# Hermeneutics and eisegesis



## Scott Bushey (Oct 17, 2018)

In a recent thread on Paedobaptism, I was charged w/ eisegesis when I made mention that the fact that we see no children (under the age of adulthood) coming to faith and receiving the sign of the covenant is important when discussing the validity of paedobaptism. My emphasis was placed on the culture of the Jews in the book of Acts and how they saw their children in light of federal headship. I was told that I 'am reading too much into the text'. 

In my opinion, a sound hermeneutic would be to consider the culture of the people we are discussing. Do u agree?


----------



## Taylor (Oct 17, 2018)

It was R. L. Dabney’s point that denying children the covenant sign would have caused a historic uproar that changed my mind, since we see no uproar recorded anywhere.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 17, 2018)

See Berhof's _Principles of Biblical Interpretation_, Chapter VI: Historical Interpretation.

For example, in the section _Demands On The Exegete_, he writes:

b. _It will be incumbent on him _[the exegete]_ to reconstruct, as far as possible, from the historical data at hand, and with the aid of historical hypotheses, the environment in which the particular writings under consideration originated_; in other words, the author’s world. He will have to inform himself respecting the physical features of the land where the books were written, and regarding the character and history, the customs, morals and religion of the people among whom or for whom they were composed.

...

d. _Moreover, he will have to transfer himself mentally into the first century A.D., and into Oriental conditions_. He must place himself on the standpoint of the author, and seek to enter into his very soul, until he, as it were, lives his life and thinks his thoughts. This means that he will have to guard carefully against the rather common mistake of transferring the author to the present day and making him speak the language of the twentieth century. If he does not avoid this, the danger exists, as McPheeters expresses it, that “the voice he hears (will) be merely the echo of his own ideas” (Bible Student, Vol. Ill, No. II). His rule should always be that he, “_non ex subjecto, sed ex objecto sensum quaerit_.”​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 17, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> In my opinion, a sound hermeneutic would be to consider the culture of the people we are discussing. Do you agree?



Scott,

I agree with you. I think it is a great point. Quite frankly, I myself have never thought of it before it that specific way. Thanks for adding another reason (to my own brain) for holding to the Paedo position.

I always try to put myself in the mindset of a faithful Jewish man, molded by hundreds and hundreds of years of passing the sign to the children, when I read Peter's sermon in Acts 2 and the household baptisms. Further, if the Jews still wrestled with the "shadow" of eating unclean meat, then I think they would have also needed NT correction if passing the sign to their infants was indeed a "shadow" (and further sinful), especially since Moses almost lost his very life.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 17, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> It was R. L. Dabney’s point that denying children the covenant sign would have caused a historic uproar that changed my mind, since we see no uproar recorded anywhere.



Just as a side note: there actually was an historic uproar, so to speak, in Acts 21:20-21 where news got all the way back to the Apostles in Jerusalem, "And they said to him [Paul], "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are _all zealous for the law_; but they have been informed about you_ that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses_, saying that they ought _not to circumcise their children_ nor to walk according to the customs."

In other words, the believing Jews were in an uproar who were informed (mistakenly) that *Paul *was teaching "no more children" are to have the *covenant sign *placed on them if they are believing Christians in the covenant of grace. Jews would certainly be in an uproar on that.

The elders, lead by James, quickly squashed that. "Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you _*are nothing, *_but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law," (Acts 21:23-25).

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 5


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 17, 2018)

Ignorance of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written, while of course not essential for salvation, are to a serious interpreter too important to be discarded.

When I was younger, and something of a fundamentalist, any notion of cultural context for the Bible offended me. "The Bible is God's Word," I reasoned. "What could culture have to do with it?"

I might suggest that it is perhaps a fundamentalist reflex that lashes out against anything bearing a hint of careful scholarship. To a fundamentalist, it seems like liberalism. At least, such was the case for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 17, 2018)

The cultural and OT context is important. The Jews had no problem protesting when they felt God's Word was being violated (as Matt pointed out above, I never noticed that particular verse before in this context!). That fact alone provides an important supporting point in defense of infant baptism. The primary basis is grounded in the nature of the covenant in both testaments. The covenant promise is made both to believers and their children in both. Hence the logical implications work themselves out, and we see the supporting references throughout the rest of the NT (i.e. household baptisms, children are "in the Lord" and "holy" in some sense, baptism replacing circumcision, etc.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> In a recent thread on Paedobaptism, I was charged w/ eisegesis when I made mention that the fact that we see no children (under the age of adulthood) coming to faith and receiving the sign of the covenant is important when discussing the validity of paedobaptism. My emphasis was placed on the culture of the Jews in the book of Acts and how they saw their children in light of federal headship. I was told that I 'am reading too much into the text'.
> 
> In my opinion, a sound hermeneutic would be to consider the culture of the people we are discussing. Do you agree?


I think that all of us here to varying degrees read back into the scriptures our preconceived notions. there is no direct scripture proof that children and infants were water baptized in the NT under trhe NC, so we would tend to read back into the situation what we think would have be going on at that time.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I think that all of us here to varying degrees read back into the scriptures our preconceived notions



David,
Is God a God of covenanting? Are any covenants abrogated? What I post is not based on any 'preconceived notion' or pressuposition, but biblical facts. Will God ever destroy the world with water again? 

Children have always been important to God and His covenant. To disregard this fact is to assault God's covenant and federal headship! 




Dachaser said:


> so we would tend to read back into the situation what we think would have be going on at that time.



Again, why do we not see any mass baptisms of already circumcised Jews, prior to the 1st century church? 

Can u imagine for the moment, the day before Christ gives the commission, my son is born. We circumcise him on the 8th day. On day 9, the Apostles tell me the circumcision and the covenant no longer mean anything; we are to do absolutely nothing any longer with our seed. In light of Gen 17 (to all generations), what am I to think? For thousands of years, we have placed the sign. Now, the sign has changed to water, but we no longer apply it to our seed. It is highly inconsistent with the mind of God and His word.

Circumcision did nothing to those who rec'd the sign other than setting them apart. Ishmael, Essau etc. had the sign; Their parents knew the fact that they were not of 'the promise' and yet, still were obedient to the command. 

We can see examples in the NT where the sign was placed erroneously on people who laid claim to Christ and yet, over time, showed their true colors. The sign is just that. A sign, whether it be bloody or water. It sets the person apart for the bride.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> Is God a God of covenanting? Are any covenants abrogated? What I post is not based on any 'preconceived notion' or pressuposition, but biblical facts. Will God ever destroy the world with water again?
> 
> Children have always been important to God and His covenant. To disregard this fact is to assault God's covenant and federal headship!
> ...


The preconceived understanding that I would bring into reading the NT scriptures in regards to this discussion would be that the NC was indeed new in some sense, and that thos eunder its outworking would be those who are in truth the redeemed of the Lord.

This just supports my position that all of us will bring to the scriptures our own notions that at times will be hard to overcome and have just what the scriptures teach, I am thinking right now more about how I had to resist bringing Pentacostal theology into the Bible when I read especially Acts, as the Lord needed to show to me that not all of my theology was right.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> its outworking would be those who are in truth the redeemed of the Lord.



U mean like Demas, Anannias and Saphira and Simon Magus???

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Oct 18, 2018)

Good exegesis should not introduce a _new doctrine _without warrant. The culture absolutely comes into play, and the similarity between the Gen. 17 and Acts 2 as would have been heard by the Jews is no exception. The OT visible church consisted of the household-- husbands and wives, children and servants. The NT defines the church the same way-- the household was baptized. Paul and Peter give instruction to the same groups in their writings, calling them the church. God's people were considered holy in the OT. The children of at least one believing parent are considered holy (1 Cor. 7). If there is no specific example where this principle was changed, good exegesis should work according to a doctrine that promotes the unity of the church in all ages.

Especially considering the Jewish culture of the time, such a change in the household principle would need to be quite carefully spelled out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 18, 2018)

timfost said:


> Good exegesis should not introduce a _new doctrine _without warrant.


Yes. That.

Appeals to culture can also be erroneously used as cudgel while missing other cues in a pericope that discount such appeals. For example, sometimes the appeal to culture is used to argue _phenomenological_ positions, where no such arguments are signaled in the text.

Which is to say that understanding the culture at the time is necessary, but not sufficient in proper hermeneutics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I think that all of us here to varying degrees read back into the scriptures our preconceived notions. there is no direct scripture proof that children and infants were water baptized in the NT under trhe NC, so we would tend to read back into the situation what we think would have be going on at that time.



What do you mean by "direct scripture proof"? I feel like you are looking for an explicit statement either saying "the disciples baptized babies", or a command saying "you must baptize babies". Of course such a statement is not to be found.

However, there are many things that we believe that are not supported by a specific statement. As far as I know, there is not one mention of women taking the Lord's supper in the NT - are we to conclude that women are not to take the Lord's supper? No, because in the absence of a specific statement we use logic and reason - verses such as "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female..." and then apply that to the case of the Lord's supper. The WCF calls this using "good and necessary inference". It is the application of biblical principles that leads us to the position of household baptism (including children).

Historical context is important. At the time of the writing of Acts, the Church had a 2,000 year history of applying the covenant sign to _households_, regardless of the spiritual status of the individual members, if the _head_ had faith. This is essentially what is illustrated in Genesis 17.

In fact, unless we were told otherwise, we would expect the sign of circumcision to continue in the NT era - however we _are_ told otherwise - Jesus clearly institutes baptism, and the example of the apostles is that circumcision is no longer required. Baptism is now the sign of membership in the church.

Similarly, unless we were told otherwise, we would expect the proper subjects of the sign to remain the same unless we were told otherwise. Here is where the NT is not only _not silent_, but in fact _affirms_ the principle of headship found in the OT, and we see several household baptisms. The headship principle continues. It is the presence of household baptisms in light of the _2000 year history_ of applying the covenant sign in this way that leads me to believe that baptizing covenant children is Biblical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> you mean like Demas, Anannias and Saphira and Simon Magus???


No, those who have really been redeemed and saved are included in the NC.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

timfost said:


> Good exegesis should not introduce a _new doctrine _without warrant. The culture absolutely comes into play, and the similarity between the Gen. 17 and Acts 2 as would have been heard by the Jews is no exception. The OT visible church consisted of the household-- husbands and wives, children and servants. The NT defines the church the same way-- the household was baptized. Paul and Peter give instruction to the same groups in their writings, calling them the church. God's people were considered holy in the OT. The children of at least one believing parent are considered holy (1 Cor. 7). If there is no specific example where this principle was changed, good exegesis should work according to a doctrine that promotes the unity of the church in all ages.
> 
> Especially considering the Jewish culture of the time, such a change in the household principle would need to be quite carefully spelled out.


The family of God would be just those who have been redeemed by Jesus as their Lord and Savior.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

De Jager said:


> What do you mean by "direct scripture proof"? I feel like you are looking for an explicit statement either saying "the disciples baptized babies", or a command saying "you must baptize babies". Of course such a statement is not to be found.
> 
> However, there are many things that we believe that are not supported by a specific statement. As far as I know, there is not one mention of women taking the Lord's supper in the NT - are we to conclude that women are not to take the Lord's supper? No, because in the absence of a specific statement we use logic and reason - verses such as "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female..." and then apply that to the case of the Lord's supper. The WCF calls this using "good and necessary inference". It is the application of biblical principles that leads us to the position of household baptism (including children).
> 
> ...


I would still see the NC as being something new, as those who would now be seen as being actually part of the NC would be those who have been saved and are now indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit. I do not see how we baptize as a dividing issue, nor an essnential of Christianity, as both of us would see water Baptism as a sign of the activity of god in the life of a person. I just would see it as a definite work done for one who has confessed Jesus is Lord now. 

What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I do not see how we baptize as a dividing issue, nor an essnential of Christianity, as both of us would see water Baptism as a sign of the activity of god in the life of a person.


While Baptism is not essential for SALVATION it is essential to CHRISTIANITY. David, covenant signs are of upmost importance to Christianity......this is how God relates to us...this is how God reminds us of his promises! Rainbows, Circumcisions, Baptisms! Surely you see this brother.



Dachaser said:


> What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?


Well for one there is *obedience* and spiritual blessings mentioned in Proverbs (as one example) in following the precepts of the Lord.

Your position...says that my Child without a doubt is LOST until a defining profession. Who is to say when the Lord actually gives a Child a new heart? *WARNING DAD BRAG*:My youngest daughter (4) is already showing signs of conviction..of being able to recognize right & wrong according to God's word...she already sings her own imaginative songs about honoring the Lord and asking for forgiveness. She knows the answer to 44 catechism questions! Who am I to say she is a heathen..when she already demonstrates in small sweet ways that the Lord is molding her heart.

This past Mother's Day..she actually corrected my own mother and said "Gi Gi today is not Mother's Day, it's the Lord's Day"...haha (she be hardcore) *END OF DAD BRAG*

Now I don't know if she has experienced the "New Birth", but I will presume her to be a Child of God (because of God's promises) until she proves otherwise by her fruit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> o, those who have really been redeemed and saved are included in the NC.



So, you can see that the sign is placed without any proof of those people actually being:


> its outworking would be those who are in truth the redeemed of the Lord.



Do you see the contradiction???


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I just would see it as a definite work done for one who has confessed Jesus is Lord now.



U mean like, Demas, Annanias, Saphira and Simon magus???



> What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?



http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

If you are consistent, you will see in gen 17 that to forsake placing the sign of covenant upon your seed, they are 'cut-off'.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> While Baptism is not essential for SALVATION it is essential to CHRISTIANITY. David covenant signs are of upmost importance to Christianity......this is how God relates to us...this is how God reminds us of his promises! Rainbows, Circumcisions, Baptisms! Surely you see this brother.
> 
> 
> Well for one there is *obedience* and spiritual blessings mentioned in Proverbs (as one example) in following the precepts of the Lord.
> ...


There will be those holding to both sides in this discussion until the Second Coming happens, and I feel comfortable in allowing for those differences to remain among us, as we are still one in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> you mean like, Demas, Annanias, Saphira and Simon magus???
> 
> What spiritual benefits does a baptized baby have from God that a non baptized infant being raised up in a Bible teaching church assemble not have?
> 
> ...


We are now a new and better Covenant, as per Hebrews though.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We are now a new and better Covenant, as per Hebrews though.



Hebrews was comparing the old covenant (covenant of works) with the Covenant of Grace.

For example: Moses et. al. were saved by the (n)ew Covenant.

Heb 7:19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope _did_; by the which we draw nigh unto God.


*Hebrews 7:19 *
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope _did_; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

*Hebrews 9:22 *

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

*Hebrews 10:1 *

For the law having a shadow of good things to come, _and_ not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Hebrews was comparing the old covenant (covenant of works) with the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> For example: Moses et. al. were saved by the (n)ew Covenant.
> 
> ...


The Old Covenant was until the time of Jesus, as John the Baptist was the last prophet under the OC .


----------



## timfost (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Old Covenant was until the time of Jesus, as John the Baptist was the last prophet under the OC .



David, do you know how Demas, Annanias, Saphira and Simon magus fit into a biblical timeline? All Scott is saying is that these people had NC baptisms, yet were showing by their works to be unbelievers.

Baptists admit that they sometimes do baptize unregenerate people. Even from a Baptist point of view, baptizing anyone necessitates some charity of assumption-- the assumption that they are actually regenerate and their words are sincere.

Why not assume a judgment of charity to the children of believers? Are they not part of the household?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Again, why do we not see any mass baptisms of already circumcised Jews, prior to the 1st century church?


Are you not counting John the Baptist's work, when multitudes went to be baptized of him?

But to your OP, certainly culture must be taken into account when reading Scripture--but we must also admit that we have no real context for understanding exactly what a 1st century Jew would have thought or felt. At best we can collate all the available data and make an educated guess, which at this far remove of time and with all our cultural prejudices and preconceived notions I wouldn't hang a great amount of weight on.
Even so, we can argue that the 1st century Jew would have understood that with the change of covenant terms, and the change of covenant sign (by the way, wasn't it some years before Paul would mention that circumcision and baptism are similar? Why do we assume that it was obvious at Pentecost?), there would also be a change to the application of the sign. Since unlike Old Covenant inclusion, New Covenant inclusion wasn't merely by being born, the early church Jew would have seen and understood: "Here is a better thing: eternal life offered clearly, not in shadow; New Birth the entrance into the people of God, not just physical birth; physical ancestry not meaning anything (think not to say to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father') compared to spiritual ancestry."
It is just because of their cultural and religious context that the believing Jew would have seen and understood the change of sign from only males physically born to all people spiritually born. I believe they would have seen the comparisons and contrasts between the OT people of God and the better thing that they were typifying--the NT people of God, or should I say the true people of God in all times: those who are circumcised in heart.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> We are now a new and better Covenant, as per Hebrews though.



U do understand that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had the same benefits we partake of in this 'new' age? 


*Philippians 3:9 *

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 

Everyone, outside of Christ remains in the C of Works. What Paul is saying above is that all those people who remain in the C of W's are living by the law, having 'their own righteousness', which is faulty-even to their damnation. The writers who cite the law and contrast it to the new are contrasting law keeping and personal works vs justification by faith alone. It couldn't be anything else. The New Covenant is better! However, that 'better' is witnessed by everyone who fall under the gospel and embrace Christ-this to include Abraham, Isaac and Jacob! 

When Christ said, 'it is finished', He was referring to the work he was sent to accomplish on the part of the elect. This work, dates all the way back to Gen 3.
The New Covenant and the C of grace, (in my opinion) are synonymous in many ways; In time, it is a dispensation that occurs at Christs resurrection and the consummation is completed.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

timfost said:


> Why not assume a judgment of charity to the children of believers? Are they not part of the household?


Because Baptists see no warrant to assume anything of their children but what God declares: that they were shapen in iniquity; that they are sinners and under the wrath of God unless and until He is pleased to give them new hearts. Their parent's salvation does not save them! It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.
It has even been argued by Baptists that assuming the child's regeneration breeds presumption. And presuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Why do we assume that it was obvious at Pentecost?



Hey Ben 
I am not assuming that at all. In fact, just the opposite. The transition I speak of took much time and diligence.



Ben Zartman said:


> "Here is a better thing: eternal life offered clearly, not in shadow; New Birth the entrance into the people of God, not just physical birth; physical ancestry not meaning anything (think not to say to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father') compared to spiritual ancestry."



Disagree. Israel was a country of covenanting w/ God. God remains a God of covenant, no matter how many credo's claim otherwise. The scriptures are one book. We see no abrogation of signage. No covenant is abrogated.



Ben Zartman said:


> t is just because of their cultural and religious context that the believing Jew would have seen and understood the change of sign from only males physically born to all people spiritually born. I believe they would have seen the comparisons and contrasts between the OT people of God and the better thing that they were typifying--the NT people of God, or should I say the true people of God in all times: those who are circumcised in heart.



Ben,
But this is no different in any epoch of the gospel! What you are saying above was just as valid for the OT saint as the New.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> He is pleased to give them new hearts.



An old testament concept!



Ben Zartman said:


> Their parent's salvation does not save them!



An Old testament concept. Salvation never came through familial lineage!



Ben Zartman said:


> And presuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.



U mean like how all credo's baptize confessors by 'presumption' and some fall away???


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Are you not counting John the Baptist's work, when multitudes went to be baptized of him?



John's baptism wasn't a Christian baptism, but washings....

The charge that "if John’s baptism was not Christian, then all the people John baptized would then need to be actually baptized for the first time" is flawed in that all of these people already had the sign in their flesh already-unless of course you are prepared to say that the sign of the OT was less than efficacious and now invalid. If so, where are the mass baptisms in the NT transitioning all believing Jews? yes, we have Pentecost as an example, but thats just 3k souls who agreed to submit, given the event. But there has to be a transition period. A grandfathering in of those who had the sign already.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2018/04/a-bit-on-john-the-baptist/


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 18, 2018)

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/11/immersion-baths-were-typical-for-jews-in-christs-day/


----------



## timfost (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Because Baptists see no warrant to assume anything of their children but what God declares: that they were shapen in iniquity; that they are sinners and under the wrath of God unless and until He is pleased to give them new hearts. Their parent's salvation does not save them! It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.
> It has even been argued by Baptists that assuming the child's regeneration breeds presumption. And presuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.



My children are holy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Because Baptists see no warrant to assume anything of their children but what God declares: that they were shapen in iniquity; that they are sinners and under the wrath of God unless and until He is pleased to give them new hearts. Their parent's salvation does not save them! It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.
> It has even been argued by Baptists that assuming the child's regeneration breeds presumption. And presuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.


 Not quite. The letter to the corinthians does make mention of the children of believers being holy (set apart) as opposed to unclean.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> But to your OP, certainly culture must be taken into account when reading Scripture--but we must also admit that we have no real context for understanding exactly what a 1st century Jew would have thought or felt. At best we can collate all the available data and make an educated guess, which at this far remove of time and with all our cultural prejudices and preconceived notions I wouldn't hang a great amount of weight on.



For 2,000 years, entrance into the congregation of the LORD was marked by the sign of circumcision based on the headship principle. That carries a lot of weight. If the method of applying the sign of entrance into the LORD's people changed (i.e. if headship rule does not apply), then the Jews would certainly need to be told this - otherwise, we should not assume that God would operate differently.



Ben Zartman said:


> *Since unlike Old Covenant inclusion, New Covenant inclusion wasn't merely by being born*, the early church Jew would have seen and understood: "Here is a better thing: eternal life offered clearly, not in shadow; New Birth the entrance into the people of God, not just physical birth; physical ancestry not meaning anything (think not to say to yourselves 'we have Abraham for our father') compared to spiritual ancestry."



Neither was this the case in the old testament. The requirement to truly be "in covenant" with God (internally) has always, and will always be _by faith_. This is why Paul says "a Jew is not one who is one outwardly, but who is one inwardly", and why repeatedly in the OT the prophets exhort the people to "circumcise their hearts". Without faith, they were simply under the external administration of the covenant, but were not truly united to Christ. 

The congregation of Israel in the OT is simply the visible church pre-Christ. This church was a mixed bag of true believers and false professors. This is the same with the church today - it is a mixed bag.

An OT Jew who was spiritually minded would understand that God's covenant went far beyond the _types and shadows_ of the various ceremonies, and even of the promised land itself. As we read in Hebrews, Abraham looked toward a heavenly Canaan, a better land, a city whose builder and maker is God. And David realized that sacrifices were not sufficient, but a broken and a contrite heart is what God requires. 

The basic point is this: The real substance of the covenant has always been spiritual in nature, and obtained through faith. The basic promise of the covenant is this: "I will be your God and you will be my people". This is the echo that rings throughout the entire Bible.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Disagree. Israel was a country of covenanting w/ God. God remains a God of covenant, no matter how many credo's claim otherwise. The scriptures are one book. We see no abrogation of signage. No covenant is abrogated.


Hebrews 8 speaks of Jesus mediating a better covenant, founded on better promises. Then it talks about the old one being replaced, ready to vanish away. Perhaps you are using the word "abrogated" differently than I do.
But I don't claim that God isn't a God of covenant. The old covenant served as an imperfect picture of the glory that Messiah would usher in with the institution of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant is the full glory of the types and shadows of the old. Circumcision was a sign of something less than perfect: physical birth. That sign is abrogated, by which I mean, we no longer use that sign. Baptism is the sign of something perfect: God's work of grace in the believer's heart. Circumcision served it's purpose of typifying something better and is now gone, just like the sacrifices have served their purpose of typifying something better that has come. They are also abrogated.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Not quite. The letter to the corinthians does make mention of the children of believers being holy (set apart) as opposed to unclean.


Do you think that it means that all children of believers are automatically regenerate? If not, then it has to mean something else.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Hebrews 8 speaks of Jesus mediating a better covenant, founded on better promises. Then it talks about the old one being replaced, ready to vanish away. Perhaps you are using the word "abrogated" differently than I do.
> But I don't claim that God isn't a God of covenant. The old covenant served as an imperfect picture of the glory that Messiah would usher in with the institution of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant is the full glory of the types and shadows of the old. Circumcision was a sign of something less than perfect: physical birth. That sign is abrogated, by which I mean, we no longer use that sign. Baptism is the sign of something perfect: God's work of grace in the believer's heart. Circumcision served it's purpose of typifying something better and is now gone, just like the sacrifices have served their purpose of typifying something better that has come. They are also abrogated.



The NC is contrasted to the Mosaic Covenant - Not the Abrahamic Covenant.

The sign of the Mosaic covenant was not circumcision but rather the various Sabbaths.

The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary covenant - the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant.

The NC is certainly superior than the Mosaic Covenant.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

De Jager said:


> For 2,000 years, entrance into the congregation of the LORD was marked by the sign of circumcision based on the headship principle. That carries a lot of weight. If the method of applying the sign of entrance into the LORD's people changed (i.e. if headship rule does not apply), then the Jews would certainly need to be told this - otherwise, we should not assume that God would operate differently.


Please tell me what John the Baptist meant when he said to the Pharisees that headship did not matter.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Please tell me what John the Baptist meant when he said to the Pharisees that headship did not matter.



I'm not sure what verse you're referring to, and it doesn't really matter, because John's baptism is not the same as Christian baptism.

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance to prepare the people to receive the Messiah. It is not the same as Christian baptism, instituted by Christ. Just because something uses the word "baptism", doesn't make it the same - there are various "baptisms" spoken of in Hebrews, those weren't Christian baptisms either.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Do you think that it means that all children of believers are automatically regenerate? If not, then it has to mean something else.


No. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. I think it means our children are set apart and should be included in the visible outward covenant community. So how else do we show that other than by the only way God has shown us...... applying the covenant sign.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> John's baptism wasn't a Christian baptism, but washings....
> 
> The charge that "if John’s baptism was not Christian, then all the people John baptized would then need to be actually baptized for the first time" is flawed in that all of these people already had the sign in their flesh already-unless of course you are prepared to say that the sign of the OT was less than efficacious and now invalid. If so, where are the mass baptisms in the NT transitioning all believing Jews? yes, we have Pentecost as an example, but thats just 3k souls who agreed to submit, given the event. But there has to be a transition period. A grandfathering in of those who had the sign already.


We have no reason to think that all Jews who were converted were not then baptized, especially since the sign in their flesh was not and had never been efficacious--it was a sign, just like baptism, which is also efficacious for nothing: it is only an outward sign of something else done in the heart.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

De Jager said:


> I'm not sure what verse you're referring to, and it doesn't really matter, because John's baptism is not the same as Christian baptism.
> 
> John's baptism was a baptism of repentance to prepare the people to receive the Messiah. It is not the same as Christian baptism, instituted by Christ. Just because something uses the word "baptism", doesn't make it the same - there are various "baptisms" spoken of in Hebrews, those weren't Christian baptisms either.


"Think not to say to yourselves: 'We have Abraham for our father'..." It matters because John was telling the Pharisees that being physically descended from Abraham did not guarantee them salvation. In other words, their headship did nothing to remove from them their sins. To be truly like Abraham, in the way that really mattered (in the only way that has ever mattered, in fact), they needed to be regenerated.
We too must become sons of Abraham--not physically, by having Jewish parents or some bloody proselyting rite, but by having faith like Abraham did, and becoming his spiritual descendants. It comes about not by who are parents are or were, but by what God does in our hearts.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

De Jager said:


> The NC is contrasted to the Mosaic Covenant - Not the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The sign of the Mosaic covenant was not circumcision but rather the various Sabbaths.
> 
> ...


Was everyone who was in the Abrahamic covenant regenerate? Clearly not: Esau was in it. What do you mean then by "eternal covenant?" What are the benefits of being in an eternal covenant without being regenerated?
The New Covenant is the fulfilment and full glory of the Abrahamic covenant. Hebrews 6 and 7 speak of Christ and of Abraham, and of how Christ is greater than Abraham: Christ was to bring something better than Abraham brought.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> "Think not to say to yourselves: 'We have Abraham for our father'..." It matters because John was telling the Pharisees that being physically descended from Abraham did not guarantee them salvation. In other words, their headship did nothing to remove from them their sins. To be truly like Abraham, in the way that really mattered (in the only way that has ever mattered, in fact), they needed to be regenerated.
> We too must become sons of Abraham--not physically, by having Jewish parents or some bloody proselyting rite, but by having faith like Abraham did, and becoming his spiritual descendants. It comes about not by who are parents are or were, but by what God does in our hearts.



That's not what we mean by headship. The headship principle is simply a way of describing how the covenant sign was applied. We see this in Gen. 17 - when Abraham's household was circumcised due to the _real faith_ of Abraham. Faith absolutely must be present. If faith is not present, then it is really a sham ceremony - and this is what we see in liberal "reformed" churches today - parents who don't even really believe applying a sign to their children.

There's absolutely no argument against what you are saying about needing to be "real" sons of Abraham - that is essential. Of course, circumcision always pointed to that as well - that is why we are told in Rom. 4:11 that Abraham was circumcised as a sign and seal of his faith. What we are shown in Gen. 17 is that also his whole house received the sign _because of HIS faith. _That is the headship principle we are talking about - and it is entirely biblical.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> No. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. I think it means our children are set apart and should be included in the visible outward covenant community. So how else do we show that other than by the only way God has shown us...... applying the covenant sign.


Then we agree on the principal point, and only disagree on the secondary issue of covenant inclusion.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Was everyone who was in the Abrahamic covenant regenerate? Clearly not: Esau was in it. What do you mean then by "eternal covenant?" What are the benefits of being in an eternal covenant without being regenerated?
> The New Covenant is the fulfilment and full glory of the Abrahamic covenant. Hebrews 6 and 7 speak of Christ and of Abraham, and of how Christ is greater than Abraham: Christ was to bring something better than Abraham brought.



Clearly there are many and were many people who were simply outward members and never received the fullness of the promises made to Abraham. Esau certainly is an example of that. No paedobaptist would ever argue otherwise. However, there are true spiritual blessings that come even from being only in outward participation in the covenant - for example, you get to hear the word preached. You are "closer" as it were, to salvation. As we know, faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the word of God. Therefore, anyone born in a covenant household is at a great advantage (See Romans 3:1-3) and reaps real spiritual benefits of the covenant of grace. Some lay hold of God in faith and make use of those benefits (of course by the work of the Holy Spirit), while some do not.

I will have to look at Heb. 6 and 7 closer and get back to you, I don't have time tonight.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 18, 2018)

De Jager said:


> There's absolutely no argument against what you are saying about needing to be "real" sons of Abraham - that is essential. Of course, circumcision always pointed to that as well - that is why we are told in Rom. 4:11 that Abraham was circumcised as a sign and seal of his faith. What we are shown in Gen. 17 is that also his whole house received the sign _because of HIS faith. _That is the headship principle we are talking about - and it is entirely biblical.


We Baptists contend that that headship principle was only for the pre-messianic time, and that time is no longer. It is too late at night to hash that all out again. I wish you a good night.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 18, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> We Baptists contend that that headship principle was only for the pre-messianic time, and that time is no longer. It is too late at night to hash that all out again. I wish you a good night.



It is indeed too late, but the presence of household baptisms in the NT, following the 2,000 year history of the Jews would seem to argue otherwise. 

Good night good sir.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 19, 2018)

To me, one of the saddest and most disturbing aspects of credobaptist theology is the necessity of a profession in order to receive the covenant sign. Are all presumed unregenerate without the profession? Not only are children excluded, but also, necessarily, the mentally disabled.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 19, 2018)

De Jager said:


> It is indeed too late, but the presence of household baptisms in the NT, following the 2,000 year history of the Jews would seem to argue otherwise.
> 
> Good night good sir.


As you know, we find that those several vague "and his house" references, which never mention any children, are too fragile a peg to hand such weighty matters on, especially when the entire preponderance of what the old covenant was leading up to and what the new covenant sign means signals otherwise. However, further debate is probably fruitless, since after four-odd centuries of it out two camps still exist.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> As you know, we find that those several vague "and his house" references, which never mention any children, are too fragile a peg to hand such weighty matters on...



Actually, it doesn’t matter at all if “household” included children or infants or not. I don’t know why some of us paedobaptists keep making that argument. The reality is that if a household baptism included even one person—whether child or adult—who did not make a confession of faith, our case is made. To me, Acts 16:34 at the very least (depending on how you translate it) seems to indicate that this occurred since the household seemed to be baptized on the basis of the head’s faith, not everyone’s.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 19, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> To me, one of the saddest and most disturbing aspects of credobaptist theology is the necessity of a profession in order to receive the covenant sign. Are all presumed unregenrate without the profession? Not only are children excluded, but also, necessarily, the mentally disabled.


Tom, do you believe that the children of believers are born already regenerate? If so, why?
If it's "because God promised it," what do we say of those who turn out clearly to have been unregenerate? Does God's promise fail? Absurd. He simply never promised that.
The doctrine of original sin shows that all indeed are to be presumed unregenerate until it is shown otherwise. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a necessary judicial notion when fallible human judges are involved. Before the Righteous Judge, all mankind is indeed guilty until declared innocent. The Bible clearly teaches that (As in Adam all sinned; death passed unto all men, for that all have sinned; there is none good, no, not one, etc).
Because it is neither the profession nor the sign that saves, even if they die unbaptized, all the elect, be they unborn children, infants, the mentally disabled, or thieves on crosses, are still received into glory. The sign does nothing to recommend them to God; it is a visible thing for the people around (and for them). So be comforted, knowing that no failure of men in discerning the state of man's heart can impede his salvation, which is a sovereign work of God alone.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 19, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Actually, it doesn’t matter at all if “household” included children or infants or not. I don’t know why some of us paedobaptists keep making that argument. The reality is that if a household baptism included even one person—whether child or adult—who did not make a confession of faith, our case is made. To me, Acts 16:34 at the very least (depending on how you translate it) seems to indicate that this occurred since the household seemed to be baptized on the basis of the head’s faith, not everyone’s.


Or maybe God poured out His Spirit in an extraordinary way (those were extraordinary days, after all), and saved them all then and there, just like He saved thousands at one moment on Pentecost. Does that seem unlikely to you? With God, all things are possible.
Funny thing, the Ethiopian Eunuch didn't take his whole retinue into the water, even though they were his servants--in other words, under his headship.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Or maybe God poured out His Spirit in an extraordinary way (those were extraordinary days, after all), and saved them all then and there, just like He saved thousands at one moment on Pentecost. Does that seem unlikely to you? With God, all things are possible.



All I am saying is that our position, at minimum, doesn’t go _against_ the text.



Ben Zartman said:


> Funny thing, the Ethiopian Eunuch didn't take his whole retinue into the water, even though they were his servants--in other words, under his headship.



Again, as you just pointed out in your first paragraph, just because it wasn’t recorded doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That’s my whole point: we need to be fair in our handling of what the text says and does not say, as well as our conclusions based upon those facts. We can’t change our demands of the text in the middle of our argument, as I think you’ve done here. For Acts 16:34, you said, “Well, the mass conversion _could_ have happened, although not recorded.” But then you bring up the eunuch and say, “See, no mass baptism was recorded, and therefore didn’t happen!” This seems unfair to me.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> It is neither the profession nor the sign that saves, even if they die unbaptized, all the elect, be they unborn children, infants, the mentally disabled, or thieves on crosses, are still received into glory. The sign does nothing to recommend them to God... So be comforted, knowing that no failure of men in discerning the state of man's heart can impede his salvation, which is a sovereign work of God alone.



Considering your own words, I do not see how it follows that we should deny the sign of the covenant to children or those incapable of making a profession. You have effectively admitted that there are some who belong to the covenant whom you would bar from baptism. Is that not a sad thing?


----------



## De Jager (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> As you know, we find that those several vague "and his house" references, which never mention any children, are too fragile a peg to hand such weighty matters on, especially when the entire preponderance of what the old covenant was leading up to and what the new covenant sign means signals otherwise. However, further debate is probably fruitless, since after four-odd centuries of it out two camps still exist.



God's word is not vague and he does not provide frivolous details.

The Holy Spirit made sure we have the account of household baptisms for a good reason.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Funny thing, the Ethiopian Eunuch didn't take his whole retinue into the water, even though they were his servants--in other words, under his headship.



I would doubt that the E. Eunuch owned these slaves; hence, it would have been out of his position to do what u are suggesting. He was essentially, their boss-man.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Tom, do you believe that the children of believers are born already regenerate? If so, why?
> If it's "because God promised it," what do we say of those who turn out clearly to have been unregenerate?



God forbid, God lies! The creature is to believe God. Any deficiencies, fall to the creature.




Ben Zartman said:


> The doctrine of original sin shows that all indeed are to be presumed unregenerate until it is shown otherwise. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a necessary judicial notion when fallible human judges are involved.



Do u really think that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob didn't understand this concept???



Ben Zartman said:


> The sign does nothing to recommend them to God



Wrong. See Gen 17. 

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/


----------



## timfost (Oct 19, 2018)

I think Rom. 3:1-3 is instructive:

"What advantage then has the Jew, or what _is_ the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!"

The promises of God are voided through unbelief. This has not changed from OT to NT. Believers were always children of Abraham by faith, _though this did not exclude the physical sign_. Is this faith of a different quality than the Heb. 8 "better covenant"?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 19, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> Baptists see no warrant to assume anything of their children but what God declares: that they were shapen in iniquity; that they are sinners and under the wrath of God unless and until He is pleased to give them new hearts.



What God declares is that the promise is "unto you, and to your children..." (Acts 2:39).



Ben Zartman said:


> Their parent's salvation does not save them!



Has it been suggested that it does? Even so, it cannot be denied that a great part of those in the household of faith come from parents of the same.



Ben Zartman said:


> It is not uncharitable to believe what God declares to be true of everyone that is in Adam--it is simply the reality.



Are you to bring your child to church? Are you to pray with him? Can your child, really, call God "Father"? Is not that "presumption"?



Ben Zartman said:


> [P]resuming them regenerate until they prove to be otherwise (and do they not go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies?) is a dangerous and unbiblical assumption.



A child telling lies is not necessarily "going astray", although it is an indication of a sinful nature. If, for example, my son's temper tantrums mean that he's probably not regenerate, then so should his father's innumerable sins consign him as well to unregenerate status. (The difference to a credobaptist, I suppose, is that credible profession. I have made one, but my son, at thirty months, has not.)


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 19, 2018)

Serious question: If we are to presume that a child of believing parents is unregenerate, and that child dies in infancy, do we likewise presume that that child is in hell? (David did not: 2 Sam. 12:23.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 19, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> Serious question: If we are to presume that a child of believing parents is unregenerate, and that child dies in infancy, do we likewise presume that that child is in hell? (David did not: 2 Sam. 12:23.)


Let's not derail this discussion with other questions. This belongs in another discussion thread. It would be better to stick to the main topic of the original post, the Jewish cultural context in which the commands for baptism were given, and what relevance it would have on exegesis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 19, 2018)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Let's not derail this discussion with other questions. This belongs in another discussion thread. It would be better to stick to the main topic of the original post, the Jewish cultural context in which the commands for baptism were given, and what relevance it would have on exegesis.



"Presumption" has been brought up a few times already, and I am seeking clarification. However, you're quite right that my questions have strayed somewhat from the OP.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 19, 2018)

*Moderating.* Head back to the topic of the OP and start a new thread. I'm not going to move posts so reference any relevant posts made here in any new thread.


Puritan Sailor said:


> Let's not derail this discussion with other questions. This belongs in another discussion thread. It would be better to stick to the main topic of the original post, the Jewish cultural context in which the commands for baptism were given, and what relevance it would have on exegesis.





Tom Hart said:


> "Presumption" has been brought up a few times already, and I am seeking clarification. However, you're quite right that my questions have strayed somewhat from the OP.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 19, 2018)

timfost said:


> I think Rom. 3:1-3 is instructive:
> 
> "What advantage then has the Jew, or what _is_ the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!"
> 
> The promises of God are voided through unbelief. This has not changed from OT to NT. Believers were always children of Abraham by faith, _though this did not exclude the physical sign_. Is this faith of a different quality than the Heb. 8 "better covenant"?


I think I can interact with this reply without diverging from the OP. As for the off-topic interactions with my posts from other respondents, I'll have to let those alone for now. But these very questions have been discussed in detail in recent threads, and I'll be most happy to discuss them again in a more appropriate spot.
Now to the point: you're right that believers were always Abraham's children by faith, but they had something more than just the circumcision of the flesh--they were circumcised where it really mattered: in their hearts. I believe that 1st century Christian Jews would have seen that very fact, looking back over their long history of hardness of heart even while being circumcised in their flesh, and realized that this New Covenant was not for a people born of physical lineage, but for a people born anew of spiritual lineage. Their cultural reality would have made them understand it better: "So that's what circumcision was pointing to! This new and better sign that is applied to those who by faith have entered Abraham's spiritual family!"
No doubt all Presbyterians will disagree with this assessment, but that is my view, for what it's worth...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 20, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> "So that's what circumcision was pointing to! This new and better sign that is applied to those who by faith have entered Abraham's spiritual family!"



Ben,
But many of your confessors sign is placed erroneously, given your criteria. I am not surprised by your response; What I am surprised by however is how all credo's refuse to acknowledge their presumption when it comes to placing water on anyone! I was a credo for a good portion of my walk and I know that there has been a large number of confessors whom were baptized and yet, now no longer walk with the Lord. Admit it. Your protocol is no better than ours. It has proven to be deficient. At least we are following a OT principle that God approved and we have one benefit over yours in that we DO see our children as (h)oly, officially set-apart for the services of God, approved of God (in this regard).


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 21, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> Ben,
> But many of your confessors sign is placed erroneously, given your criteria. I am not surprised by your response; What I am surprised by however is how all credo's refuse to acknowledge their presumption when it comes to placing water on anyone! I was a credo for a good portion of my walk and I know that there has been a large number of confessors whom were baptized and yet, now no longer walk with the Lord. Admit it. Your protocol is no better than ours. It has proven to be deficient. At least we are following a OT principle that God approved and we have one benefit over yours in that we DO see our children as (h)oly, officially set-apart for the services of God, approved of God (in this regard).


I freely admit that many false confessors are baptized. After all, it's human elders who make the judgment of whether to baptize or not, and humans are fallible. But to throw out the entire witness of Scripture about baptism simply because of some irregularities would be like not bothering to close the door because some thieves jump over the wall. Would you no longer fence the Table because you knew that someone unworthy was sneaking the cup? Ridiculous. So likewise the visible church strives to administer all things correctly, knowing that some irregularities are inevitable; knowing even that wolves will arise in sheep's clothing (should we not bother vetting ministers because some wolves are bound to get it anyway?).
All of this does not get sorted out in this life: it will be revealed at the great assize, when Christ will separate the sheep from the goats.
To your last sentence, what good are any benefits if they are only imagined in your head? My children are also (h)oly, in whatever sense Paul was speaking of to the Corinthians, but we know that does not mean: Automatically Saved. Whatever sentimental notions surround paedobaptism, whatever pathos other respondents see in credobaptism, however shocking it may be to some that credos regard their children as sinners deserving of judgment and needy of mercy, none of this changes the facts. If you argue for paedobaptism because you find it more warm, more touching, more comforting, it means you are out of arguments from Scripture. There are many who find Universalism more appealing to their understanding--too bad: it's false. Don't let your emotions and your longings get in the way of God's truth.


----------



## Tom Hart (Oct 21, 2018)

Ben Zartman said:


> What good are any benefits if they are only imagined in your head?



They are not merely imagined, whatever you may think.



Ben Zartman said:


> However shocking it may be to some that credos regard their children as sinners deserving of judgment and needy of mercy...



Paedobaptists would not deny that their children are sinners, of course.



Ben Zartman said:


> If you argue for paedobaptism because you find it more warm, more touching, more comforting, it means you are out of arguments from Scripture.



That's not the argument at all.



Ben Zartman said:


> There are many who find Universalism more appealing to their understanding--too bad: it's false. Don't let your emotions and your longings get in the way of God's truth.



Ridiculous.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## timfost (Oct 21, 2018)

Ben,

I've appreciate your concern for our convictions. I feel like I understand where you're coming from as I have dear Christian family members who share your conviction on this matter.

I don't think this thread is likely to change your mind on the matter, nor is it likely to change ours.

Before leaving the conversation, however, I just want to tell you three of the practical things that my view of baptism have in my life.

1. Seeing the continuity between God's relationship to His covenant people through the course of the entire Bible, I'm confident that He will not let my children go (even if they leave the faith), but will keep calling them to repentance be as He did the Jews. My covenant children have a real advantage being in the covenant as the Jews did.

2. Though I wouldn't invite someone to pray in my home that I regarded as an unbeliever, I frequently ask my children to pray-- even the three-year-old-- since I regard them as believers in the covenant (the visible church). I don't regard her as a lost soul born in sin. Likely, many of our covenant children will never know a time when they weren't saved, and I'm thankful they will also never know a time that I treated them as unbelievers (unless in time they demonstrate unbelief).

3. I either assume that they are saved or that they are unsaved. Either way, I make an assumption. I would rather make a charitable assumption than a non-charitable assumption, since they are considered holy by God.

Again, I'm not saying this to convince you, but I thought leaving on this note might sum up our perspective practically on the continuity we understand through the millennia on God's dealing with His people.

Blessings,

Tim

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 21, 2018)

timfost said:


> ...this note might sum up our perspective practically...



Amen. And this is not the same thing as arguing from emotion, sentiment, or pragmatics.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Oct 21, 2018)

timfost said:


> Ben,
> 
> I've appreciate your concern for our convictions. I feel like I understand where you're coming from as I have dear Christian family members who share your conviction on this matter.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Tim,
Naturally, I disagree. We could keep slugging at each other about this, but it would probably be to the profit of no one. I do have a far better grasp of what my paedo friends believe and why they do so than I had some months ago, and even much sympathy for the position, even if I can't with good conscience get behind it.
I will say this one final thing: simply because baptists regard their children as sinners needing salvation doesn't mean we don't take them to church, or teach them about God, or duty, or make them memorize scripture and be catechized. We do all those things: we seek with God's help to train them up in the way they should go, and more than all else, we pray for them. Because at the end of the day, their salvation is in God's hands. If they are elect, they will surely be saved--ours are the means, God's is the effectual calling. I suspect that among confessional baptists the means I mentioned are used with as much diligence as among most Prebyterians. If it is an error to delay baptism, surely man's error cannot frustrate God's grace; if it is an error to baptize infants, He will still give those that are elect repentance and faith in due season.
God bless you, and I hope we can have many more fruitful interactions in future.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------

