# Rejection of Baptizing Disciples Alone by: Webmaster



## Roldan (Feb 16, 2004)

WOW, I read this article from the C. Matthew McMahon and he said it was not an extensive critique exegetically etc.. I feel sorry for this Fred Malone brotha if Dr. McMahon comes out with pens a blazing! That was an excellent overview critique of Fred Malone's book &quot;Baptizing Disciples Alone&quot; and reccomend Baptist and Reformed Covenantal Baptist(Paedo) to read it if you haven't already.:thumbup:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2004)

I did send a copy to Dr. Malone. He said, on another board, he would not take time to &quot;correct&quot; it.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 16, 2004)

On which other board did he say this?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2004)

I don't know - it was a couple of months ago and someone emailed me the post.


----------



## Tom77 (Feb 16, 2004)

[quote:446ce3c52d]
WOW, I read this article from the C. Matthew McMahon and he said it was not an extensive critique exegetically etc.. I feel sorry for this Fred Malone brotha if Dr. McMahon comes out with pens a blazing! That was an excellent overview critique of Fred Malone's book &quot;Baptizing Disciples Alone&quot; and reccomend Baptist and Reformed Covenantal Baptist(Paedo) to read it if you haven't already.
[/quote:446ce3c52d]

I respect and appreciate Matthew McMahon for his adherence to Reformed confessional orthodoxy. In that sense, he's a breath of fresh air, and you can just about always know what you're going to get from him. I also enjoy the opportunity he provides us to discuss theology on this board.

However, quite simply, I thought his critique of Malone's book was unhelpful. I have considered doing a point by point rebuttal of it on several occasions, but frankly, I don't have the will or the time right now. One aspect of McMahon's critique that I found particularly distasteful was his apparent imputation of deceitful motive to a good man, Dr. Malone. That was most uncharitable in my view.

I think McMahon's critique may excite and rally convinced paedobaptists, but it will do little to move Baptists who understand Baptist theology.

Blessings,
Tom


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 16, 2004)

Tom,

I have no hard fellings at all to Dr. Malone. I have sat under his teaching and have found much of what he has said in other areas edifying.

BUT, Malone himself has &quot;imputated&quot; his own ideas onto the Reformation which would have saw him material as both heretcial, fanatical and schismatic. =

[quote:4d5392d91f]
One aspect of McMahon's critique that I found particularly distasteful was his apparent imputation of deceitful motive to a good man, Dr. Malone. 
[/quote:4d5392d91f]

I was not imparting a decietful motive to him. His mindset is to &quot;add&quot; the basptism of disciples alone&quot; to the solas of the reformation as a &quot;furthering&quot; of the reformation, or a &quot;completing&quot; of it (i.e. we baptists are going to finish waht the reformers started.) That not only is the flavor of the title, but his own sentiments in the book.

I have found, in conversing with &quot;Reformed&quot; Baptists about his book that they are in agreement with me that 1) it is not helpful to thier position, and 2) it redefines historical/biblical concepts and ideas such as &quot;covenant&quot; and &quot;promise&quot; to levels that &quot;Reformed&quot; Baptists do not like or appreciate. On that point alone even baptists are saying they do not like the book. There are even some posts on this forum stating much the same.

But again, my intention was not to impute anything to him that he had not already said or implied himself in the book. As a former baptist myself, I would have been uncomfortable with his redefinitions and assumptions in that regard - I would still have pressed people to read Howell and Shirreff instead.

:wr50:

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by webmaster]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 16, 2004)

If you have read the critique but not the book - shame on you!

If we can say that everyone should read the critique, then surely we must insist that they read the work being critiqued.

And the RBs I hear from have benefitted from the book........I have yet to read it - but then I have already been convinced by the Scriptures on the issue!


Phillip:saint:


----------



## pastorway (Feb 16, 2004)

The point is that I want people who are critical of the work to be critical because they have read the work and disagree with it, not just because someone else is critical and they have read his review! 

I am sure that Matt will agree with me when I say that we should not let others do our thinking for us!!

And I am not going to let this thread become the never-ending debate on baptism. 

I said I am a convinced credo Baptist - convinced by the Word of God. And it is not my job to convince you. That is God's job! He is much more able than I.......if He so choses to convince you! 

Phillip :smilegrin:

[Edited on 2-17-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 17, 2004)

[quote:b8d1200c25][i:b8d1200c25]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:b8d1200c25]
what if you have read a few of Malones works? Does one need to continue reading and waiting for new books to be put out before he can say that he disagree's with Malone. [/quote:b8d1200c25]

fair enough, I do not really think Pastorway was talking about you when he made the comments but more likely to people who have never read anything by the man at all. [just my observation that could be wrong] 


[quote:b8d1200c25] Also, Pastor way said that he didn't need to read his book because the Bible proves his position. [/quote:b8d1200c25]

Let me second that only with the qualification that I agree with Pastor Way and have read the book.

[quote:b8d1200c25] I was wondering woud you mind sharing the verse that says: &quot;Thou shalt baptize ONLY disciples, and by that I mean proffessing adults/children who we judge as giving a credible profession.&quot; ?

-Paul [/quote:b8d1200c25]

Obviously you have read Matt when he said,

&quot;Then he says he sees two basic reasons why Infant Baptism is wrong: "1) the regulative principle and 2) biblical hermeneutics."[5] Malone asks if Infant Baptism is clear in Scripture. The question he should be asking first is whether there is a direct command to baptize disciples alone, something the New Testament does not mention once.&quot; 

But I really think this misses the point of Malone's arguement, for we can show you where it says, &quot;Go and make disciples of all nations baptizing them...,&quot; so we can find where we see Scriptural warrent to baptize disciples, but what we cannot find is where in Scripture it says (either in the Old or New) Baptize all infants with Christian parents, indeed, many Paedo's admit that there is no direct command to baptize infants and hence they argue that we can baptize them not based on a command but on a promise of God...

Even Calvin argued that Scripture taught that we should clearly only baptize disciples:

&quot;Baptism is, as it were, an appurtence of faith, and therefore it is later in order; secondly, if it be given without faith whose seal it is, it is both a wicked and also a too gross a profanation&quot; (Commentary on Acts, vol.1,p. 362)

If it is objected that the text says baptize disciples not baptize disciples alone, than out of consistency that objector ought to say that faith alone is not clearly taught in Scripture, since, Scripture no where says faith alone except to deny it (in James 2). Obviously, Scripture does not have to use an exact phrase to teach it clearly (ex. Trinity).

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 17, 2004)

[quote:77a8a15e83][i:77a8a15e83]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:77a8a15e83]
Tertullian,

fair enough, so I don't need a verse that says &quot;baptize babies&quot; either. Thus we are on equal footing. And, on top of that, it says &quot;go make disciples&quot;well, I am &quot;making&quot; my child a disciple. Furthermore, with the other things Scripture teaches us, (according to my view of course) a disciple is a believer and children of believers should recieve the covenant sign as well. So, we both infer. You cannot show a verse that says don't baptize babies and I don't have one that says &quot;do baptize babies.&quot; What we must do then is look at how the bible considers children...the WHOLE text...[i:77a8a15e83]tota Scriptura[/i:77a8a15e83]. If we can show that the Bible considers children as covenant members then we don't have a problem.

-Paul [/quote:77a8a15e83]

THANK YOU!:bigsmile:


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 17, 2004)

Roldan,

Did you get my U2 message? I got your message at home but your phone number was garbled. Check your U2 inbox for a note from me.

Matthew


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 17, 2004)

[quote:a0fb781fa3] Tertullian, 

fair enough, so I don't need a verse that says &quot;baptize babies&quot; either. Thus we are on equal footing. [/quote:a0fb781fa3] 

I think you have jumped topics, for I was answer the question does Scripture teach discipleship baptism, but even despite that it does not follow that we are on equal footing. Consider my argument:

1) It is unwise and wrong to administer a sacrament to someone God has not commanded it to be given to.
2) God has commanded that it be given to disciples (see Matt 28:19-20, which of course, this qualification needs to be mentioned, out of human weakness a disciple must in Christian charity be considered to be anyone who makes a creditable profession of faith).
3) No where does Scripture command us directly to baptize anyone but disciples.
4) Therefore, Scripture only commands that we baptize disciples so we must baptize disciples alone or be unwise and wrong.

Now your argument that runs like this,

1) Scripture never prohibits that baptism of infants
2) Hence, we can baptize infants.

When only these two arguments are considered "Equal footing" seems hardly feasible? Indeed, someone could just as readily argue that Scripture no where denies that Tertullian is wrong so he must be right... obviously the burden of proof is on you to show how infants can be given the sacrament of baptism under the New administration, you are adding to what both sides take for granted when it comes baptism, namely, that baptism is not to be administered indiscriminately among the masses but is to be given only to Disciples, as Calvin taught in the quote of his I mentioned eariler, who are disciples? Well to answer that questionI can just quote your words: &quot; a disciple is a believer&quot; (Paul). 


[quote:a0fb781fa3] And, on top of that, it says &quot;go make disciples&quot; well, I am &quot;making&quot; my child a disciple. [/quote:a0fb781fa3] 

Christ taught make disciples first and then baptism, not baptism and then make disciple, you cannot just arbitrarily change the order around for the sake of your tradition, even a Paudo like Richard Baxter had to admit that this text could not be properly used to argue for infant baptism, when he wrote,

"This is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers. The second work is to baptize them all other things, which are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order to to renounce all rules of order; for where can expect to find it if not here?" (Disputations of Rights to Sacrament, p. 149f.)

Therefore let us evangelize to our children and let them follow Christ orders and have the joy of choosing baptism. 

[quote:a0fb781fa3] Furthermore, with the other things Scripture teaches us, (according to my view of course) a disciple is a believer and children of believers should recieve the covenant sign as well. [/quote:a0fb781fa3]

This is putting the cart before the horse, you are using your view to prove your view. 

[quote:a0fb781fa3] So, we both infer. You cannot show a verse that says don't baptize babies and I don't have one that says &quot;do baptize babies.&quot; [/quote:a0fb781fa3]

see my arguements above...

[quote:a0fb781fa3] What we must do then is look at how the bible considers children...the WHOLE text...tota Scriptura.[/quote:a0fb781fa3]

Agree...

[quote:a0fb781fa3] If we can show that the Bible considers children as covenant members then we don't have a problem. [/quote:a0fb781fa3]

Actually an argument of this type will be irrelevant to proving infant baptism because you can be a member of the Covenant and still not receive the sign- the obvious example is women in the Old Covenant. 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
:saint:



[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 17, 2004)

[quote:5796f99c5d][i:5796f99c5d]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:5796f99c5d]
here is the one line refutation of your argument:---Tert's arguemnt:
1) It is unwise and wrong to administer a sacrament to someone God has not commanded it to be given to. 
2) God has commanded that it be given to disciples (see Matt 28:19-20, which of course, this qualification needs to be mentioned, out of human weakness a disciple must in Christian charity be considered to be anyone who makes a creditable profession of faith). 
3) No where does Scripture command us directly to baptize anyone but disciples. 
4) Therefore, Scripture only commands that we baptize disciples so we must baptize disciples alone or be unwise and wrong 

[b:5796f99c5d]We are never told to adminsiter the lord's supper to women.[/b:5796f99c5d] 

Now you will need to re-work your argument to account for things like that. [/quote:5796f99c5d]

Okay, I hold to discipleship Lord's supper that is you have to be a disciple to participate in the Lord's supper... What is a disciple? In your words, &quot;A disciple is someone who beleives&quot; - therefore the women who meet that qualification can participate and the women who do not meet that qualification cannot join. Hope this helps clear somethings up... 

that is why we ( I am assuming you agree) teach that we should not administer the Lord's Supper to everyone we meet but only to those who are disciples...

[quote:5796f99c5d][quote:5796f99c5d]
Actually an argument of this type will be irrelevant to proving infant baptism because you can be a member of the Covenant and still not receive the sign- the obvious example is women in the Old Covenant. 
[/quote:5796f99c5d]

Forgot what I mentioned in the other text? this is the NEW COVENANT and ALL members get the sign. it does not good to go back to the OC. I know that women didn't get the sign, but we are in the NC administration...+...this is a red herring. [/quote:5796f99c5d]

No I did not forget, some would call you dispensational but not I, I just found that answer unhelpful... for my point was not that women who are disciples are not allowed to partake of baptism.

I was arguing that you can be in the Covenant and not receive the sign (ex Women in Old Covenant)

We should see continuality between the Covenants and say that only those whom God commands to receive the sign of the Covenant (if males than males if Disciples than disciples) should receive the sign, not everyone in the New gets the sign, but just like in the Old only those God commands... we should see basic contuniality not discontuinality.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 17, 2004)

[quote:869984f8ba][i:869984f8ba]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:869984f8ba]
[quote:869984f8ba]
&quot;A disciple is someone who beleives&quot; - 
[/quote:869984f8ba]

So, in theory, you would allow John the Baptist to be baptized as an infant? [/quote:869984f8ba]

sure- the only problem is I cannot read people's heart's- otherwise- I would baptize all those i meet who's heart I could read were disciples- but alas I have to rely upon confession just like my Presbyterian brothers do for the Lord's Supper. 

[quote:869984f8ba] Also, this was true of the OC. Adult sojourners had to become disciples first. They had to profess faith. That is, they were not forced to be circumcised. But(!) there children also were circulcised! Adults have always had to profess faith. [/quote:869984f8ba]

Actually, the King's of Judea use to force there captured Gentiles to be circumcised, Abraham circumicised all males in his household regardless of personal individualistic profession. 

[quote:869984f8ba] Also, you have a limited view of &quot;disciple.&quot; And, how do you know if covenant children don't believe? Because they don't profess? Moreover, the devil &quot;believes&quot; so is he a disciple?
[/quote:869984f8ba]

Christ has not commisioned us to baptize demons but the people of the earth (Matt 28:19-20). 

How do I know that ALL children with Christian parents don't have faith, well, just ask my brother who doesn't have faith but was born with Christian parents.

[quote:869984f8ba][quote:869984f8ba] No I did not forget, some would call you dispensational but not I, 
[/quote:869984f8ba]

Look, in the NC there is no distinction with gender! [/quote:869984f8ba]

Why? Because God has commanded that the sacrament is now to be given to disciples who are given the sacraments that is those who have faith and faith is possible for both genders... 

[quote:869984f8ba] Since the ONLY covenant going on the the NC administration of the cog then when I say that all one needs to do is be a covenant member to get baptized I am saying a true statement. It doesn't matter if that wasn't the case in the OC we are in the NV and ny comments are to be understood with that context in mind?

-Paul [/quote:869984f8ba]

It is unfortunate that you want to divide Scripture up, we should be consistent and say that God as the Covenant Lord has every right to command who is to be given the Covenant sign- God had that right in the Old and He has it in the New- Hence a Command of God is what is required to receive the Covenant sign not Covenant membership alone. 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian



[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 17, 2004)

With all due respect to tertullian for I know him personally and if I was going to defend the faith against arminians or any anti-reformed theology he would be the first one I would call. But, I think in this aspect of Reformed Theolgy Baptist are confused, and I admire Terts attempts to rebuddle the paedo arguments but find(my opinion) that most of the arguments used are [color=Red:91dc09d6e1]Red Hearings[/color:91dc09d6e1], foggy answers to cloud the real issue, and repititious arguments that form circular debates. 

Again I think that we must humble ourselves and learn from each other without trying to be scholars in a subject we are still learning.

With greatest respects for my Baptist brothas, Roldan


----------



## pastorway (Feb 18, 2004)

I have fried all the red herrings and made a delicious meal for 5000.....

So this thread is done.

Kinder and Gentler, but still done.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-19-04 by pastorway]


----------

