Phil D.

> The fact of the matter is that we have no evidence that the Church ever practiced anything other than infant baptism. "Scholars" have theories to account for the writings they find later on. A favorite is to say that "NT scholars" universally agree now that there's no evidence of a theology of infant baptism in the New Testament and then trace backward from Tertullian and his writings to assert that it must be the case. That's not scholarship but guesswork.



Rich, it would seem that the soundest and most scholarly method to use for investigating baptismal practice between apostolic times and Tertullian is to consider the actual writings from that period which addressed baptism in some explanatory terms. Arguably, the four sources that best fit this bill are:

(1) _The Didache_ (c.75–110 AD) [the oldest surviving manual of early, post-apostolic church belief and practice (probably Syrian)]: "After rehearsing all these things [i.e. the preceding teachings], baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water. ...But before baptism let the baptizer fast, and the one baptized, and whoever else can; but you must order the baptized to fast one or two days before." (sec. 7)

(2) _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c.90–120) ...“And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of these shall live forever.” [Apparently taken from a loose paraphrase of Psalm 1:3–6.] This means that we go down into the water laden with sins and filth, and rise up from it bearing fruit in the heart, resting our fear and hope on Jesus in the Spirit." (11:10b–11)

(3) _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.135–155) [a popular devotional work—even deemed to be canonical in some early churches]: "And I said to him ‘I should like to continue my questions.’ ‘Speak on,’ said he. And I said to him, ‘I heard, sir, from some teachers that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we went down into the water and received remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘That was sound doctrine you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity.’"(4.3.1f)

(4) Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165): "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we have been made new through Christ. ...As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting. They then are brought by us to where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were regenerated. For in the name of God the Father, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing [Greek: _loutron_—a washing; a bath;] with water." (_Apology_, 1.61)

Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”). 



> Have you ever considered that there isn't a peep of complaint from any Patristics when infant baptism was supposedly introduced some time in the 2nd or 3rd Century according to these theories? Not a peep. These men fought against every aberrant theology of the time and we find no Church Father writing a single letter protesting the aberration of infant baptism as a widespread practice.



Everett Ferguson (Professor of Church History Emeritus at Abilene Christian University), a credobaptist who regardless is widely respected as one of the leading patristic scholars in the world, had a somewhat antithetical perspective with respect to Tertullian’s dialog about infant baptism:

"The first unambiguous reference [to infant baptism] is to be found in Tertullian, and he was opposed to the practice. Tertullian was not talking about a tendency or a hypothetical situation. The practice was present and had its defenders. On the other hand, Tertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance. He seems to be stating, as elsewhere in his treatise _On Baptism_ (which has an anti-heretical thrust), the common position of the church. He does not sound like an innovator fighting an established custom. North Africa continued to be the place where infant baptism had its strongest support, and it may be that this was the region where it began." (_Early Christians Speak_, 58)

It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.

Best regards,

Phil D.

---------- Post added at 09:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

Sorry about the formatting mixups in my previous post. I'm nor sure what I did wrong...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> ertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance.





Phil D. said:


> It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.



Again, even the scholar admits the practice is longstanding and merely _surmises_ it originated in Africa but there's no proof of this in any writings but it is built fundamentally on a pre-commitment that it must have been the case. Paedobaptist scholars do not concede this by examining the same evidence. A theology of the Scriptures is going to ultimately control how one "reads" the sketchy history and all we have when patristics speak plainly about it is that the baptism of infants was ubiquitous.

I also hardly consider Tertullian's objections to be of infant baptism in general but to the delay of baptism, period, as long as possible given what he poured into it. He can hardly be cited in support of a Biblical view of credo-baptism of any adherents on this board.

Regarding your other citations, each is in reference to catechumens who join the Church from the outside. They don't establish anything except that all expect a cognitive faith in adults who come into the Church.


----------



## Phil D.

Rich, it still remains a fact that infant baptism is not talked about or even indirectly alluded to by the ECFs prior to Tertullian, whereas "believers" baptism is. Thus any idea that the former practice existed during this period can only be conjectured. Maybe you'll be more amenable toward some comments made by the paedobaptist scholars Stander & Louw. First, they quote some of the strongest "evidences" of infant baptism prior to Tertullian that are generally forwarded by paodobaptist scholars, including:

Polycarp (c.70–c.160) [A reply given upon the suggestion that he repudiate Christ at his martyrdom] "For eighty six years have I been his servant, and he has done me no wrong, and how can I blaspheme my King who saved me?" (_Martyrdom of Polycarp_, 9.3) 

Justin Martyr (c.100–c.165): "There are among us many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from childhood, and who remain pure at the age of sixty and seventy years." (_Apology_, 1.15)

Polycrates (c.130–196) "I, your brother, who have lived 65 years in the Lord..." (Eusubius’ _Church History_, 5.24) {no kidding, despite there being no evidence of when this person either was born or died, J. Jeremias used this citation as convincing evidence of infant baptism}

"One of the most striking features of the arguments proposed by supporters of infant baptism, is that they are not content to accept that the inception of the baptism of infants may have occurred at some time and place in the history of the early church, but that they are usually very keen to find proof—even if it is only indirect—of a common practice right from the time of the New Testament onwards. Apart from a few, such as Kurt Aland, the general procedure is to argue for their theological position on the basis of possibilities, without weighing the complete data, in order to evaluate the actual state of affairs in the early church...The concern is primarily whether infant baptism did occur, not what facts are available on baptism. 

"...At this stage one should observe that the examples quoted to substantiate instances of infant baptism [specifically including the three shown above] are all of a secondary nature in that they are remote possibilities, if indeed they are possibilities at all. This is surely not a scientific procedure for the investigation of a given situation. One should rather collect all real, that is explicit references to baptism and examine all the data. Only then can one consider such rather vague instances in the light of the entire picture. It is therefore clear that the authors were not concerned with investigating the data as such—they had a given conviction and were groping for 'proofs.'” (_Baptism in the Early Church_, 16f, 26)

Regardless if we do, and even will continue to disagree on these things, I pray that you will have a truly blessed Sabbath, my brother.

Phil D.

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ertullian was enough of a traditionalist in his early career that it hardly seems likely that he would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be remembered that Tertullian was actually the first ECF to write extensively on the subject of baptism. As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, even the scholar admits the practice is longstanding...
Click to expand...


One more thing I meant to mention, I think you must have misread Ferguson's statements. He says that infant baptism "was present and had its defenders", and "that it hardly seems likely that he [Tertullian] would oppose a practice of long standing or general acceptance".

Best regards, 

Phil D.


----------



## Marrow Man

Phil D. said:


> As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.



As well as the unmarried, in exactly the same paragraph. Why does this always get left out of the discussion?


----------



## steadfast7

Phil, do you happen to know why Stander and Louw wrote their volume on Baptism in the Early Church (essentially arguing for credobaptism); and why they remain paedos? Very curious ... thanks.
happy Sunday, everyone..


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> "One of the most striking features of the arguments proposed by supporters of infant baptism, is that they are not content to accept that the inception of the baptism of infants may have occurred at some time and place in the history of the early church, but that they are usually very keen to find proof—even if it is only indirect—of a common practice right from the time of the New Testament onwards. Apart from a few, such as Kurt Aland, the general procedure is to argue for their theological position on the basis of possibilities, without weighing the complete data, in order to evaluate the actual state of affairs in the early church...The concern is primarily whether infant baptism did occur, not what facts are available on baptism.
> 
> "...At this stage one should observe that the examples quoted to substantiate instances of infant baptism [specifically including the three shown above] are all of a secondary nature in that they are remote possibilities, if indeed they are possibilities at all. This is surely not a scientific procedure for the investigation of a given situation. One should rather collect all real, that is explicit references to baptism and examine all the data. Only then can one consider such rather vague instances in the light of the entire picture. It is therefore clear that the authors were not concerned with investigating the data as such—they had a given conviction and were groping for 'proofs.'” (Baptism in the Early Church, 16f, 26)



Phil: substitute the word "believer's baptism" into your first two quotes and you have the same problem that a scholar is "groping for proofs" for believer's only baptism by appealing to instructions for the baptism of new catechumens.

Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor _any_ ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?

When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).



The apostolic fathers simply reflect New Testament requirements in the case of those who are coming for baptism from outside the visible church. That suffices to answer the affirmative part of your statement. The negative part of your statement is accounted for on the basis that there was a general lack of interest in the status of children in all segments of society at that time, so it is not surprising to see this reflected in the church's instruction concerning baptism. For affirmative evidence relative to the practice of the apostolic fathers we have the testimony of men who wrote less than a century later. Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apostolic fathers simply reflect New Testament requirements in the case of those who are coming for baptism from outside the visible church. That suffices to answer the affirmative part of your statement. The negative part of your statement is accounted for on the basis that there was a general lack of interest in the status of children in all segments of society at that time, so it is not surprising to see this reflected in the church's instruction concerning baptism. For affirmative evidence relative to the practice of the apostolic fathers we have the testimony of men who wrote less than a century later. Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.
Click to expand...

 
Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.


 
Rich, good point; it challenges us to have a consistent approach to the place and importance of the Christian tradition.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor _any_ ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?
> 
> When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.


 
But consider this: that Tertullian had the audacity to question the practice and suggest a delay in baptism indicates that infant baptism was perhaps not as sacrosanct a tradition as something like views concerning the Eucharist, or Trinitarian formula, or rule of faith. In other words, it seems that infant baptism did not carry the "rank" of other higher-order indisputable doctrines. To me, this suggests that the practice had not yet ossified as lex operandi.

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.


 
If credobaptism was the normal practice from earliest times, then it's not surprising that we don't have tracts arguing for it, only manuals on how it's done (didache). That there was a period when Churchmen took pause to infant baptism is indicative to me that the practice might not have its roots in the _most _grounded and authoritative tradition of the Church.

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.


Rich, do you believe together with Church tradition that Matthew's gospel was the first?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have still yet to hear a despute on this work by Sanders and I am finding it harder to find it online also. Amazon.com: Baptism in the Early Church (9780952791317): H. F. Stander, J. P. Louw: Books


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor _any_ ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?
> 
> When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But consider this: that Tertullian had the audacity to question the practice and suggest a delay in baptism indicates that infant baptism was perhaps not as sacrosanct a tradition as something like views concerning the Eucharist, or Trinitarian formula, or rule of faith. In other words, it seems that infant baptism did not carry the "rank" of other higher-order indisputable doctrines.
Click to expand...

What, you mean like the Trinity? One century later, many had the "audacity" to question the Trinity. Are you saying that's a low order doctrine?

I'm still amazed that any Reformed Baptist would appeal to Tertullian as an advocate for _their_ position. The man became a Montanist for crying out loud. If that's not a willingness to abandon everything the Church stood for then I don't know what would constitute that in your mind.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, do you believe together with Church tradition that Matthew's gospel was the first?
Click to expand...

 
It's easy to be a scoffer In Suk. 

Instead of merely scoffing, you might want to take some time to consider the nature of "scholarship" that thinks its in a position to question everything an early Church witness says about something by attributing motives or redaction to things as fundamental as the Gospels.

There's a difference between having a discerning eye with respect to the the ECF's and assuming an air of superiority that they we're in a better position to know facts such as who wrote the Gospels or assigning motives to them when they make certain historical claims.

I can accept that the ECF's may have had to work some things out better and were confused over some doctrines that were emerging as a consequence of the Scriptures but I don't need to assume that they lied through their teeth about historical facts to buttress their theology.


----------



## Phil D.

Marrow Man said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> As such, I would argue that the more germane point is that the earliest treatise dedicated to the subject did in fact did oppose the baptism of infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As well as the unmarried, in exactly the same paragraph. Why does this always get left out of the discussion?
Click to expand...


Tim, the reason I haven't involved this point in my discussion is because it is _non sequitur _ to the specific historical issue I have been addressing with regard to Tertullian- i.e., what evidence there is for the actual practice of infant baptism during the time immediately after the apostolic age through the time of Tertullian, and what reasons various writers may have given for their position on _that particular_ issue. If I had been asserting that we should look to Tertullian as a reliable source for determining our own broader baptismal beliefs, then it would certainly be relevant. But, just for the record, I am a firm supporter of _sola Scriptura_ in matters like that!

---------- Post added at 08:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------




Nova said:


> Phil, do you happen to know why Stander and Louw wrote their volume on Baptism in the Early Church (essentially arguing for credobaptism); and why they remain paedos? Very curious ... thanks.
> happy Sunday, everyone..


 
In Suk, I probably wouldn't characterize Stander and Louw's work as arguing for credobaptism. Rather, they were expressly reacting to what they perceived to be the sloppy and prejudicial treatment of the historical data regarding baptismal practice in the early church by many paedobaptist writers. In terms of why they believed that infant baptism didn't arise until the 4th or later, and yet remained paedobaptists, I don't know for sure. I do know that some other paedobaptist scholars who have had a similar take on the historical data as they did (Kurt Aland, for example), maintained that although the practice had arisen several centuries after Christ, the church was within its rights to instigate the practice at a later time - this even while ostensibly remaining a Protestant. I suspect, although it is only a deduced guess, that Stander and Louw may have thought similarly.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, my point about Tertullian is that neither he nor _any_ ECF opposes infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation. Complete silence. There's no evidence that it's just "generally accepted" but is everywhere when the ECF's talk about it. Not only so, but when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian? Was the practice so unopposed that no document survived of such an objectionable innovation if believer's only baptism was once the norm and infant baptism unthinkable?
> 
> When many Churches switched from wine to grape juice in the 19th century articles abounded about this innovation. Nothing about infant baptism until the 16th century. I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But consider this: that Tertullian had the audacity to question the practice and suggest a delay in baptism indicates that infant baptism was perhaps not as sacrosanct a tradition as something like views concerning the Eucharist, or Trinitarian formula, or rule of faith. In other words, it seems that infant baptism did not carry the "rank" of other higher-order indisputable doctrines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, you mean like the Trinity? One century later, many had the "audacity" to question the Trinity. Are you saying that's a low order doctrine?
Click to expand...

 Did the orthodox ever question the Trinity, once it had been established? That would be a parallel question to ask.



> I'm still amazed that any Reformed Baptist would appeal to Tertullian as an advocate for _their_ position. The man became a Montanist for crying out loud. If that's not a willingness to abandon everything the Church stood for then I don't know what would constitute that in your mind.


 ad hominem.


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, that's the same argument that is used to defend the authors of the Gospels and Epistles. "Recent Scholarship" (a term loaded with all kinds of meaning) applies the same kind of redaction criticism to claim a development hypothesis or an attachment of names to the Gospels. Orthodox scholars use the same argument that the most proximate writers in the Early Church attribute Gospel writers to those we have and there is no evidence (save scholarly agenda) to challenge them. I would argue that those who challenge the ECF writers on the apostolic origins of infant baptism have to answer to an inconsistent criteria or agree with redaction critics who challenge the authorship of the Gospels.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, do you believe together with Church tradition that Matthew's gospel was the first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy to be a scoffer In Suk.
> 
> Instead of merely scoffing, you might want to take some time to consider the nature of "scholarship" that thinks its in a position to question everything an early Church witness says about something by attributing motives or redaction to things as fundamental as the Gospels.
> 
> There's a difference between having a discerning eye with respect to the the ECF's and assuming an air of superiority that they we're in a better position to know facts such as who wrote the Gospels or assigning motives to them when they make certain historical claims.
> 
> I can accept that the ECF's may have had to work some things out better and were confused over some doctrines that were emerging as a consequence of the Scriptures but I don't need to assume that they lied through their teeth about historical facts to buttress their theology.
Click to expand...

 I wasn't scoffing, Rich, but honestly wanted to know your (and perhaps the Reformed position) on this. Unfortunately, with text, we lose a lot of inflection - sorry about the miscommunication  I think that total consistency with the ECFs on all points is neither possible nor safe. I personally believe in Markan priority because I find the evidence compelling over the tradition of the Church, although the ECF's input is valuable indeed, especially on matters of doctrine and practice. 

To me, Tertullian wrote to suggest amendments to baptismal practice because he felt he _could do so_, without being trampled under foot as a heretic. I don't know of any outrage against his prescriptions, and there was a time when Christians applied it. Basil and others were not baptised as an infants. This is significant. Had it been a practice passed down from the apostles, we would expect an essentially unbroken and indisputable chain of practice, considering the emphasis in those days regarding Apostolic authority and Tradition. It's worth pondering over.


----------



## Phil D.

First, I need to better clarify something I expounded on earlier: Paedobaptist church historians like Stander, Louw and Aland believed that infant baptism had post-apostolic origins, that the first credible reference to it was by Tertullian (which shows it was present in North Africa by the late 2nd Century), and that it didn't come to be a normative, church-wide practice until the 4th century or later. Just for the sake of accuracy...



Semper Fidelis said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "One of the most striking features of the arguments proposed by supporters of infant baptism, is that they are not content to accept that the inception of the baptism of infants may have occurred at some time and place in the history of the early church, but that they are usually very keen to find proof—even if it is only indirect—of a common practice right from the time of the New Testament onwards. Apart from a few, such as Kurt Aland, the general procedure is to argue for their theological position on the basis of possibilities, without weighing the complete data, in order to evaluate the actual state of affairs in the early church...The concern is primarily whether infant baptism did occur, not what facts are available on baptism.
> 
> "...At this stage one should observe that the examples quoted to substantiate instances of infant baptism [specifically including the three shown above] are all of a secondary nature in that they are remote possibilities, if indeed they are possibilities at all. This is surely not a scientific procedure for the investigation of a given situation. One should rather collect all real, that is explicit references to baptism and examine all the data. Only then can one consider such rather vague instances in the light of the entire picture. It is therefore clear that the authors were not concerned with investigating the data as such—they had a given conviction and were groping for 'proofs.'” (Baptism in the Early Church, 16f, 26)
Click to expand...

Phil: substitute the word "believer's baptism" into your first two quotes and you have the same problem that a scholar is "groping for proofs" for believer's only baptism by appealing to instructions for the baptism of new catechumens.[/QUOTE]

My point was not that one can conclusively establish a "believers only" position on baptism among the ECFs, but rather that "only believers" baptism is actually addressed until Tertullian makes an argument against infant baptism. That's just a simple fact.

[/quote]...when Augustine and Pelagius were involved in dispute, in an offhand comment Pelagius admitted that he had never heard of anyone so impious as to suggest that infants should not be baptized. Nobody? Was Pelagius really ignorant of Tertullian?[/quote]

Based on this version of events, apparently so.

[/QUOTE]I'm sorry but a handful of documents that address catechumen baptism and Tertullian's aberrant baptismal views do not an ECF position make.[/QUOTE]

I would largely concur. However the fact that also baptizing these catechumen's children is never even vaguely alluded to is a significant factor that is not so easily explained away.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Did the orthodox ever question the Trinity, once it had been established? That would be a parallel question to ask.


Depends on what you mean by orthodox.

First, the point is that the Trinity was an established doctrine handed down by the Apostles in their teaching. This, later writers argue for. Your statement that the "Church hadn't settled it" sounds more like those that see the doctrine as created by the Church rather than something in the Apostolic faith that had to be clearly articulated.

Second, Athanasius was banned 5 times from his bishopric for defending Nicene orthodoxy because a large and influential segment of the Church became Aryan. The point is that your argument is weak. The Trinity is even more foundational to Christian orthodoxy than Baptism. The same can be said for the humanity and divinity of Christ that were early defended by Iraneus. The same can be said for the Gospel, which, within Paul's own preaching ministry, was being trampled underfoot by the Judaizers.

It is hardly an argument to note that Arius felt comfortable "taking on" baptism because it wasn't widely held. That has happened all the time in the history of the Scriptures and the Church.



Nova said:


> ad hominem.



Not. You are the one "psychologizing" on why Tertullian felt comfortable taking on a doctrine. Why does Tertullian never appeal to Apostolic teaching on the subject to note that his is the view of the Apostles? The aberrant nature of his doctrine of baptism is very germane as is his willingness to later abandon all Christian orthodoxy. If we're going to evaluate the character of a man then the fact that he abandoned Christian orthodoxy wholesale is completely germane to whether he's "held fast" by historical orthodoxy on a particular doctrine.


----------



## Phil D.

armourbearer said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notably, all of these sources plainly use terminology that is applicable to cognitive, responsive recipients of some age (e.g., fasting, hoping, repentance, pure living, informed belief, etc.). On the other hand, none of these writings mention anything about the baptism of persons who were for reasons of age (or any other circumstance) baptized under different theological or practical warrants. Something we do see in these writings are seeds of the rationale usually given by subsequent patristic writers for baptizing infants, namely its supposed connection to spiritual regeneration (although, notably, by “regeneration” Justin evidently meant something that occurs after a person has already “believed”).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apostolic fathers simply reflect New Testament requirements in the case of those who are coming for baptism from outside the visible church. That suffices to answer the affirmative part of your statement. The negative part of your statement is accounted for on the basis that there was a general lack of interest in the status of children in all segments of society at that time, so it is not surprising to see this reflected in the church's instruction concerning baptism. For affirmative evidence relative to the practice of the apostolic fathers we have the testimony of men who wrote less than a century later. Infant baptism was regarded by third century writers as a practice which had been continued since apostolic times in diverse geographical locations; and because there is no witness to the contrary there is no reason to suppose these writers needed to invent an apostolic origin in order to buttress its claims against opponents.
Click to expand...

 
Rev. Winzer, a couple of thoughts here. 

First, we have long been told that we should accept the idea that infants were baptized in the apostolic church because the important status of children within the family unit was so obvious and integral to the cultures of that time that their inclusion in baptism would naturally be taken for granted (thus explaining the lack of any direct mention of the practice in the NT). Are we now to believe that the reason no Christian writings produced immediately after the NT era includes any reference to children being baptized is because their status was suddenly so reduced that it resulted in a general "lack of interest" concerning them? Surely, if employing the same argument from silence in such antithetical ways regarding the same issue is to be deemed appropriate, then those who may hold a different view of the historical datum are at a decided disadvantage in any discussion of it, to say the least.

Secondly, if one is to put any practical stock in the fact that some ECFs deemed the practice of baptizing infants to have been handed down from the apostles, to be consistent should they not also perform such baptisms in the manner which many ECFs also claimed to have been handed down from the apostles - namely, triple immersion? 

I honestly don't want to come across as being glib or disrespectful in my remarks here, but I guess I don't know how to phrase my thoughts any better.

Best regards,

Phil D.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> First, we have long been told that we should accept the idea that infants were baptized in the apostolic church because the important status of children within the family unit was so obvious and integral to the cultures of that time that their inclusion in baptism would naturally be taken for granted (thus explaining the lack of any direct mention of the practice in the NT). Are we now to believe that the reason no Christian writings produced immediately after the NT era includes any reference to children being baptized is because their status was suddenly so reduced that it resulted in a general "lack of interest" concerning them?



I would refer to this as a _twisted_ construction rather than referring to it as glib. Is it possible you've studied this but this is the best explanation you can give that no direct mention of infants being baptized in a historical narrative would be natural? Of course, when Acts 2:38-39 is ruled out of order as not applying to the children of believers or Matt 28:18-20 is ruled out of order because disciples are seen as coextensive with adult converts then this completely reduces the aperture. When federal theology is thrown out the window and the only thing a person can appeal to is direct evidence then that severely limits the aperture but also points to the poverty of the one making the request.

I can _surmise_ a reason why a group of people that take certain things for granted don't take a whole lot of time to remind others about it. Did you know that Marines don't walk on grass? We don't write that down in Base orders but it's been handed down as something we just don't do.

As I said before, the controlling issue here is going to be how one views the Scriptures. Historical theology is not going to settle this. There are plausible reasons for silence if you're a paedobaptist and the credobaptist is going to appeal to the same silence and pour theological content into the silence (as you just did). Scholars do the same thing and I don't accept that there's no "direct mention" of the baptism of infants when Christ commands their baptism in Matt 28:18-20 because the children of believers are, by definition, disciples.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova said:


> There are not really any seeds of covenant theology in the fathers, as there are seeds of justification and substitution.


Does Irenaeus count? Melito of Sardis?

I suggest some acquaintance with the work of J. Ligon Duncan, RTS Jackson. First Presbyterian Church - Jackson Mississippi

Some relevant titles:
The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, New College, Scotland, 1995.
"The Covenant Idea in Irenaeus of Lyons," J. Ligon Duncan (found in Confessing our Hope: Essays Celebrating the Life and Ministry of Morton H. Smith, GPTS)
"The Covenant Idea in Melito of Sardis: An Introduction and Survey," by J. Ligon Duncan III.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Also,
despite the paucity of the evidence, and the various interpretations of the given evidence, I note that the inscriptions have not once been mentioned.


----------



## Phil D.

Rich, maybe I didn't express my point well enough, so let me try again: Paedobaptists both tell us that the absence of specifically mentioning infants in the biblical narratives on baptism is due (in part at least) to the fact that children, both in ancient Jewish and Gentile cultures, occupied such a _high_ status in the family unit that they were naturally included in all things pertaining to ancient "households" (e.g., see Tim's arguments in #19 and #21 of this thread, and J. Jeremias, _Infant Baptism_, throughout) -- as well as that the same phenomenon of "absence of specifically mentioning infants in discussions of baptism" in subsequent Christian writings was due to the _low_ status that was generally ascribed to children, as Rev. Winzer posited in #67. Thus my objection was that the same argument of silence cannot credibly by used in such antithetical ways to account for the same thing. In other words, it was simply an objection against what I perceive to be a we-can-have-it-both-ways-as-long-as-it's-convenient methodology sometimes used within the larger paedobaptist community, rather than an attempt to address the substantive merits, _per se_, of the individual arguments.

As for Acts 2:38 applying to the children of believers, I absolutely believe it does. "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does _not _ refer to the simple or inherent right of _anyone_ to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications) is unto you (Peter's as then still unrepentant hearers) and to your children, to as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself (the elect)." Indeed, as it is a very succinct presentation of the universal terms of the gospel, I think this passage applies equally to every person in the world.

But then again, based on how this conversation typically goes between credo's and peados, we probably don't want to rabbittrail too far on the proper exegesis of Acts 2:38 here, do we?


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Phil*


> "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does not refer to the simple or inherent right of anyone to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications)



There are no qualifications for receiving the baptism by/with the Spirit into Christ, apart from being one of the elect. It happens - since the inaugural period in the Book of Acts - to all believers at regeneration and is monergistic. Our water baptism points to it and is the sign and seal of it, whether or not we are baptised with water before or after we are baptised by Christ into Himself by/with the Holy Spirit. 

The early believers couldn't be baptised into Christ with the Spirit until He had ascended to God's right hand. Since those early days in the Book of Acts, baptism with the Spirit has coincided with regeneration.

E.g.

_Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.(Romans 6:3-5, ESV) _

_And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. (John 14:16-18, ESV)_

In the Old Testament regeneration was sometimes called "circumcision of heart". It didn't matter whether physical circumcision happened before or after circumcision of heart, or not at all in the case of girls and ladies, but physical circumcision pointed to and was the sign and seal of this spiritual circumcision.

What about those who were physically circumcised but never spiritually circumcised? Paul teaches us that their unbelief does not nullify God's covenant faithfulness.

_Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." (Romans 3:1-4)_

The same could be said in paraphrase with regard to Christians (nominal "Christians") and baptism:-

_Then what advantage has the Christian (or if you like "Christian")? Or what is the value of baptism? Much in every way. To begin with, the Christians were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."_


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> Rich, maybe I didn't express my point well enough, so let me try again: Paedobaptists both tell us that the absence of specifically mentioning infants in the biblical narratives on baptism is due (in part at least) to the fact that children, both in ancient Jewish and Gentile cultures, occupied such a _high_ status in the family unit that they were naturally included in all things pertaining to ancient "households" (e.g., see Tim's arguments in #19 and #21 of this thread, and J. Jeremias, _Infant Baptism_, throughout) -- as well as that the same phenomenon of "absence of specifically mentioning infants in discussions of baptism" in subsequent Christian writings was due to the _low_ status that was generally ascribed to children, as Rev. Winzer posited in #67. Thus my objection was that the same argument of silence cannot credibly by used in such antithetical ways to account for the same thing. In other words, it was simply an objection against what I perceive to be a we-can-have-it-both-ways-as-long-as-it's-convenient methodology sometimes used within the larger paedobaptist community, rather than an attempt to address the substantive merits, _per se_, of the individual arguments.


This is seeing the problem in terms of a false dilemma where silence on a particular subject doesn't have to be for the same reasons in every community. Everybody went to Church on the Lord's Day. The reasons may be very theological in the minds of those who consciously changed their day of worship in the NT accounts whereas those that picked up the practice may be silent on it because "...that's what we always do." One argument may be appropriate given the nature of Jewish households and it's good as far as it goes but is not the all-controlling argument.



> As for Acts 2:38 applying to the children of believers, I absolutely believe it does. "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does _not _ refer to the simple or inherent right of _anyone_ to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications) is unto you (Peter's as then still unrepentant hearers) and to your children, to as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself (the elect)." Indeed, as it is a very succinct presentation of the universal terms of the gospel, I think this passage applies equally to every person in the world.
> 
> But then again, based on how this conversation typically goes between credo's and peados, we probably don't want to rabbittrail too far on the proper exegesis of Acts 2:38 here, do we?


You simply prove my point that you've just read "history" in a way that is controlled by your theology of baptism. Peter uses language that I see fits within a context of Abrahamic Promise while you conflate Promise with the graces conferred by the same and infer a whole Sacramental theology into the statement. We don't even have to go to the ECF's to see a divergence in how we interpret the language of Church History but to the Apostle himself.

Why do you list the WCF as your Confessional subscription in your profile?


----------



## Phil D.

Richard,

I certainly meant "qualifications" in the context that the elect will exercise their God-given faith by responding affirmatively to the call of the gospel, and following through with what becoming a faithful follower of Christ entails.


All: I get the sense that I've already been more assertive in this thread than is probably becoming of a freshman to this board. I also think I'm among those culpable for taking much of the conversation here a bit off-course from the what was intended with the OP. Moreover, it seems to me that some of the posts (including my own) are becoming increasingly edgy and/or contentious, for which I apologize. Obviously, many of us are passionate about the issue of baptism, and rightly so. And it is certainly proper for iron to sharpen iron. Still, I think the usefulness of my participation in this thread is drawing to a close. I do hope that some of the original source materials that I have cited here, as well as my better comments may have been helpful in some way to those who may have read them. I know for my part I have really enjoyed and benefited from the vast majority of others' contributions here. But taking a breather now will probably do me good. If and when another thread is started on the subject of baptism, you may well hear from me again (for better or worse...). Until then, best regards to all.

Phil D.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phil D. said:


> oreover, it seems to me that some of the posts (including my own) are becoming increasingly edgy and/or contentious, for which I apologize. Obviously, many of us are passionate about the issue of baptism, and rightly so. And it is certainly proper for iron to sharpen iron. Still, I think the usefulness of my participation in this thread is drawing to a close.



For what it's worth, I was not offended. It's a forum for debate and discussion and the discussion has been civil.

Thanks for your participation.


----------



## Phil D.

Rich, you asked (and apparently posted at the same time that I was writing my intended farewell post), "why do you list the WCF as your Confessional subscription in your profile." That's certainly a fair question, and merits an answer. In short, because, all things considered, I believe it is the single best summary of the biblical faith out there. In the various matters where it differs with the LBC, baptism excepted, I usually find that I actually agree more with the formulations given in the WCF. For example, even with regard to the sacraments, I prefer the term "sacraments" (obviously, given my own designation) over that of "ordinance", since I believe they are, properly used, a means of grace, with a true spiritual dimension to them. In other words, I believe they indeed inwardly seal and confirm the spiritual benefits which they signify. This vital role seems to be largely ignored, or at least implicitly downplayed in the LBC. I also differ from many baptists in that I am not inclined, nor do I feel a compulsion to ultimately pronounce someone "unbaptized" if they received the rite as an infant. And, yes, I realize that in many ways this mix of convictions makes me a rather enigmatic oddball. But I'm simply trying to walk faithfully in the light God has, and will continue to graciously give me concerning each facet of my faith. Given all this, I'm sorry if claiming the WS as my overall preferred statement of faith offends somebody. While I suppose this explanation may raise more questions than it answers, I'm not sure what else to say for now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks for the reply Phil. I think if you really wrestle with the idea of Sacramental union and the relationship between Promise (grace signified) and grace conferred that you might realize you either do or do not agree with the Sacramental ideas in the Reformed confessions.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Phil:

If the Early Church Fathers could get the meaning of water Baptism so wrong, and so quickly after the 1st Century, then why would one have confidence in their supposed views concerning adult immersion?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## MW

Phil D. said:


> First, we have long been told that we should accept the idea that infants were baptized in the apostolic church because the important status of children within the family unit was so obvious and integral to the cultures of that time that their inclusion in baptism would naturally be taken for granted (thus explaining the lack of any direct mention of the practice in the NT). Are we now to believe that the reason no Christian writings produced immediately after the NT era includes any reference to children being baptized is because their status was suddenly so reduced that it resulted in a general "lack of interest" concerning them? Surely, if employing the same argument from silence in such antithetical ways regarding the same issue is to be deemed appropriate, then those who may hold a different view of the historical datum are at a decided disadvantage in any discussion of it, to say the least.



That infants were treated as part and parcel of the family unit does nothing to create a "status" whereby they are treated as individuals in their own right. The dilemma you have created is therefore non-existent. Family integration explains household baptisms and lack of status explains the lack of individual instruction relative to their baptism.



Phil D. said:


> Secondly, if one is to put any practical stock in the fact that some ECFs deemed the practice of baptizing infants to have been handed down from the apostles, to be consistent should they not also perform such baptisms in the manner which many ECFs also claimed to have been handed down from the apostles - namely, triple immersion?



Where running water was not available pouring sufficed.

The affirmative point I was making did not pertain to the authority of "apostolic tradition," so any argumentum ad absurdum is irrelevant. The question is, What was practised in the second century? We have modern scholars seeking to make judgements based on the minimal evidence which has been preserved over the centuries and overlooking the unchallenged testimony of church fathers who lived within a generation or two of the sub-apostolic fathers. My argument is that their appeal to apostolic practice should not be excluded simply because the second century evidence itself lacks explicit reference to infant baptism.


----------



## Peairtach

> Richard,
> 
> I certainly meant "qualifications" in the context that the elect will exercise their God-given faith by responding affirmatively to the call of the gospel, and following through with what becoming a faithful follower of Christ entails.



Not to go on at great length, Phil. It's good to have you on the Puritan Board. We're all brothers in Christ whether we discuss and argue about baptism or not.

In the Reformed view faith and repentance logically - if not necessarily chronologically - follow regeneration/baptism with the Spirit, and for Baptists a profession of this must precede water baptism. 

The interesting thing is that the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would agree that the Apostles and others _were _ baptised with water _long before _ they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ, which breaks the Reformed Baptist contention that you must be baptised with water only after being baptised with the Spirit into Christ.

Peter's remark,

_For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." (Acts 2:39)_

would have been understood to mean that the children are included in this new phase of the Covenant, as they were from the time of Abraham. 

Being under the promise of the Covenant didn't mean that such children or adults would receive anything automatically without faith in the promise of God. The same is true today with baptism. Romans 3:1-4 shows this. 

But since the promise was "for them" circumcision could not be denied them, and the same is true for baptism today.

It would be interesting if someone like Rich or someone else could better "unpack" that phrase "the promise is *for* you and *your children*" and what it means that the promise is peculiarly for the children of believers differently to others.

Do Reformed Baptists believe that the promise is for their children?


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the orthodox ever question the Trinity, once it had been established? That would be a parallel question to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by orthodox.
> 
> First, the point is that the Trinity was an established doctrine handed down by the Apostles in their teaching. This, later writers argue for. Your statement that the "Church hadn't settled it" sounds more like those that see the doctrine as created by the Church rather than something in the Apostolic faith that had to be clearly articulated.
> 
> Second, Athanasius was banned 5 times from his bishopric for defending Nicene orthodoxy because a large and influential segment of the Church became Aryan. The point is that your argument is weak. The Trinity is even more foundational to Christian orthodoxy than Baptism. The same can be said for the humanity and divinity of Christ that were early defended by Iraneus. The same can be said for the Gospel, which, within Paul's own preaching ministry, was being trampled underfoot by the Judaizers.
Click to expand...

 I completely agree with your facts. I think you're missing my point. The one Holy and Apostolic Church has always been faithful to orthodoxy, because there has been an unbroken chain of truth from the Apostles down. If it was challenged, it was from without, not within, for the essential practices and beliefs of the Church have been maintained. The rule of faith, the Trinitarian formula in baptism, the LS, etc, were all preserved. The orthodox would never have yielded on these.

Along comes Tertullian and others suggesting a different approach to baptism, one of cardinal practices of the Church. He is not branded a heretic for it, nor is there a universal outcry, rather, many believers apply it. How did he get away with it? Probable conclusion: the baptism of infants wasn't one of the practices handed down by Apostolic authority, like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. It's something the Church introduced, but apparently it wasn't on the same level of dogma, or Tertullian would have been shot down immediately.



> Not. You are the one "psychologizing" on why Tertullian felt comfortable taking on a doctrine. Why does Tertullian never appeal to Apostolic teaching on the subject to note that his is the view of the Apostles? The aberrant nature of his doctrine of baptism is very germane as is his willingness to later abandon all Christian orthodoxy. If we're going to evaluate the character of a man then the fact that he abandoned Christian orthodoxy wholesale is completely germane to whether he's "held fast" by historical orthodoxy on a particular doctrine.


He doesn't cite apostolic authority for his view because they are silent on the matter, which is my point. If the ad hominem were to stand, it'd be pertinent to see, at least, when his baptismal views coincided with his departure from orthodoxy. Though he eventually went Montanist, was his baptismal tract accepted at the time? was he not a valuable contributor to the Church overall? By your stance, we might need to discard everything he wrote.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> The interesting thing is that the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would agree that the Apostles and others _were _ baptised with water _long before _ they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ, which breaks the Reformed Baptist contention that you must be baptised with water only after being baptised with the Spirit into Christ.


Richard, are you talking about the Apostles having received John's baptism, prior to their regeneration? Doesn't the transition period apply here?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the orthodox ever question the Trinity, once it had been established? That would be a parallel question to ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean by orthodox.
> 
> First, the point is that the Trinity was an established doctrine handed down by the Apostles in their teaching. This, later writers argue for. Your statement that the "Church hadn't settled it" sounds more like those that see the doctrine as created by the Church rather than something in the Apostolic faith that had to be clearly articulated.
> 
> Second, Athanasius was banned 5 times from his bishopric for defending Nicene orthodoxy because a large and influential segment of the Church became Aryan. The point is that your argument is weak. The Trinity is even more foundational to Christian orthodoxy than Baptism. The same can be said for the humanity and divinity of Christ that were early defended by Iraneus. The same can be said for the Gospel, which, within Paul's own preaching ministry, was being trampled underfoot by the Judaizers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I completely agree with your facts. I think you're missing my point. The one Holy and Apostolic Church has always been faithful to orthodoxy, because there has been an unbroken chain of truth from the Apostles down. If it was challenged, it was from without, not within, for the essential practices and beliefs of the Church have been maintained. The rule of faith, the Trinitarian formula in baptism, the LS, etc, were all preserved. The orthodox would never have yielded on these.
> 
> Along comes Tertullian and others suggesting a different approach to baptism, one of cardinal practices of the Church. He is not branded a heretic for it, nor is there a universal outcry, rather, many believers apply it. How did he get away with it? Probable conclusion: the baptism of infants wasn't one of the practices handed down by Apostolic authority, like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etc. It's something the Church introduced, but apparently it wasn't on the same level of dogma, or Tertullian would have been shot down immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not. You are the one "psychologizing" on why Tertullian felt comfortable taking on a doctrine. Why does Tertullian never appeal to Apostolic teaching on the subject to note that his is the view of the Apostles? The aberrant nature of his doctrine of baptism is very germane as is his willingness to later abandon all Christian orthodoxy. If we're going to evaluate the character of a man then the fact that he abandoned Christian orthodoxy wholesale is completely germane to whether he's "held fast" by historical orthodoxy on a particular doctrine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't cite apostolic authority for his view because they are silent on the matter, which is my point. If the ad hominem were to stand, it'd be pertinent to see, at least, when his baptismal views coincided with his departure from orthodoxy. Though he eventually went Montanist, was his baptismal tract accepted at the time? was he not a valuable contributor to the Church overall? By your stance, we might need to discard everything he wrote.
Click to expand...

 
Arguments from silence cut both ways. We frankly don't know how what the overall reaction was. Origen was whacked out on a lot of things and had some local support even though others in the Church were convinced of his departure from orthodoxy. Details from the early Church are sketchy at best. 

My larger point, which has been obscured by this lame appeal to Tertullian, is that no ECF raises a vocal objection to the widespread practice of infant baptism on the basis that it is an innovation and that the Apostles taught otherwise. We cannot find a single ECF witness that condemns the innovation in support of the idea that the Apostles taught the baptism of converts alone. Somehow, by the time of Tertullian, it was everywhere and nobody condemns it as an innovation. 

The fact that Tertullian feels "safe" to have a strange view of baptism and that we don't read of anyone condemning him is hardly a refutation of this point. It's not as if Tertullian is proposing a reform of the view but a view that is just crazy and bears no resemblance to any view currently held. In other words, Tertullian's project wasn't to try to get rid of infant baptism, per se, but he just had a really weird view of baptism that would have no Apostolic origin in many different ways. The fact that others delayed their own baptisms has more to do with what they thought baptism did for them than anything having to do with the age of the recipient.

Let's follow your argument, however, and see if it makes sense. Tertullian wrote:


> 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:


Did Tertullian feel "safe" teaching this because it was not an established Apostolic teaching that the unmarried should be baptized? Was the baptism of the unmarried "unsettled" in the Church at the time? Is the fact that others followed suit a support for its Apostolic origin? Is the lack of any contemporary writings condemning Tertullian on this point proof that this was not a settled issue of orthodoxy?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interesting thing is that the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would agree that the Apostles and others _were _ baptised with water _long before _ they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ, which breaks the Reformed Baptist contention that you must be baptised with water only after being baptised with the Spirit into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, are you talking about the Apostles having received John's baptism, prior to their regeneration? Doesn't the transition period apply here?
Click to expand...

 
Christ also baptized - John notes that He baptized more people than John (his disciples that is).


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's follow your argument, however, and see if it makes sense. Tertullian wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Tertullian feel "safe" teaching this because it was not an established Apostolic teaching that the unmarried should be baptized? Was the baptism of the unmarried "unsettled" in the Church at the time? Is the fact that others followed suit a support for its Apostolic origin? Is the lack of any contemporary writings condemning Tertullian on this point proof that this was not a settled issue of orthodoxy?
Click to expand...

 
It'd be interesting to find out why he proposed this. Were the unmarried socially deviant in some way? inflamed with lust? and therefore not fit for Church membership? 

Note, Tertullian is not the only one leading the charge toward adult baptism. John Chyrsostom, Basil, Gregory Naziansus and Jerome were all baptised as adults, though each having at least one Christian parent. These figures lived in different regions of the empire, suggesting the practice was widespread enough. Remember that at this era of church history, the rule of worship and the rule of faith are inseparable. Unlike our modern era, what the early church practiced in their worship, they believed. While they would never have neglected the sacrament of eucharist, some segments of the Church seemed, at least during a period of time, to neglect the practice of infant baptism. 

To be fair, none of these Fathers denied the validity of infant baptism, true. But consider as an example that some contemporary worship advocates, may not deny the validity of EP either. The silence doesn't necessarily say much.


----------



## Peairtach

Nova said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The interesting thing is that the Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would agree that the Apostles and others _were _ baptised with water _long before _ they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ, which breaks the Reformed Baptist contention that you must be baptised with water only after being baptised with the Spirit into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, are you talking about the Apostles having received John's baptism, prior to their regeneration? Doesn't the transition period apply here?
Click to expand...


Yes. But it's interesting to note that many in the first century were baptised with water long before they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ.

The same is true for many Presbyterians, and some Baptists.

In the Old Covenant many were cicumcised long before they were circumcised in heart. The sacrament didn't have to be carried out _after_ a person claimed to have believed.

Why does baptism have to be carried out _after_ a person claims to have believed?

The promise is to believers _and_ their children, just as it was in the Old Covenant to those who were ingrafted into the Abrahamic Olive Tree (Romans 11).


----------



## steadfast7

> Yes. But it's interesting to note that many in the first century were baptised with water long before they were baptised with the Holy Spirit into Christ.


I think the transition period needs to be taken into consideration here. At least a couple of the disciples were John's disciples, and perhaps some others baptised by Jesus. They were not indwelt with the Spirit until Pentecost, but this is not the pattern for present-day believers.



> Why does baptism have to be carried out after a person claims to have believed?


why wait after a profession? I guess it makes sense (to Baptists) to immerse into Christ those who are _in _Christ by faith. My question for the Presbyterian is why are only parents and their infants to be baptized? What about teenagers and middle aged progeny?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> why wait after a profession? I guess it makes sense (to Baptists) to immerse into Christ those who are in Christ by faith



Profession is not coextensive with "those who are in Christ by faith". Whenever I see someone state that they immerse those who are in Christ by faith I immediately know that an important distinction has just been confused. As Richard points out there is a _Promise_ announced in Acts 2:38-39 by Peter. Failure to properly distinguish Promise signified from the sovereign sealing of that Promise is always at the heart of this confusion.

Repent and be baptized notes the spiritual union between grace conferred to the elect (repentance) and the sign of all the graces Promised by God to His people. The Church cannot and does not baptize on the basis of the knowledge that the graces of the CoG have been received. It can, however, note the apparent fruit in a person's life and the Promise is still true: if faith and repentance then this baptism seals God's Promise to save.

In other words, whether a person is baptized as an adult, the Promise is still in effect: if you have faith and repentance then baptism is God's signifying to you that He saves to the uttermost. That means that when a man falls into deep sin and doubts the actual possession of faith and repentance _prior to or at the time of_ his baptism, he does not have to go back to the minister and ask to be baptized again. Why? Because the Promise is "yes" and "amen". God promises to save the man baptized who has faith in Him. If that faith comes before baptism then it's True. If that faith comes after his baptism, years later, that baptism is true.

Baptism is God's Promise unto us. God's signs have always acted this way. God speaks. God signifies things unto us. They are meant, everywhere, to be looked back upon, to be reflected upon, and to draw strength from.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Repent and be baptized notes the spiritual union between grace conferred to the elect (repentance) and the sign of all the graces Promised by God to His people. The Church cannot and does not baptize on the basis of the knowledge that the graces of the CoG have been received. It can, however, note the apparent fruit in a person's life and the Promise is still true: if faith and repentance then this baptism seals God's Promise to save.
> 
> In other words, whether a person is baptized as an adult, the Promise is still in effect: if you have faith and repentance then baptism is God's signifying to you that He saves to the uttermost. That means that when a man falls into deep sin and doubts the actual possession of faith and repentance _prior to or at the time of_ his baptism, he does not have to go back to the minister and ask to be baptized again. Why? Because the Promise is "yes" and "amen". God promises to save the man baptized who has faith in Him. If that faith comes before baptism then it's True. If that faith comes after his baptism, years later, that baptism is true.
> 
> Baptism is God's Promise unto us. God's signs have always acted this way. God speaks. God signifies things unto us. They are meant, everywhere, to be looked back upon, to be reflected upon, and to draw strength from.


 
Rich, this Promise of God signified in baptism, then, seems to me to be a conditional promise. Also, if the promise is given to children of believers, and some of those children _dis_believe, what does that also say about the promise? Is not the New Covenant supposed to be founded on "better promises" than the old one? (Heb 8:6)

I would also ask whether Acts 2:38-39 is meant to teach on baptism, _per se_. I would point to Romans 6 as a clearer teaching on the significance of baptism (ie. baptism as burial into Christ).

(any RBs out there wanna jump in, please feel free!)


----------



## Iconoclast

Phil D. said:


> Rich, maybe I didn't express my point well enough, so let me try again: Paedobaptists both tell us that the absence of specifically mentioning infants in the biblical narratives on baptism is due (in part at least) to the fact that children, both in ancient Jewish and Gentile cultures, occupied such a _high_ status in the family unit that they were naturally included in all things pertaining to ancient "households" (e.g., see Tim's arguments in #19 and #21 of this thread, and J. Jeremias, _Infant Baptism_, throughout) -- as well as that the same phenomenon of "absence of specifically mentioning infants in discussions of baptism" in subsequent Christian writings was due to the _low_ status that was generally ascribed to children, as Rev. Winzer posited in #67. Thus my objection was that the same argument of silence cannot credibly by used in such antithetical ways to account for the same thing. In other words, it was simply an objection against what I perceive to be a we-can-have-it-both-ways-as-long-as-it's-convenient methodology sometimes used within the larger paedobaptist community, rather than an attempt to address the substantive merits, _per se_, of the individual arguments.
> 
> As for Acts 2:38 applying to the children of believers, I absolutely believe it does. "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does _not _ refer to the simple or inherent right of _anyone_ to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications) is unto you (Peter's as then still unrepentant hearers) and to your children, to as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself (the elect)." Indeed, as it is a very succinct presentation of the universal terms of the gospel, I think this passage applies equally to every person in the world.
> 
> But then again, based on how this conversation typically goes between credo's and peados, we probably don't want to rabbittrail too far on the proper exegesis of Acts 2:38 here, do we?


 
Phil,
Many here agree with you when you say this;


> As for Acts 2:38 applying to the children of believers, I absolutely believe it does. "...For the promise (i.e., to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon meeting the preceding requirements of first repenting and being baptized - thus the promise clearly does _not _ refer to the simple or inherent right of _anyone_ to receive the sacrament of baptism apart from the given qualifications) is unto you (Peter's as then still unrepentant hearers) and to your children, to as many as the Lord our God shall call unto himself (the elect)." Indeed, as it is a very succinct presentation of the universal terms of the gospel, I think this passage applies equally to every person in the world.



The promise in Acts 2.......is the promise of psalm 16 made by tne Father...to the Son;


> 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
> 
> 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
> 
> 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
> 
> 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
> 
> 34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
> 
> 35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
> 
> 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.



That promise is what is being spoken of throughout the whole passage.....just read it and see.


Rich T. asked...


Richard Tallach said:


> Do Reformed Baptists believe that the promise is for their children?



You answered him........but they define promise, sign, and seal differently than we would.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> why wait after a profession? I guess it makes sense (to Baptists) to immerse into Christ those who are in Christ by faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Profession is not coextensive with "those who are in Christ by faith". Whenever I see someone state that they immerse those who are in Christ by faith I immediately know that an important distinction has just been confused.
> 
> 
> 
> As Richard points out there is a _Promise_ announced in Acts 2:38-39 by Peter. Failure to properly distinguish Promise signified from the sovereign sealing of that Promise is always at the heart of this confusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repent and be baptized notes the spiritual union between grace conferred to the elect (repentance) and the sign of all the graces Promised by God to His people. The Church cannot and does not baptize on the basis of the knowledge that the graces of the CoG have been received. It can, however, note the apparent fruit in a person's life and the Promise is still true: if faith and repentance then this baptism seals God's Promise to save.
> 
> In other words, whether a person is baptized as an adult, the Promise is still in effect: if you have faith and repentance then baptism is God's signifying to you that He saves to the uttermost. That means that when a man falls into deep sin and doubts the actual possession of faith and repentance _prior to or at the time of_ his baptism, he does not have to go back to the minister and ask to be baptized again. Why? Because the Promise is "yes" and "amen". God promises to save the man baptized who has faith in Him. If that faith comes before baptism then it's True. If that faith comes after his baptism, years later, that baptism is true.
> 
> Baptism is God's Promise unto us. God's signs have always acted this way. God speaks. God signifies things unto us. They are meant, everywhere, to be looked back upon, to be reflected upon, and to draw strength from.
Click to expand...

 
Hello Rich,
I would like to respond to your post.
1]


> Profession is not coextensive with "those who are in Christ by faith".


 "those who are in Christ by faith". have a make a proper profession 
of faith by water baptism. They openly confess Christ by water baptism, verbal confession and praise, and by good works adorning the doctrine of Christ.
Titus tells us of those who have a false profession; 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
2]


> As Richard points out there is a _Promise_ announced in Acts 2:38-39 by Peter. Failure to properly distinguish Promise signified from the sovereign sealing of that Promise is always at the heart of this confusion.


 No....the promise spoken of is the promise spoken of earlier in Acts 2;23-36....the confusion goes away if you read the whole passage, and as In Suk also remarked,as well as Phil.....Romans 6 can be properly understood.
3] The sovereign sealing of the "promise" is not water baptism. We are sealed by the Spirit Himself;
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 

14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 

also here in hebrews10

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. 

19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 

20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 

21And having an high priest over the house of God; 

22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 
4]Baptism is God's Promise unto us. No.....The word of God declaring that all who believe in the biblical Jesus,and His covenant death for those he came to save according to the scriptures is the promise unto us.
36For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise

and again,here is the word of promise;
\ 9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 

10For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. 

11And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 

12That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 

13For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 

14Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 

15And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 

16For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 

17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 

18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: 

19Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; 

20Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repent and be baptized notes the spiritual union between grace conferred to the elect (repentance) and the sign of all the graces Promised by God to His people. The Church cannot and does not baptize on the basis of the knowledge that the graces of the CoG have been received. It can, however, note the apparent fruit in a person's life and the Promise is still true: if faith and repentance then this baptism seals God's Promise to save.
> 
> In other words, whether a person is baptized as an adult, the Promise is still in effect: if you have faith and repentance then baptism is God's signifying to you that He saves to the uttermost. That means that when a man falls into deep sin and doubts the actual possession of faith and repentance _prior to or at the time of_ his baptism, he does not have to go back to the minister and ask to be baptized again. Why? Because the Promise is "yes" and "amen". God promises to save the man baptized who has faith in Him. If that faith comes before baptism then it's True. If that faith comes after his baptism, years later, that baptism is true.
> 
> Baptism is God's Promise unto us. God's signs have always acted this way. God speaks. God signifies things unto us. They are meant, everywhere, to be looked back upon, to be reflected upon, and to draw strength from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, this Promise of God signified in baptism, then, seems to me to be a conditional promise.
Click to expand...

What do you understand by "conditional"? Are any of the promises of God accessible apart from *faith* as a "condition"? No, God doesn't give an eternal promise, and then take people to heaven who don't believe him or his word. Are they going to be in heaven second-guessing God at every turn? What is the promise inherent in the gospel of Jesus Christ? That if you repent and believe, God will save you from your sins. Which apostle ever preached a gospel that didn't suspend the enjoyment of salvation upon the condition of believing?



Nova said:


> Also, if the promise is given to children of believers, and some of those children _dis_believe, what does that also say about the promise?


It says nothing about the promise other than it says about the same promise given to the instant professors of belief in that promise. What of the professor who apostatizes? You wouldn't suggest there was a problem with the promise in that case, would you? You have a "built-in" _condition_ in the case of the professor, namely that his faith is genuine, that it has been engendered by the Holy Spirit. But that reality isn't accessible to your inerrant judgment. So, why should you demand _more_ of the reality exposed in the case of an infant? If your proposal, at this juncture, is that faith as the necessary condition is IMPOSSIBLE for an infant, then we are back to the grand questions of whether infants can be saved, on what basis are they saved if not by faith, what level of development among the elements of faith is requisite, etc.



Nova said:


> Is not the New Covenant supposed to be founded on "better promises" than the old one? (Heb 8:6)


Define "Old Covenant". I define the Old Covenant as the Mosaic administration. It is replaced by the New in Christ's administration. But New Covenant promises aren't any "better" than the promises to Abraham, because Paul teaches that we have received what was promised to Abraham in the New Covenant, and that the introduction of Mosaic "promises" (which were legal in nature) could not annul the covenant made by promise to Abraham.

Of course, it is also better now to have the reality of *Christ-come*, rather than Christ-*TO*-come. So, the promise-to-save, made unto us in this age, is also "better" than the promise made to Abraham, in the sense that the foundation of the promise is more apparent than ever it was. The winds of time have exposed more of the Eternal Rock upon which it is built. But it is not a _different_ promise.



Nova said:


> I would also ask whether Acts 2:38-39 is meant to teach on baptism, _per se_. I would point to Romans 6 as a clearer teaching on the significance of baptism (ie. baptism as burial into Christ).


Doesn't Act.2:38 use the language of "baptism"? Of course Act.2:38-39 teaches on the subject of baptism, however, it does so in a narrative context, and as I have frequently argued, narrative texts don't typically function well as foundational texts for baptismal theology or practice. How does that text speak to us? It connects the institution of baptism to God's previous promises to Abraham, through the explanatory preaching of Peter on the inauguration of the new age.

Rom.6 is useful for teaching the significance of baptism. Of course, there is a whole catena of texts that teach on the significance of baptism, Rom.6 being quite helpful on the doctrine of union with Christ. (As you know, I provided an entire post on the wide-ranging signification of baptism, as it recapitulated the equally wide-ranging signification of circumcision). But, as you also know, baptism is not only "burial" into Christ in that passage, but also "resurrection" in Christ. Furthermore, baptism is experiencing a "putting on Christ" Gal.3:27 like a suit of clothing, and a "drinking of one Spirit" 2Cor.12:13 like a tall glass of refreshment.

We don't have any trouble with those didactic passages that deal with the signification of baptism. But we also don't have the hangups, on the one hand, that they have who insist on the pure objectivity of the sacraments (that they work ex opere); nor that they have on the other that insist on the essential subjectivity of the sacraments, and a testamentary "order" that must be followed to legitimate the application. Our grand insistence is that FAITH in the meaning of baptism is necessary to the enjoyment of that which it signifies, unto any persons who receive the sign. And only those whom Scripture teaches should receive the sign rightly receive it, which we believe includes the infant children of believers.


----------



## Rich Koster

I'm not educated enough to break down the original language. My hope is that on the Day of the Lord we (credo & paedo) will both be told by Jesus, that what you did honored me because you did it to the best of your ability and convictions, according to my word.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> Doesn't Act.2:38 use the language of "baptism"? Of course Act.2:38-39 teaches on the subject of baptism, however, it does so in a narrative context, and as I have frequently argued, narrative texts don't typically function well as foundational texts for baptismal theology or practice. How does that text speak to us? It connects the institution of baptism to God's previous promises to Abraham, through the explanatory preaching of Peter on the inauguration of the new age.



I'm curious how you're reading the text:
Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 

What i see is,
1. Baptism is not itself the promise, it is the condition that needs to be satisfied. The Holy Spirit, it seems, is the actual promise. So, for consistency's sake, if baptism is the promise, then we would have to conclude that those who are baptised are necessarily gifted with the Spirit.

2. It is this promise (the Spirit) that is given (conditionally) to "you, your children, and all who are far." Do you read these 3 items "you, your children, and all ...," as a list? or, isn't it most likely that "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" is the summary category that subsumes all 3 items?

The question now would be, Are not 'those whom the Lord calls to himself' otherwise known as _the regenerate_?

If so, then is it not the regenerate who are charged to "repent and be baptised?"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Act.2:38 use the language of "baptism"? Of course Act.2:38-39 teaches on the subject of baptism, however, it does so in a narrative context, and as I have frequently argued, narrative texts don't typically function well as foundational texts for baptismal theology or practice. How does that text speak to us? It connects the institution of baptism to God's previous promises to Abraham, through the explanatory preaching of Peter on the inauguration of the new age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how you're reading the text:
> Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
> 
> What i see is,
> 1. Baptism is not itself the promise, it is the condition that needs to be satisfied. The Holy Spirit, it seems, is the actual promise. So, for consistency's sake, if baptism is the promise, then we would have to conclude that those who are baptised are necessarily gifted with the Spirit.
> 
> 2. It is this promise (the Spirit) that is given (conditionally) to "you, your children, and all who are far." Do you read these 3 items "you, your children, and all ...," as a list? or, isn't it most likely that "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" is the summary category that subsumes all 3 items?
> 
> The question now would be, Are not 'those whom the Lord calls to himself' otherwise known as _the regenerate_?
> 
> If so, then is it not the regenerate who are charged to "repent and be baptised?"
Click to expand...

 
As I noted previously, this issue boils down to confusion. Both my post and Bruce's posts contain the answers to your questions. Baptism is not the Promise. Nowhere was it said to be. Somehow you are unable to read even a fairly straightforward presentation where the relationship between Baptism as the signifying act of the Promise and the graces signified by the Promise were laid out. Stop and read what has already been presented. I don't even know how to respond when you fail to even properly read what has already been presented. It's one thing to disagree with a position because you've studied and understand it but I'm not certain you even apprehend what was explained to you between Bruce and myself.



Iconoclast said:


> Hello Rich,
> I would like to respond to your post.
> 1]
> 
> 
> 
> Profession is not coextensive with "those who are in Christ by faith".
> 
> 
> 
> "those who are in Christ by faith". have a make a proper profession
> of faith by water baptism. They openly confess Christ by water baptism, verbal confession and praise, and by good works adorning the doctrine of Christ.
> Titus tells us of those who have a false profession; 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
Click to expand...


Anthony,

You make a simple category error that is equivalent to the following:

All dogs are mammals. (All the elect profess faith in Christ)
Therefore, all mammals are dogs. (Therefore, all who profess faith in Christ are elect)

As I said before: profession of faith is not coextensive of those who are in Christ by faith.

You have not "responded" to what I stated but only demonstrated the confusion I wrote about earlier.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Act.2:38 use the language of "baptism"? Of course Act.2:38-39 teaches on the subject of baptism, however, it does so in a narrative context, and as I have frequently argued, narrative texts don't typically function well as foundational texts for baptismal theology or practice. How does that text speak to us? It connects the institution of baptism to God's previous promises to Abraham, through the explanatory preaching of Peter on the inauguration of the new age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious how you're reading the text:
> Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
> Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
> 
> What i see is,
> 1. Baptism is not itself the promise, it is the condition that needs to be satisfied. The Holy Spirit, it seems, is the actual promise. So, for consistency's sake, if baptism is the promise, then we would have to conclude that those who are baptised are necessarily gifted with the Spirit.
> 
> 2. It is this promise (the Spirit) that is given (conditionally) to "you, your children, and all who are far." Do you read these 3 items "you, your children, and all ...," as a list? or, isn't it most likely that "everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself" is the summary category that subsumes all 3 items?
> 
> The question now would be, Are not 'those whom the Lord calls to himself' otherwise known as _the regenerate_?
> 
> If so, then is it not the regenerate who are charged to "repent and be baptised?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I noted previously, this issue boils down to confusion. Both my post and Bruce's posts contain the answers to your questions. *Baptism is not the Promise. Nowhere was it said to be.* Somehow you are unable to read even a fairly straightforward presentation where the relationship between Baptism as the signifying act of the Promise and the graces signified by the Promise were laid out. Stop and read what has already been presented. I don't even know how to respond when you fail to even properly read what has already been presented. It's one thing to disagree with a position because you've studied and understand it but I'm not certain you even apprehend what was explained to you between Bruce and myself.
Click to expand...

Rich, I was responding to your own post #98 where you said:


> *Baptism is God's Promise unto us*. God's signs have always acted this way. God speaks. God signifies things unto us. They are meant, everywhere, to be looked back upon, to be reflected upon, and to draw strength from.



I admit a tendency to misread and misunderstand what is written sometimes, forgive me. I was simply responding to this idea that baptism is a promise. I'm arguing that Acts 2:38ff does not support that. Perhaps you were not deriving your statement from that verse, in which case we have just talked passed each other. I would still like to argue that text, however, if you're willing. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You need to understand what I write in light of everything else written. Baptism, as a sign, connects to Promise and thing signified. If I promise to give you $100 and a check for $100 then the promise (payment of $100) is related to the check (sign of $100) and to the actual thing signified ($100).

It's not the best analogy but at least it demonstrates a relationship between a speech act (I promise something) to a sign (something that signifies my earnest) and the actual conveyance of the thing promised and signified.

You need to move back a little bit from the whole picture and consider how God's Promises relate to His Acts or Signs and then how He sovereignly seals things to His Signs based on His Promises. Of course it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is Promised in Acts 2:38-39. That is clear. Baptism is the sign that visibly and viscerally connects human history to a Sovereign Promise and Act. It is not, in itself a bare thing that has all power within itself. Simply by being baptized a professor that day was not assured he would receive the Promise. A condition was attached, which was repentance.

Repentance, as we learn in other parts of Scripture, is an evangelical grace. It comes, truly, from union with Christ along with all other Evangelical graces. Yes, of course, Romans 6 is a fuller explanation of how God unites us into Christ by our baptism. That gives explanation of how a physical sign (baptism by water) is related to something sovereignly conferred by the Holy Spirit (baptism into Christ). They may be distinguished but should not be considered separate ideas altogether. A person is assured by his baptism in water that when he lays hold of Christ by faith, that he is engrafted into Christ and possesses, most assuredly, every grace promised and announced by his baptism (to include repentance).

The presence of conditions (believe upon Christ) only becomes a problem in the mind when the person believes it is something he produces within himself rather than recognizing that it is the work of the Holy Spirit that produces the condition necessary for the person to have faith.

The amazing thing about the work of God is that He commands and promises things in His Word that men are incapable, in themselves, of performing or fulfilling. God fulfills the conditions in Christ and applies the fulfillment of those conditions sovereignly by the work of the Holy Spirit.

I exhorted on something related to how Christ's work establishes the Kingdom of God last evening: http://www.hopeofchrist.net/2010/10/luke-1114-28/


----------



## Marrow Man

Nova said:


> Thanks Tim. I was bringing up the patristic issue only because I've heard it said by paedos that circumcision leading to infant baptism was a natural and obvious transition for the early church, and that the Abrahamic covenant connection to baptism is clear in the scriptures. Are there any writings other than this incidental one that might point to the covenantal connection?



As I was reading in John Fesko's _Word, Water, and Spirit_ this morning, I noticed that he references two passages by Augustine that make an explicit connection between circumcision and baptism, specifically with regard to Abraham/Isaac. The first is in _On the Baptism of Infants_ (2:43) and the second is found in _On Baptism, Against the Donatists_ (4:24). Just thought I would pass that along FYI.

I can't find an online source to quote the first work, but here's the full section of the second:



> And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God's earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. Yet the apostle says of Abraham himself, that "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith," having already believed in his heart, so that "it was counted unto him for righteousness." Why, therefore, was it commanded him that he should circumcise every male child in order on the eighth day, Genesis 17:9-14 though it could not yet believe with the heart, that it should be counted unto it for righteousness, because the sacrament in itself was of great avail? And this was made manifest by the message of an angel in the case of Moses' son; for when he was carried by his mother, being yet uncircumcised, it was required, by manifest present peril, that he should be circumcised, Exodus 4:24-26 and when this was done, the danger of death was removed. As therefore in Abraham the justification of faith came first, and circumcision was added afterwards as the seal of faith; so in Cornelius the spiritual sanctification came first in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the sacrament of regeneration was added afterwards in the laver of baptism. And as in Isaac, who was circumcised on the eighth day after his birth, the seal of this righteousness of faith was given first, and afterwards, as he imitated the faith of his father, the righteousness itself followed as he grew up, of which the seal had been given before when he was an infant; so in infants, who are baptized, the sacrament of regeneration is given first, and if they maintain a Christian piety, conversion also in the heart will follow, of which the mysterious sign had gone before in the outward body. And as in the thief the gracious goodness of the Almighty supplied what had been wanting in the sacrament of baptism, because it had been missing not from pride or contempt, but from want of opportunity; so in infants who die baptized, we must believe that the same grace of the Almighty supplies the want, that, not from perversity of will, but from insufficiency of age, they can neither believe with the heart unto righteousness, nor make confession with the mouth unto salvation. Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete in their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves. But if another were to answer for one who could answer for himself, it would not be of the same avail. In accordance with which rule, we find in the gospel what strikes every one as natural when he reads it, "He is of age, he shall speak for himself." John 9:21


----------

