# Give me one positive command to baptize infants please



## 44jason

Randy, thanks. 
Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.

You said:


> Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.



Give me one, please. Thanks.

{ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}


----------



## Contra_Mundum

44jason said:


> Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one, please. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Suuuuuure. I'll bite. It's fun.
(although, as you surely would agree, basing a doctrine or practice on a *single* verse is well-nigh impossible, and where it is done, is often wrong--like taking 1 Cor. 15:29 for justification of certain modern cultic baptismal practice.)

Gen. 17:10 is in the imperative mood.

Now, perhaps you will indulge my request: "can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize" upon profession only?


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one, please. Thanks.
Click to expand...


1) Can we have one Scripture verse that commands non-prophets, non-apostles, or non-miracle workers to properly administer baptism? Why does he think it's proper for him to administer baptism, then?

2) Can we have one verse that commands women to take the Lord supper?

3) And, the women in Jason's church (and many other baptists) don't wear head-covers, but he doesn't let the command to wear them stand in his way. Responses to this argument are not so easy to be demonstarted for either side. Minds like R.C. Sproul believe that women are commanded to wear head covers. Thus we see that both sides interpret explicit commands according to prior theological conviction. (And, when I saw him last Sunday he didn't kiss me, but he's "commanded to." 

Besides that,

4) There is not one command in the Bible that says we are to baptize professing believers alone.

5) And, for my positive command, we are to make disciples of all the nations by baptizing and teaching them. I, just like Abraham and the Ephesian fathers before me, aim to disicple my children from birth.

6) And, if I had a "command" to baptize infants, why would that convincve the baptist? Maybe the apostle was just saying to baptize "infants in the faith?" Why couldn't I spiritualize those texts like the Baptist seems to do with so many others? So, I don't even think a command to baptize infants would convince baptists, given other arguments they make, that is.



> Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.



Acts 8:14Now when(V) the apostles at Jerusalem heard that(W) Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15who came down and prayed for them(X) that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16for(Y) he had not yet(Z) fallen on any of them, but(AA) they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then(AB) they laid their hands on them and(AC) they received the Holy Spirit.

So, these apostles knew that philip had baptized these samaritans (after all, that's the main reason they commissioned him!). But, according to Jason and Gene (and men like Schreiner in "Believer's Baptism") to ask "were you baptized with water or the spirit?" would get the response "what do you mean, there's a difference?" But, Acts 8 teaches that this was not the case. Indeed, why did the Apostles need to go to Philip? They knew these men had been baptized, so didn't they just automatically believe that they were converted (i.e., had the spirit?)

Oh, and the above argument of mine is backed up by _Baptist_ Ben Witherington III in his book _Troubled Waters_, so it's not just a paedo point.


----------



## Jim Johnston

I should also point out the ambiguity involved in asking for a "command." Can a "command" be drawn by inference, or does it need to be explicitly stated? The latter can't be upheld, and the former is what we paedos have been saying we have - whether we've convinced anyone is another matter all together. But, make no mistake, given a proper and logically coherent view of "commands," us paedos believe that Scripture "commands" us to baptize our children.

Malone states,

_“This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.”_

Therefore since “the sacraments” which “baptism” is one of is part of “instituted worship” then we must have a “command” telling us to baptize infants. There are a couple things to say in response:

How should we understand scriptural “commands?” Malone seems to suggest that Scripture can only “command” something if it is “explicitly stated” in Scripture. Thus he argues, “Infants are included only by ‘good and necessary consequence,’ a normative addition which is never commanded in the Bible. The practice of baptizing babies violates the regulative principle.” Now, it is important to remember that Malone says Presbyterians have an internal inconsistency with what theor confession states and what they practice by way of infant baptism. Unfortunately for his argument, the confession nowhere uses the words “explicit” or “express” when talking about the regulative principle in XXI. I. Also we should balk at the idea that a “command” cannot be something gained by inference. Does Fred Malone believe that Scripture commands him to repent? His name is nowhere stated in Scripture, and so he makes an inference from “God commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), by adding the extra-biblical premise, “Fred Malone is a man,” and thus concluding that “Scripture commands Fred Malone to repent.” Therefore a “command” need not be “explicitly” or “expressly” stated to function as a biblical command. Reformed paedobaptist believe that they have been commanded to baptize their children, and thus are not in any obvious violation of the regulative principle. Of course if this inference is wrong, then the paedobaptist has introduced non-biblical elements into worship. But isn’t this the very debate? Thus the argument from the regulative principle must first prove that infant baptism cannot be found (implicitly or explicitly) in Scripture. But if this argument is accomplished, the added argument from the regulative principle seems a bit superfluous.

Fred Malone frequently argues that he is on better theological grounds because he (thinks) he has explicit commands telling him to baptize believers alone while paedobaptist simply have “possibly erroneous inferences.” He says that inferences are okay, as long as they don’t contradict express commands. But this is assuming he’s proven his case. Obviously I don’t think the Bible “expressly” commands that “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.” 

But, there is another assumption he makes when he implies that we cannot be mistaken about “express commands” while we can be mistaken in our “deductions.” In response to the above, Reformed Baptist Dr. Michael Sudduth comments:

_“Reason (broadly speaking) and inference in particular is utilized even at the level of arriving at the meaning expressed by the sentences written in Scripture. Hence, the distinction between "proclaimed by God" and "derived by us" is not a real distinction in epistemic fact, except for those instances when God directly communicates truth to us. But the existence of Scripture implies that this is not the norm. Divine truth is revealed to us mediately through Scripture. Hence, even though what God proclaims is not derived by us, our knowledge of what God proclaims is derived by us in most cases. This explains why solid Christians so frequently disagree about what Scripture says. _ 

[…]

_If you begin with the premise that divine revelation is objectively given in Scripture you then have to explain how subjects can know or access the objective truth. (This is just a special case of the broader epistemological problem of realism). Put otherwise, one must come to grips with the subjective conditions of accessing the objective and how this affects how the objective is perceived. The operation of reason is one of those conditions whereby we access the "objective." So when cutting down the tree of reason, we should probably consider what good fruit we are sacrificing.”_


----------



## Wannabee

Contra_Mundum said:


> Now, perhaps you will indulge my request: "can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize" upon profession only?


This really isn't doing the question justice. Remove "only" and you have a basis to start the discussion. Does Scripture command that believers be baptized? That's the place to start. 

1) Does Scripture command the baptism of believers? Verses?
2) Does Scripture command the baptism of anyone else? Verses?

This avoids the loaded question.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

No Joe. I don't mind you or Tom there chiming in. *But please don't go telling me how to frame my questions, 'kay?* I didn't challenge the question asked of me, so I thought it was fair to ask my own question.

And anyway, the "only" is exactly the baptist's position, so a) it's not "loaded", and b) your turning the question into a restatement of Jason's original question to me is pointless. Your #1 there is something that's not in dispute, so it's an uninteresting question. _That's why I didn't ask THAT question._ And #2 is just Jason's question to me in the first place. So, since I answered it already, you might have interacted with the answer I gave.

So what have you done other than tell me you don't like the way I asked my question? If I tell you green cars park in MY driveway! you can tell me that red cars park there too, and if I argue with you and point to a green car sitting there, so what? How does that affect your argument that red cars park there too?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There is no such verse commanding the baptism of infants. Paul M. mentions this in his intro to the debate I believe. But there is no direct command to baptise only professing believers also. I have never found the verse that says that. I have found verses that say Repent, believe, and be Baptised. And it seems that every person baptised in the New Testament displayed this feature as far as I understand. It seems the recipients to baptism in the New Testament were all cognizant as to display this the qualifications of Repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And as far as i understand this was the way it was for the first few hundred years of Church History. I read about this in a book called Baptism in the Early Church which was done by paedo baptist theologians.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw are *not* "paedo baptist theologians." They are credo baptists who live and work in South Africa, and are members in a paedo-baptist Reformed denomination of that part of the world.

Randy, it wouldn't be fair to call you a paedobaptist believer, just because you once were a (convinced credo-) member of a PCA church, and say that your stuff proves how open-minded some paedos can be.


----------



## MW

Paedobaptists believe in baptising believers only -- it is just that in the case of infants the wee believers can't speak for themselves, so their parents do it on their behalf. This idea, therefore, of believers only baptism, does not exclude the baptising of infants.


----------



## Wannabee

Contra_Mundum said:


> No Joe. I don't mind you or Tom there chiming in. *But please don't go telling me how to frame my questions, 'kay?* I didn't challenge the question asked of me, so I thought it was fair to ask my own question.
> 
> And anyway, the "only" is exactly the baptist's position, so a) it's not "loaded", and b) your turning the question into a restatement of Jason's original question to me is pointless. Your #1 there is something that's not in dispute, so it's an uninteresting question. _That's why I didn't ask THAT question._ And #2 is just Jason's question to me in the first place. So, since I answered it already, you might have interacted with the answer I gave.
> 
> So what have you done other than tell me you don't like the way I asked my question? If I tell you green cars park in MY driveway! you can tell me that red cars park there too, and if I argue with you and point to a green car sitting there, so what? How does that affect your argument that red cars park there too?


C'mon Bruce. this isn't entirely correct. I don't even have a red car.

Apparently I have upset you (as illustrated by the bold and italics in your comments). Please give me a chance to explain. There was more to this than simply reiterating what was already presented. #1 was supposed to be "uninteresting." My point was clarity, which you helped point out. We all agree that believers are to be baptized. We all agree that it's biblical. This simply helps clarify the discussion.
And there is a certain nuance that is missed in the way you line it up. Baptists simply claim the above, that we are to baptize believers. We follow this teaching because Scripture clearly teaches it. This is where we are still in agreement.
You added "only" though. That's not quite the right focus. Bear with me here. The point is that we are obedient to baptize believers. You are too. But we are not at liberty to do anything more because Scripture does not say to. You turn it into a negative command. The point is, there is no positive command. So, we don't need the word "only." We simply stop where Scripture stops. Scripture says no more so we need not either.
Now, for those who say I'm nit-picking, fine. But this nuance, though somewhat minor, is very important. It's along the lines of the difference between being pro-life and anti-choice. The label has some accuracy, but there is a subtleness to it that is a bit misleading. It also attempts to put the burden of proof on those who really have nothing to prove.

If my green car is parked in a spot marked for green cars then we both agree that I've parked appropriately. But if you argue that red cars can be parked there too I simply would disagree because the sign says that green cars park here. You could go on and tell me that I need to prove that the sign does not say that "only" green cars can park here. Obviously I can't. That's not what the sign says. But the burden of proof is still not mine. I can still park my green care here. But until you can prove that your red car can park there you are in error. By the way, I don't have a green car either.

As for interacting with your "proof," I can't really because I see this understanding of Gen 17:10 to be eisegetical. You know as well as I do that we can't accept circumcision to be equal with baptism. You've tried to prove it, but it just doesn't line up. And I know you think it does and that I won't change your mind. In the final analysis of our difference here the Baptist position on baptism is clear in that no one here will argue against believers' baptism. Thus, again, the burden of proof lies on those who claim that infants are to be baptized. You have admitted that no verse says that, but that it requires systematic study. I would submit that church history and tradition must also be included in the hermeneutic process that comes to this conclusion. In regard to that, Randy has an excellent point. I have this book too (_Baptism in the Early Church _by Stander and Louw).

Respectfully, 
Your brother,

Added later - I didn't see that the book had already been interacted with. I didn't know the guys were credo either. Interesting! It sure takes some of the fun out of it.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).

So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Joe (brother),
I did try to *emphasize*, but I tried not to SHOUT!

A "simple" question asked by Jason, a "simple" answer given by me. Neither he nor I are fooled by the "simplicity" of either. I expect him to come back with a bit of "rejoinder to my answer, but I don't want the conversation to all be about _making me _answer questions. So, I have one of my own for him. My "answer" requires some explanation. So will any answer he offers.

You refer to my "proof"--and I don't think you are talking about my "car" illustration, which I came up with to demonstrate that proposal A, unless it precludes proposal B (i.e. A OR B), doesn't say anything about proposal B. This is simply "talk about logic." Where is this "proof" you speak of, and what does it concern? I don't recall offering any, nor any arguments. I just answered a simple question with a simple answer.

Telling me I have a burden is fine, something I never denied having.
Telling me you don't have a burden? nothing to prove? that its all mine? I don't think so. And I'm not alone.

Be that as it may, you know as well as I that people do things for "reasons". There are "reasons" for baptizing believers infants. If you just say, "you have no biblical reasons" after you have been given "biblical reasons", instead of _refuting_ the reasons given, that is not effective and convincing; it is merely _dismissive_. If there is substance to what you are dismissing, you are going to lose people's interest.

So, of course you have your own burden, the burden created once I or anyone suggested that there might be another category of persons who ought to be baptized that were not all part of the first identification. This is not a "prove the negative" question in the least. It is "disprove what has been claimed." You don't have some open-ended battle to fight with a fog-man. There is one proposition being offered against your "only" position, and once you deal with it, then you are back to your sole proposition: *baptism is for believers*. That's when you can drop the "only".

You're telling me "there is no sign saying you can put your red car there. There's only the sign we agree on that says green cars are OK." No, I say: "there's this sign here that says I can park my red car, and I am parking it, it doesn't matter to me that you can't read it." See, in my illustration, I said that the claim about green cars didn't say anything about red cars, so making a big deal about the green rights says nothing about the red rights--not until you stick an "ONLY" in there.

And I think, except for that part about church history {early, late, whenever; its about interpreting the evidence in front of us; like creationist and evolutionist, the raw data is indeterminative of anything} that I agree with your basic closing comment: I don't have a nice, neat, single "verse" for my position. _Where is *your* verse?_ We each have exegetical arguments. The bit about eisegesis, and pitting systematics against exegesis is something out of the liberal playbook; you can do better than those assertions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> You added "only" though. That's not quite the right focus. Bear with me here. The point is that we are obedient to baptize believers. You are too. But we are not at liberty to do anything more because Scripture does not say to. You turn it into a negative command. The point is, there is no positive command. So, we don't need the word "only." We simply stop where Scripture stops. Scripture says no more so we need not either.


This begs the question Joe. Scripture commands the baptism of disciples - clearly. We believe the Scriptures clearly teach that children are disciples. Ergo, we baptize children. If you say, well children aren't disciples then it's not just a matter of finding a negative command at that point.



> As for interacting with your "proof," I can't really because I see this understanding of Gen 17:10 to be eisegetical.


Well, of course, you're dispensationalist. 

The fascinating thing is how often Abraham is said to have believed the Gospel and that our continuity is in the fulfillment made to _him_. Somehow he doesn't participate in the substance of what we're apart of in your eyes but yet he's the reason the Judaizers are told to get lost in Galatians 3 and he's our present example for justification by faith in Romans 4. Our baptism into Christ (union with Him) is referred to as a "circumcision made without hands".

But, wait, that's all exegetical. 


Andrew P.C. said:


> As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).
> 
> So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?



Exactly.

As I noted before. Here is the continuity throughout the CoG.

1. Those saved from all human history were united to Christ in His death and resurrection. These are also called the Elect.

2. The Elect in the OC were saved the same way - union with Christ. They had an administration of the CoG in which they were commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. A entire Covenant structure was set up by God as a _means_ for the conversion of His Elect. Parents were _aided_ by God in the conversion of the Elect.

3. The Elect in the NC are saved the same way - union with Christ. We are in an administration of the CoG in which we are commanded to train our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. An entire Covenant structure is intact (and improved) as a _means_ for the conversion of His Elect. Parents are still _aided_ by God in the conversion of the Elect.

If all of point 3 is not true, then I would like to hear why credo-Baptists don't consider every passage dealing with children in the Proverbs and in the Pentateuch to be ceremonial and abolished.

Key truth: The ADMINISTRATION of the CoG in how God has used means to convert His elect has changed but the SUBSTANCE of salvation is fixed throughout history. Once people get that into their bloodstream then all the grandiose talk of the "better" NC as signifying only the Elect is a moot point. God has never saved any _but_ the Elect. Administration is about MEANS.


----------



## 44jason

Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
Thanks, brother.


----------



## 44jason

Matthew 28 teaches baptism of disciples within the nations.
Acts only records baptisms of those who had professed faith in Christ. Yes some were false professions like Simon, but all were professions none the less. Even if children are assumed to be baptized when whole households are baptized, there is no credible exegetical reason to assume that those were not believing children.
Romans 6 refers to the fact that those who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God, set free from the bondage of the old self. That can only refer to believers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
> Thanks, brother.



Is this really the summation of your hermaneutical principle? I'm asking seriously because I want to make sure of this before a reductio ad absurdum is applied upon this principle.

Seriously, brother, I'm trying to be charitable so please confirm that every major doctrine in the Sciptures is established by a single verse commanding it in the New Testament.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Matthew 28 teaches baptism of disciples within the nations.
> Acts only records baptisms of those who had professed faith in Christ. Yes some were false professions like Simon, but all were professions none the less. Even if children are assumed to be baptized when whole households are baptized, there is no credible exegetical reason to assume that those were not believing children.


Second question: is it your contention that the full didactic expression of a doctrine is to be found by the examples that are found in the historical narratives? Again, I need to make sure I understand if this is your consistent hermaneutical grid that you are using to interpret the entire Scriptures.



> Romans 6 refers to the fact that those who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God, set free from the bondage of the old self. That can only refer to believers.


 fully brother. This entire Chapter (and Romans 5-8 around it) can only be true of those united to Christ.


----------



## 44jason

In Acts 10:57-48, Peter asked an important question, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who had received the Holy Spirit?" The obvious answer was no. But what if Peter had asked, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have not received the Holy Spirit?"?

Why not the unbelieving spouse of 1 Cor. 7? Maybe we should baptize them since the unbelieving spouse hasn't denied Christ or rejected their spouse's faith -- they just haven't made a profession yet.


----------



## 44jason

Bruce, still waiting. Use either the OT or NT, narrative or whatever else you wish.


----------



## 44jason

Galatians 3:27 says that if you have been baptized into Christ then you have put on Christ. That can only be true of regenerate people. The assumption is being made by Paul that you are regenerate based on you profession of faith. But neither the Biblical writers nor paedo's assume that the infant is regenerate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> In Acts 10:57-48, Peter asked an important question, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who had received the Holy Spirit?" The obvious answer was no. But what if Peter had asked, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have not received the Holy Spirit?"?


I think this would be problematic as an _example_ wouldn't you agree? Are you arguing that we must see a supernatural gifting of prophesy upon the regenerated before we baptize them? I also think you need to note the context of why this is significant to a Jewish community starting to learn that there is no Jew nor Greek. The commonality of Spirit is meant to tear away the veil separating the clean people from the unclean people.



> Why not the unbelieving spouse of 1 Cor. 7? Maybe we should baptize them since the unbelieving spouse hasn't denied Christ or rejected their spouse's faith -- they just haven't made a profession yet.


As Diego Montoya (you know the guy who had his father killed by the 6 fingered man in the Princess Bride) would say: this word you are using, it does not mean what you think it does.

Are you saying that there is such a thing as an unbelieving spouse that believes in Christ?


----------



## 44jason

New Covenant baptism is not the same as circumcision.
If you go there, you are opening yourself up to loads of inconsistencies that have been documented already.


----------



## 44jason

Rich you ask


> Are you saying that there is such a thing as an unbelieving spouse that believes in Christ?


No. But since the unbelieving spouse in that passage is part of the covenant culture of his/her believing spouse then why would you not baptize the unbelieving spouse -- since you would have no problem baptizing their unbelieving child?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

44jason said:


> Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
> Thanks, brother.



You must not have looked carefully enough.  

But while you're looking again, you could maybe find time to give me your text? I'd like something to study...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Galatians 3:27 says that if you have been baptized into Christ then you have put on Christ. That can only be true of regenerate people. The assumption is being made by Paul that you are regenerate based on you profession of faith. But neither the Biblical writers nor paedo's assume that the infant is regenerate.



This confuses the substance with the administration. If you are arguing that every man physically baptized is, by definition, one who is united to Christ (i.e. put on Christ) then you are arguing for really a perfect understanding of the man baptized. Even you acknowledge the administration is not a one for one correlation.

The assumption by Paul is _not_ that people are regenerate based on profesison. The assumption is that those who have been regenerated bear fruit (to include profession).

The Biblical writers do not assume that a man is regenerate who professes either. Simon the sorceror and Judas Iscariot are two prime examples. Those "...who went out from us..." (however many they were) are further examples.


----------



## 44jason

And by the way, it is in that very same passage that Paul confirms that the circumcision of Gen. 17 is meaningless in the New Covenant. So you must find a new verse to support your paedobaptism.


----------



## MW

Andrew P.C. said:


> As I have been personally studying this issue for over a few days now, there has been something that I've seen in scripture(since this is the first time I've given serious thought to this matter). The OT and NT have continuity. NO WHERE in scripture is there a command to STOP giving the sign of the covenant to the childeren. I won't get into it now, but I'm beginning to see the continuity of the Covenant of Grace through-out the church(OT and NT).
> 
> So, the question really is: Where in scripture is the command to STOP GIVING the sign of the covenant to the infant?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> New Covenant baptism is not the same as circumcision.
> If you go there, you are opening yourself up to loads of inconsistencies that have been documented already.


I'm having trouble keeping up with these one-liners. Which circumcision? Is not New Covenant baptism called the circumcision made without hands?


44jason said:


> Bruce you ask
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that there is such a thing as an unbelieving spouse that believes in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> No. But since the unbelieving spouse in that passage is part of the covenant culture of his/her believing spouse then why would you not baptize the unbelieving spouse -- since you would have no problem baptizing their unbelieving child?
Click to expand...


Actually, I asked that. I also answered that in another thread and so did Bruce. Spouses are not commanded to teach and train their unbelieving spouses. They are, in contrast, commanded to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> And by the way, it is in that very same passage that Paul confirms that the circumcision of Gen. 17 is meaningless in the New Covenant. So you must find a new verse to support your paedobaptism.



He does no such thing. Please read my response to Welty on this point. To accuse Abraham of circumcising Isaac for the same reason the Judaizers wanted to circumcise the Christians at Galatia misses the weight of Paul's rebuke:

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/11/22.34.41

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/09/14/00.43.29


----------



## 44jason

Rich, Simon was assumed to be regenerate based upon his confession, thus he was baptized. Then they found out they had made a mistake. This neither caused the church to stop baptizing professors for fear of further mistakes. Nor did it cause the church to just baptize everyone that associated with them. In fact, Peter said that Simon was had no part in the Covenant community even though he was baptized!!! Hmmm. I thought baptism gave you entrance into the covenant community so that you could be brought to faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich, Simon was assumed to be regenerate based upon his confession, thus he was baptized.



Excuse me, not to be petty, but may I have the _single_ verse that establishes the fact that Simon was assumed to be regenerated based upon his profession? The only thing I read is that they baptized him based on a desire to be a disciple.


----------



## 44jason

Rich, you said


> Spouses are not commanded to teach and train their unbelieving spouses.


Are you sure about this? Are you sure the husband is not to be the teacher in his home?
Are you sure that a believing husband is not to teach his unbelieving wife?


----------



## 44jason

In Acts 8:12-13 says that those who "believed [the] good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ...were baptized ... even Simon himself believed..."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich, you said
> 
> 
> 
> Spouses are not commanded to teach and train their unbelieving spouses.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about this? Are you sure the husband is not to be the teacher in his home?
> Are you sure that a believing husband is not to teach his unbelieving wife?
Click to expand...


Yes, I am sure that God nowhere commands a believing husband to disciple an unbelieving wife.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> In Acts 8:12-13 says that those who "believed [the] good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ...were baptized ... even Simon himself believed..."



And? I'm trying to figure out how this demonstrates regeneration. There is something in the Gospels about belief is their not? Something about seed cast on ground. Might want to check that. Christ calls it belief. See Luke 8 about those who "...believe for a little while...."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well, I enjoyed this interaction. God bless you Pastor Jason. It's 5 pm tomorrow here and my son has little league practice in an hour so I must run.

Grace and Peace,

Rich


----------



## 44jason

So you believe the Bible teaches that we have more of a responsibility to our children than to our spouse with whom we are one?
Baptize the child who is unconverted, placing the sign of the covenant upon him.
But forsake the wife, whom we should love as Christ loved the church... and died for it.
Consider 1 Peter.
Consider Hosea.


----------



## 44jason

Rich, the point is simple. Simon made a profession of his belief. They took that as a sign of his conversion (regeneration) and baptized him. They later discovered that his profession of faith was false and thus he had not be regenerated.

The original point is also simple:


> Simon was assumed to be regenerate based upon his confession, thus he was baptized. Then they found out they had made a mistake. This neither caused the church to stop baptizing professors for fear of further mistakes. Nor did it cause the church to just baptize everyone that associated with them. In fact, Peter said that Simon was had no part in the Covenant community even though he was baptized!!! Hmmm. I thought baptism gave you entrance into the covenant community so that you could be brought to faith.



If the paedobaptism theory is true then Peter would have had no problem with the fact that Simon was not yet converted.

Let me go at this another way and maybe tomorrow you can answer:
When you discover that a child that you baptized as an infant is not converted do you treat him like Peter treated Simon?
Or do you church discipline him?
Or do you just say, "Well he is not converted yet, that's OK. We will continue to disciple him until he get converted and hopefully one day his baptism will be united with faith."?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> So you believe the Bible teaches that we have more of a responsibility to our children than to our spouse with whom we are one?
> Baptize the child who is unconverted, placing the sign of the covenant upon him.
> But forsake the wife, whom we should love as Christ loved the church... and died for it.
> Consider 1 Peter.
> Consider Hosea.


Notice that I said that the believing husband is not commanded by God to disciple his unbelieving wife and you responded with a challenge that he's not commanded to love her. I do think you ought to be more careful to read someone before you prepare an objection to the presentation.

1. It is indisputable that parents are commanded to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
2. It is indisputable that this command does not exist for a believing spouse toward the unbelieving spouse.

Now, whatever _seems_ to be the case to you based on those two facts, I cannot control but I do know what the Scriptures teach.


44jason said:


> Rich, the point is simple. Simon made a profession of his belief. They took that as a sign of his conversion (regeneration) and baptized him. They later discovered that his profession of faith was false and thus he had not be regenerated.


Again, could you provide the _single verse_ that says "...and they took that as a sin of his conversion (regneration)..."? I'm seriously shocked that you do not notice how this is eisegetical. The passage says no such thing.

In fact, why did you ignore Judas and just choose Simon? Do you know who's authority he was baptised by? Interesting, is it not, that if Christ intended to have Baptism signify what you want it to that He so clearly undermined His own principle by having Judas baptised as a disciple. You may be able to skate by Simon but it is quite impossible to argue that Christ did not know Judas was "a devil".



> If the paedobaptism theory is true then Peter would have had no problem with the fact that Simon was not yet converted.


Would you like to show me the Confessional place that supporst this theory that you're citing. I assume you must mean a paedo theory that's not in either the WCF or the 3FU so I wouldn't know the theory you are referring to.


> When you discover that a child that you baptized as an infant is not converted do you treat him like Peter treated Simon?


If he rebels against the faith like Simon? He would be put out of the Church like Simon was.


> Or do you church discipline him?


Isn't this the same question?


> Or do you just say, "Well he is not converted yet, that's OK. We will continue to disciple him until he get converted and hopefully one day his baptism will be united with faith."?


Would you like to quote the Reformed Confession where you found this as you have represented it?


----------



## AV1611

44jason said:


> Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
> Thanks, brother.



You are assuming that circumcision and baptism are not the same in meaning.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw are *not* "paedo baptist theologians." They are credo baptists who live and work in South Africa, and are members in a paedo-baptist Reformed denomination of that part of the world.
> 
> Randy, it wouldn't be fair to call you a paedobaptist believer, just because you once were a (convinced credo-) member of a PCA church, and say that your stuff proves how open-minded some paedos can be.



I was told these guys were paedo's by someone I trust. I will check it out more thoroughly. I was also a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. I never ever held to a paedo position and everyone has known that. I have always made that known. My point wasn't that they were open minded but that they were historical. 

I will get back on this and go back and retract every instance I said this after I truly find out. Sorry If I am incorrect.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
> Thanks, brother.




Jason, I covered that, as well as the ambigous use of the word "command." You would first have to clear this up. Depending on how commands are considered, we can (a) easily provide a command (as I did in my debate, for example) or (b) you would be forced to hold to absurd conclusions like (i) the Bible doesn't command people not to do abortions, (ii) the Bible doesn't command me in particular to repent, (iii) etc.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Matthew 28 teaches baptism of disciples within the nations.
> Acts only records baptisms of those who had professed faith in Christ. Yes some were false professions like Simon, but all were professions none the less. Even if children are assumed to be baptized when whole households are baptized, there is no credible exegetical reason to assume that those were not believing children.
> Romans 6 refers to the fact that those who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God, set free from the bondage of the old self. That can only refer to believers.




1) Matt 28 teaches to disciple the nations, by baptizing and teaching. You're making the "them" refer to a "verb." How is your interpretation grammatically proper.

2) To say that Acts only records Baptisms of those who professed faith is to beg the question. 

And, to say that if there were children in the household, there is no credible reason to assume that they were not believeing, i.e., professing faith as well, is to make an unargued assertion.

3) Romans 6 refers to all those in Ch. 5 who asked if they could keep sinning because of Grace. Paul nenver meant to imply that every single person in the world really was dead to sin (baptismal regeneration) and Paul never implied that he *assumed* this either. Romans 6 is about introspection anyway, not us judging our neighbor as to whether they have died to sin.

So, I don't quite think you have a case.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> In Acts 10:57-48, Peter asked an important question, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who had received the Holy Spirit?" The obvious answer was no. But what if Peter had asked, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have not received the Holy Spirit?"?
> 
> Why not the unbelieving spouse of 1 Cor. 7? Maybe we should baptize them since the unbelieving spouse hasn't denied Christ or rejected their spouse's faith -- they just haven't made a profession yet.



Jason, you're arguing fallaciously:

You're taking what is found in Acts:

_(*) All who have received the spirit were baptized_

And trying to make it be used to support this logically disctinct proposition:

_(**)_ _Only those who have received the Spirit may be baptized_

Not only have I shown your view about conversion as interchangable with baptism to be false in my first post in this thread, your move is logically unwarranted. Logic and Scripture may both be used together. If one has a true Scriptural position, it won't rest on making illigical moves. So, there is a difference between (*) and (**). You've demonstrated (*) but not (**). We are asking you to demonstrate (**). So far you're trying to make that demonstration via invalid inference. Like this:

_(*') All those who have been president of the USA have been white males._

_(**') Only those who are white males may be president of the USA._

See the error in your reasoning?


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Bruce, still waiting. Use either the OT or NT, narrative or whatever else you wish.




Jason, still waiting for you to be clear and precise in your language. If commands can be given by inferences, then we have no problem what so ever. To act this cocky, while ignoring obvious defeaters for your position, only serves to undermine your credibility as a cautious thinker who wants an honest discussion.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Galatians 3:27 says that if you have been baptized into Christ then you have put on Christ. That can only be true of regenerate people. The assumption is being made by Paul that you are regenerate based on you profession of faith. But neither the Biblical writers nor paedo's assume that the infant is regenerate.




This, as Baptist Ben Witherington III says, is talking about spirit baptism. I proved that a disctinction existed in the minds of the authors of Scripture in my first post in this thread.

Second, and then just after that he tells the "regenerate" people the above he tells them

4:11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you. 

5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

5:7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?

Indeed, why talk to "regenerate" people this way:

Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily encourage one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following statements: Col. 1:23–”if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and stedfast,…”; 1 Cor. 15:2–”by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–”and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–”we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–”if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–”the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–”if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–”if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–”in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–”holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–”faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Some baptists say that these are merely a “means” God uses to keep his elect in the covenant. Well, this is not the universal position because reformed baptists like Roger Nicole, and Wayne Grudem, among others, disagree with it. But, even if these passages are a means of perseverance for the elect, and thus hypothetical warnings for them, since it is read to the entire church, and since there are some non-elect in these churches, what purpose do these warnings serve for them? Indeed, even though non-elect cannot repent and believe the gospel, the gospel call is still a sincere and well-meant offer for them. Are these warnings real warnings for everyone they are read to? Furthermore, why would we take these warnings seriously if we viewed ourselves as regenerate? Since it is impossible for a regenerate to apostatize, why should he take the warnings seriously? I mean, since it is possible that fire could shoot out of our eyes, how serious would we take someone who told us to watch out(!) and make sure we didn’t burn our house down? How much less serious should we take a warning about something that is impossible for us to do? We wouldn’t take serious a warning sign in the middle of the Sahara Dessert which read “Keep off the Grass!”, would we?


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> New Covenant baptism is not the same as circumcision.
> If you go there, you are opening yourself up to loads of inconsistencies that have been documented already.



Define "the same." Paedos don't think that we use knives to baptize people. So, we have never thought that they were "the same."

Let's quote credo-baptist Paul Jewett though:



> “If anyone will look a little more deeply beneath the surface, he will perceive that the Old Testament is clearly concerned with the theological and ethical meaning of circumcision, which, as elaborated in the New, lies to close to that of baptism to be depreciated. […] This ethical and theological meaning, as the New Testament interprets circumcision, is not lost but taken up in the meaning of baptism (p. 86).
> 
> Paul describes the Ephesians as uncircumcised in the spiritual sense, that, prior to their conversion, they were apart from Christ. But if to be apart from Christ is to be spiritually uncircumcised, ‘alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,’ then to be in Christ must be to possess those blessings which circumcision in the flesh was no less certainly the sign of in the Old Testament than is baptism in the New. …[O]ne can hardly doubt that baptism has the same essential significance [as circumcision] for Christians in the New Testament (p. 87-88).
> 
> [T]he only conclusion that we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism” (p. 89).


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> And by the way, it is in that very same passage that Paul confirms that the circumcision of Gen. 17 is meaningless in the New Covenant. So you must find a new verse to support your paedobaptism.



Meaningless for salvation... yes, we agree. Paul was correcting the misuse of circumcision. Let's note what he also says:

Romans 2:28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, *nor is circumcision merely outward and physical*. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and *circumcision is circumcision of the heart*, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

What! Paul just said that infants received a sign that was not merely outward and spiritual!!!! In fact, did Jews believe that they had all been truly circumcized? With the above, Paul decimates almost every point you've made about "true baptism" and it not being "given to children."

This wasn't new teaching. This was the way it was always supposed to be.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Rich, Simon was assumed to be regenerate based upon his confession, thus he was baptized. Then they found out they had made a mistake. This neither caused the church to stop baptizing professors for fear of further mistakes. Nor did it cause the church to just baptize everyone that associated with them. In fact, Peter said that Simon was had no part in the Covenant community even though he was baptized!!! Hmmm. I thought baptism gave you entrance into the covenant community so that you could be brought to faith.



Actually, no, you're wrong. Simon was given the sign of covenant inclusion. If he was believed to be regenerate, then why did the apostles have to go there and baptize them all with the spirit? They could have sat all comfy in their homes back in Jerusalem. I mean, when they were leaving and their wife asked, "Where are you going?" And they said, "Philip baptized some people with water and so we're going to baptize them with the Spirit." Wouldn't the wife have responded the same way Schreiner et al respond: "What, you mean there's a difference?" I can hear her now, "He's been baptized, don't you assume him to be regenerate? Paull said all Baptized have died with sin. Paul said all baptized have been clothed with Christ. You're confusing my theology hubby!" _{note: Yes, I know Romans and Galations wasn't written in the time of Acts 8}_


----------



## Wannabee

Thanks Bruce,

Good comments. You seem to have completely understood my point.


Contra_Mundum said:


> Joe (brother),
> I did try to *emphasize*, but I tried not to SHOUT!
> 
> And I think, except for that part about church history {early, late, whenever; its about interpreting the evidence in front of us; like creationist and evolutionist, the raw data is indeterminative of anything} that I agree with your basic closing comment: I don't have a nice, neat, single "verse" for my position. _Where is *your* verse?_ We each have exegetical arguments. The bit about eisegesis, and pitting systematics against exegesis is something out of the liberal playbook; you can do better than those assertions.


In regard to systematic vs. exegesis, I didn't say that. We rely on systematics and it is a vital part of our interpretation. My point was the clarity of believers baptism vs. the challenges of infant baptism. One is so simply taught in Scripture that, as you have admitted, there is no need to dig into it. It's "uninteresting." No systematics are really needed. The doctrine is deaper than surface level and conducive to systematic study. But the practice does not need systematic study to understand it. This is not so with infant baptism; again, as you had noted. As for the hermeneutical application of history to support your claim, you'll have to hash that out with other Presbyterians. I've heard some admit to it, but don't need to stand on that hill.

I'm curious about something; If circumcision is the same as baptism then why don't you baptise by the 8th day? 

As for Andrew's question, go ahead and keep circumcising.  Obviously, Paul had something to say about this. This brings up another question, if circumcision is the same as baptism, then why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? If your claim is true then his circumcision is extremely superfluous.

Rich - great comments on Abraham. You'll find my understanding less dispensational than you think, but more than you're comfortable with. But the circumcision made without hands (try baptizing without hands ) is the circumcision of the heart. Again, it's ALL of God. From this point of view infant baptism introduces a human element in the plan of salvation through works. This is why I see so much of a problem in this statement of yours; "Parents are still _aided_ by God in the conversion of the Elect." Though there is a nuance of what you say that I agree with, I could never state this. Parents are a means by which God converts children, absolutely. But your statement seems to turn His sovereignty in election into a rite we can exercise. And your word for administration, unless I misunderstood something, is the same as dispensation.

The Galatians passage is helpful in that it pictures baptism in the Spirit. One must be baptized into Christ before one receives the baptism of Christ. The second is a picture of the first. And the first makes one of the seed of Abraham. I hope that's not too anti-dispensational. 

Judas is not a good example - if he was baptized (and I assume he was) then it was by the baptism of John. This is not the same as the baptism of Jesus.

Also, Rich, at what age would you put a rebellious child out of the church? I found this comment intriguing.

Again, we will get back to the attempt to prove that circumcision equals baptism. Not wanting to steer this thread, but perhaps it would be good to rehash this. Methinks that it will result in an impass and, again, we'll depart thinking the other simply doesn't get it and won't let Scripture speak for itself. This brings up another interesting thought - if, as I (and others) claim, circumcision does not equal baptism, then the paedo understanding of infant baptism completely unravels. Thus, you have to hold on to it or your theological basis begins to fall apart. This brings up another important question - If Covenant Theology, as some assert, necessarily arrives at infant baptism, is infant baptism a result of CT, or is it the cause. In other words, was a CT perspective the result of a presupposition of infant baptism? I don't have the historical knowledge to know for sure. But, from what I have studied, it is a valid question.


----------



## 44jason

Manata, out of respect to the Moderators and to keep my promise that I would not continue to converse with you if you did not change your tone, I am not going to respond to your many comments above. Out of courtesy, I wanted to remind you of this so that you did not think I could not answer your questions.

I hate that it has to be this way with you. But your tone has shed bad light on me that I do not desire or deserve.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Jason (notice I refer to you by your first name),

I'm not writing for you. I'm writing to show others how we can deal with your questions. I'm not bothered if you don't respond. I've had no tone other than to defend myself against public misrepresentations and false acusations about my position. It's too bad that correcting someone's false accusations is called, "a bad tone." 

Furthermore, in the above comments can you cite where my "tone" was bad? You said you wouldn't converse with my if I didn't "change my tone." This implies that my above "tone" (btw, don't know how one deciphers "tone" from reading "words") is in need of change. Would you care to substantiate your charges from what I've said above? Since you've just accused me of having a "bad tone" in this thread, and since this board does not tolerate false accusations, I'd appreciate you substantiating your charges. If not, then it does appear that you're not responding because of the _substance_, rather than the _tone_, of my comments. I may be off, though. I'm sinful just like the next guy. So, where in my above comments was my "tone" so bad that it was in need of "chang?" Again, you mad an accusation, I'm asking you to substantiate your accusation.


----------



## 44jason

Paul,
All I will say is the Moderators opinion about this matters more to me right now than your continued taunts.
Sincerely,


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Paul,
> All I will say is the Moderators opinion about this matters more to me right now than your continued taunts.
> Sincerely,



The above was not a "taunt." You accused someone. Do you belive that you should not substantiate this? I will not let you falsely accuse me. I'm sorry if I gave you the opinion that you could make false allegations against me and not have me respond.


----------



## 44jason

Again, I am trying here guys. Please note.

Paul, Nowhere above are any "allegations" much less "false allegations." But with that little important fact said, I will respond to you at FIDE-O out of respect for the moderators here who feel uncomfortable with this "back-and-forth."


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Again, I am trying here guys. Please note.
> 
> Paul, Nowhere above are any "allegations" much less "false allegations." But with that little important fact said, I will respond to you at FIDE-O out of respect for the moderators here who feel uncomfortable with this "back-and-forth."




Trying what? I'm not doing anything.

Now, Jason, you said this:



> Manata, out of respect to the Moderators and to keep my promise that *I would not continue to converse with you if you did not change your tone*, I am not going to respond to your many comments above.



This, as we all can see, logically implies that my above "tone" is in need of "changing." This is why you won't "respond" to my "above comments." Thus, if my "tone" was "changed" then you would reply to my "above comments." Therefore, you are not responding to what I said in this thread because of my "tone." If the 'tone" was "changed" then you would "respond," but, since my "tone" is "not changed" you are, therefore, not going to respond.

Jason, you seem to confuse attacks on your _position_, and what you _say_, as attacks on your _person_. Please don't take things so personally. Just so you know, I call a spade a spade. If you state that my position is X, when it is not, then I cry foul. That's not a personal attack against you. Try to differentiate the two.


----------



## JM

44jason said:


> Randy, thanks.
> Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one, please. Thanks.
> 
> {ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}
Click to expand...



Two pages and not one verse yet.


----------



## CDM

JM said:


> Two pages and not one verse yet.



The verse is to be found right after the one that says baptism is to be given to adult professed believers only. 

I don't know the chapter and verse off hand but its in the same chapter that says that with the appearance of the Messiah, God has now cursed children and has cut them off and cast them aside to be accounted with the philistine children. They are now his enemies.

...around there or so.


----------



## non dignus

JM said:


> Two pages and not one verse yet.




Acts 2:14;38,39

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying , "_Ye men of Judaea, and *all ye that dwell at Jerusalem*..... 

....Repent ye, and be baptized *every one of you* in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. *39For to you is the promise, and to your children*, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him._"


----------



## JM

mangum said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The verse is to be found right after the one that says baptism is to be given to adult professed believers only.
> 
> I don't know the chapter and verse off hand but its in the same chapter that says that with the appearance of the Messiah, God has now cursed children and has cut them off and cast them aside to be accounted with the philistine children. They are now his enemies.
> 
> ...around there or so.
Click to expand...


Ahhhh, thanks I'll look it up.


----------



## JM

non dignus said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:14;38,39
> 
> But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying , "_Ye men of Judaea, and *all ye that dwell at Jerusalem*.....
> 
> ....Repent ye, and be baptized *every one of you* in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. *39For to you is the promise, and to your children*, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him._"
Click to expand...


And so the children that heard the command went out and were baptized. 

Got it. 

Or does the verse actually say that you are to repent and be baptized...this same promise is given to your children as well, that when they repent they can be baptized as well.



j


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Paedobaptists believe in baptising believers only -- it is just that in the case of infants the wee believers can't speak for themselves, so their parents do it on their behalf. This idea, therefore, of believers only baptism, does not exclude the baptising of infants.



Except, infants are not, by definition, believers - yet. Baptismal regeneration and presumptive regeneration are both to be excluded. There is no guarantee that any baptized infant is, in fact, a member of the elect. That is something that only time will show.


----------



## non dignus

JM said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:14;38,39
> 
> But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying , "_Ye men of Judaea, and *all ye that dwell at Jerusalem*.....
> 
> ....Repent ye, and be baptized *every one of you* in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. *39For to you is the promise, and to your children*, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him._"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the children that heard the command went out and were baptized.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Or does the verse actually say that you are to repent and be baptized...this same promise is given to your children as well, that when they repent they can be baptized as well.
Click to expand...


Why did Peter add, "and to your children"? 

A verse was requested, I furnished it, and it is explicit.


----------



## 44jason

Joshua,
Your words aren't perceived by me as harsh -- infact, they are justified based on the explanations of your thoughts. So let me clear up the confusion, my reference to "character assassination" is NOT a reference to his above comments, but his original set of comments on a different thread. In those comments, which have bled over to here, he called me dishonest. I pointed out how he was making similar accusations on other forums to other people who thought he lost the debate, and Gene told me last night that Paul had the same tone on the radio last week.

Joshua, I have done my best to not step on Paul's polemic landmines. I haven't been very successful, they are everywhere, and it has cost me -- especially in the eyes of moderators who feel like I am to blame for Paul's actions. Paul even admitted on the other thread that he felt his character attacks were justified. For this, Joshua, I disagree and will continue to be amazed that some admins and moderators agree with Paul's right to attack my character.

But I have moved on. I only write this to answer you as a moderator who asked me this question publicly.

Sincerely,


----------



## 44jason

David,
Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.


----------



## Jim Johnston

JM said:


> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, thanks.
> Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one, please. Thanks.
> 
> {ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
Click to expand...


Give me ONE verse that says "God is three persons in one divine substance."

I've tried to talk about "commands" but I'm being ignored. If my arguments and distinctions were addressed, this silly talk of "give me a coimmand" would dwindle away.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Joshua,
> Your words aren't perceived by me as harsh -- infact, they are justified based on the explanations of your thoughts. So let me clear up the confusion, my reference to "character assassination" is NOT a reference to his above comments, but his original set of comments on a different thread. In those comments, which have bled over to here, he called me dishonest. I pointed out how he was making similar accusations on other forums to other people who thought he lost the debate, and Gene told me last night that Paul had the same tone on the radio last week.
> 
> Joshua, I have done my best to not step on Paul's polemic landmines. I haven't been very successful, they are everywhere, and it has cost me -- especially in the eyes of moderators who feel like I am to blame for Paul's actions. Paul even admitted on the other thread that he felt his character attacks were justified. For this, Joshua, I disagree and will continue to be amazed that some admins and moderators agree with Paul's right to attack my character.
> 
> But I have moved on. I only write this to answer you as a moderator who asked me this question publicly.
> 
> Sincerely,




Jason,

In the "other thread" I called you dishonest for telling people what "my reason" and "my main polemic" was. I gave ample quotes disproving this. To say that my position about something is X, when it is really Y, is dishonest. 

The accusation against Ynotny was proven, and he never said I "lost the debate."

I wasn't on Gene's radio show "last week."

The mderators are wrong. Everyone is wrong.

I did not admit that my "character assassinations" were justified. This is another false charge. I even explained this to you Jason. I said WHAT YOU CALLED my "character assassinations" were justified. In reality, they were not character assassinations. I also asked what other word you would have me use for someone who repeatedly misrepresents another person?

And, if my "tone" in this thread is not a problem, then why not answer my rebuttals of your opinions? Are you really holding on to my calling you out for making false charges against my position? I've even had RB pastors tell me that you are misrepresenting me.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> David,
> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
> 
> For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.




No it's not Jason.

Why would Peter say that the promise of the Spirit was for *everyone* - Jew and Gentile - who believed _when he didn't believe Gentiles would get the Spirit_??

God had to show him in _Acts 10_ that the Gentiles were not excluded. To say that Peter meant that the promise was for everyone who believs, Jew and Gentile, is to make a liar out of Peter since he didn't believe the Gentiles would get the Spirit until later!

That's why he says, "can we refuse Baptism for these who received the Spirit juts like we did?" which I believe is pointing back to Acts 2 etc.

No, the promise was told to Jews that the Spirit was promised to them, their children, and their children's children (those far off). The "whoever the Lord calls" is referring to elect Jews, in this context. If not, then Peter is saying the Spirit is promised to Gentiles, but then later is pictured as _just coming to that realization_ after God gets him on the program.

And, yes, it is for those who repent. But, the point here that non_dignus is making is that we have the continued organic and generational inclusion of "to thy seed and their seed" repeated in the New. But why? I thought this was a "every man for himself" time?


----------



## Wannabee

For the record, if anyone cares, I didn't find Paul's comments to be harsh either. His communication is up front and a bit agressive, but their's nothing wrong with that.


Tom Bombadil said:


> Give me ONE verse that says "God is three persons in one divine substance."


Ahhh. Back to systematics. Since we agree in the Trinity, and that to claim otherwise is heresy, can we forego the exercise? 

Jason makes a good point in regard to Acts 2:39. To claim that this means that the children of believers will be saved is something I don't think anyone here would claim. Therefore, to claim that the imediate promise that Peter makes is akin to claiming that baptizing children saves them. Again, no accusations. I've not heard anyone her make that claim. It's just not a good text to bolster the paedo position.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hey:

Give me one positive command that says women should be allowed into the Lord's Supper.

-CH


----------



## Jim Johnston

Joe,

I'm sure you'd agree that our position is not unbiblical, or not-commanded if we cannot find *one* verse that *explicitly* states "you should baptize infants," right?

I explained commands in my second post in this thread, do you agree with the substance?


----------



## non dignus

44jason said:


> David,
> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise.


Hi Pastor,
Peter is confirming the continuation of the Abrahamic Promise. He didn't say the promise WAS to you and to your children.



> The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally.....



No. Peter said, (if you repent) 'the promise IS to you and to you children' whom are called, at least externally.


> .....but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.



Yes.


> For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.



True repentance often occurs AFTER baptism in adults. Does that make their baptism invalid? If not, then '(first) repent and (second) be baptized' is not of necessity an absolute order of events. 

Infants OF the promise are IN the promise. But not all infants IN the promise of OF the promise. Both should be marked because it is not our place to look into the secret knowledge of God.


----------



## CDM

Tom Bombadil said:


> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
> 
> For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's not Jason.
> 
> *Why would Peter say that the promise of the Spirit was for *everyone* - Jew and Gentile - who believed when he didn't believe Gentiles would get the Spirit??*
> 
> God had to show him in _Acts 10_ that the Gentiles were not excluded. To say that Peter meant that the promise was for everyone who believes, Jew and Gentile, is to make a liar out of Peter since he didn't believe the Gentiles would get the Spirit until later!
> 
> That's why he says, "can we refuse Baptism for these who received the Spirit juts like we did?" which I believe is pointing back to Acts 2 etc.
> 
> No, the promise was told to Jews that the Spirit was promised to them, their children, and their children's children (those far off). The "whoever the Lord calls" is referring to elect Jews, in this context. If not, then Peter is saying the Spirit is promised to Gentiles, but then later is pictured as _just coming to that realization_ after God gets him on the program.
> 
> And, yes, it is for those who repent. But, the point here that non_dignus is making is that we have the continued organic and generational inclusion of "to thy seed and their seed" repeated in the New. But why? I thought this was a "every man for himself" time?
Click to expand...


Mr. Robertson,

Peter did not have Gentiles in mind WHATSOEVER. Is this not true? Paul M. is correct here. To acknowledge this only demonstrates you being fair minded and would go along way to dispel Paul's opinion of you plugging your ears when the talks.

Please, let both sides attempt to concede when it is shown they should.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Man I wish I was able to converse with you guys today. This thing has taken off with a life of its own. As I read through it I had a lot of comments to make but don't know where to start and I have a Jr. Varsity football game again in about an hour. I guess I will start with the debate segment two tonight after the game and then start with Paul M.s comments about Commands. He is correct about inference but our hermeneutics are obviously different somehow.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I will just make a few points even though I don't have time to reference the posts I am referring to.

Peter should have had Acts 1:8 in mind when he Preached in Acts 2.

(Act 1:8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."

There was an ethnic digression in this verse away from the Jews. And he probably did understand this even though he was reluctant and cautious to accept it later. 

And since it was the last post. I have to wonder where Mr. Conkrite gets his statistics that Adults usaually repent after they are baptised. And what churches does this happen in?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, thanks.
> Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one, please. Thanks.
> 
> {ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
Click to expand...


JM,

Bruce produced a verse. Your presups forbid you from agreeing that the verse is relevant but let's keep this conversation at an adult level.


----------



## non dignus

puritancovenanter said:


> And since it was the last post. I have to wonder where Mr. Cronkhite gets his statistics that Adults usaually repent after they are baptised. And what churches does this happen in?



Hi Mr. Snyder,
It's good to sharpen iron with you again.

I don't think _most_ adults come to faith after a false profession, but I'm sure it happens. 

If hypocrites are baptised, it stands to reason that some of those hypocrites actually DO come to true faith and repentance later. Would anyone challenge that assertion?

And a question: should such a person be re-baptized? If so, how many times?


----------



## JM

SemperFideles said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, thanks.
> Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> Give me one, please. Thanks.
> 
> {ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JM,
> 
> Bruce produced a verse. Your presups forbid you from agreeing that the verse is relevant but let's keep this conversation at an adult level.
Click to expand...


Yes, please.


----------



## Jim Johnston

JM said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two pages and not one verse yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JM,
> 
> Bruce produced a verse. Your presups forbid you from agreeing that the verse is relevant but let's keep this conversation at an adult level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, please.
Click to expand...


JM,

Would you agree with what I wrote about "commands" in the second post of this thread?


----------



## JM

Br. Tom, I'll have to read it again when I get back from thai boxing.

Until then, peace and God bless.

j


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paedobaptists believe in baptising believers only -- it is just that in the case of infants the wee believers can't speak for themselves, so their parents do it on their behalf. This idea, therefore, of believers only baptism, does not exclude the baptising of infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except, infants are not, by definition, believers - yet. Baptismal regeneration and presumptive regeneration are both to be excluded. There is no guarantee that any baptized infant is, in fact, a member of the elect. That is something that only time will show.
Click to expand...


Richard, the same applies to adults. We grant them the judgment of charity. Only the Lord knows who are elect, and therefore who are true believers.


----------



## MrMerlin777

As Diego Montoya (you know the guy who had his father killed by the 6 fingered man in the Princess Bride) would say: this word you are using, it does not mean what you think it does.
[/QUOTE]


It was Inigo Montoya, son of Domingo Montoya.

Sorry just being a movie curmudgeon.


----------



## Wannabee

Tom Bombadil said:


> Joe,
> 
> I'm sure you'd agree that our position is not unbiblical, or not-commanded if we cannot find *one* verse that *explicitly* states "you should baptize infants," right?
> 
> I explained commands in my second post in this thread, do you agree with the substance?


Hi Paul,
Good question. I will agree that it is possible to have commands that are not explicit. One example, which you have already brought up, is the Trinity. We are commanded, through individual commands (to worship God, not blaspheme the HS, proclaim Christ, etc.), to worship the Trinity. The command is almost explicit, except it does not say specifically to worship the Trinity because it never explicitly deals directly with the Trinity. Having said that, I would say that there does need to be a clear command in order biblical, whether it's explicit or not (the example of the Trinity should suffice). The example you give of whether or not we are commanded to repent is interesting. I find it hard to work through because the command is clear, "repent and be baptized." And the Old Testament drips with the need for repentance. Furthermore, I know that you believe that it is a clear commandment, which makes it a bit difficult to grapple with in the vein you're pursuing.
I will disagree with Malone's statement that Scripture says to baptize believers only. I've already dealt with that. Rather I would say that Scripture explicitly states only that we are baptize believers. It says no more. It also might be helpful, at this point, to give us a clear definition of "inference." I know how I would use it, but you might see it in a broader sense than I would. From my understanding, I would be very hesitant to say that inferences equal commands. Furthermore, inferences deduced from inferences are very tenuous and generally equate to a departure from truth. It's much like possibilities derived from possibilities equal improbabilities and eventually impossibilities. 
Paul, I've tried to share some thoughts as I read through what you wrote. Hopefully this will give you enough of my own thoughts to give a good clear reply. Or, maybe it is just a confusing mess of jumbled thoughts with no cohesion. 



I'm with Randy on the rest. There's just too much going on in this thread to grasp a hold of it all.


----------



## 44jason

Short note: Mr. Manata, I did not mention the Gentiles. Here is my exact quote:


> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.


My point was that Peter said that the promise of the H.S. was for those who repent and are baptized.
You replied with this strawman:


> Why would Peter say that the promise of the Spirit was for *everyone* - Jew and Gentile - who believed when he didn't believe Gentiles would get the Spirit??


Notice that you bring up the "Gentile issue", not me. But then you commence to burn that strawman while your buddies defend you.

If this is the nature of the PuritanBoard, then I may not have any time for such games.
The little I had heard about this forum was positive for the most part, but it seems to me like a bunch of guys who circle the wagon when one of their own is at fault.
This is sad.


----------



## dalecosby

> It was Inigo Montoya, son of Domingo Montoya.
> 
> Sorry just being a movie curmudgeon.


Yes, I was going to mention that.
After all, how can we trust the theology of a man that can't get the Princess Bride right?
lol
Just kidding!


----------



## Jim Johnston

JM said:


> Br. Tom, I'll have to read it again when I get back from thai boxing.
> 
> Until then, peace and God bless.
> 
> j



Don't take it too easy on your shins. Pain is good, extreme pain is extremely good.


----------



## MW

44jason said:


> If this is the nature of the PuritanBoard, then I may not have any time for such games.
> The little I had heard about this forum was positive for the most part, but it seems to me like a bunch of guys who circle the wagon when one of their own is at fault.
> This is sad.



Friend, you really should allow some time to see the PB at work (Puritan board, not paedobaptist, but I suppose it applies to both), before making such judgements. By a process of interaction we sharpen our communication skills. You have a prime opportunity to do that here. Non-paedos have tried to show you that your tack with relation to Paul Manata is non-beneficial. You would do well to at least weigh up what is being said.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Short note: Mr. Manata, I did not mention the Gentiles. Here is my exact quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that Peter said that the promise of the H.S. was for those who repent and are baptized.
> You replied with this strawman:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Peter say that the promise of the Spirit was for *everyone* - Jew and Gentile - who believed when he didn't believe Gentiles would get the Spirit??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice that you bring up the "Gentile issue", not me. But then you commence to burn that strawman while your buddies defend you.
> 
> If this is the nature of the PuritanBoard, then I may not have any time for such games.
> The little I had heard about this forum was positive for the most part, but it seems to me like a bunch of guys who circle the wagon when one of their own is at fault.
> This is sad.
Click to expand...


No, you didn't explicitly mention the Gentiles. You mentioned "all." And, you mentioned "believers." You furthermore said that the promise of the HS was not for "all the children of believers" but for 'all who repent." 

So you meant, "all the Jews and their children, and their children's children?" And, "all Jewish belivers?" but not all "believers," as you say? And, the HS was not for "all the children of Jewish believers?"

I think the context is clear and your *meaning* clear.

Anyway, if you're saying you agree with my renditioning, then that's a major problem for your baptistic and individualistic interpretation of the text. Why would the HS be promised to the Jews, and their children, and their children's children? Tell me, if you will, how would the Jews have interpreted this?


----------



## PastorFaulk

44jason said:


> If this is the nature of the PuritanBoard, then I may not have any time for such games.
> The little I had heard about this forum was positive for the most part, but it seems to me like a bunch of guys who circle the wagon when one of their own is at fault.
> This is sad.



Jason, as a fellow credo, I often feel outnumbered on the scriptural view of baptism. Its hard to teach an old dog new tricks  . Please do judge the board based on this thread. I have always had a love hate relationship with the board, but it is because these men have a passion to get God's word right and so in standing for God's word as sole truth, we often but heads. We are all sharpening ourselves to the word of God, and in doing so, we must be cut.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> I'm curious about something; If circumcision is the same as baptism then why don't you baptise by the 8th day?


It's not the same ordinance. It is the same in substance. They _signify_ the same thing.



> As for Andrew's question, go ahead and keep circumcising.  Obviously, Paul had something to say about this. This brings up another question, if circumcision is the same as baptism, then why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? If your claim is true then his circumcision is extremely superfluous.


Paul did it so that the Jews would not be hindered from having Timothy join Paul in his missionary work to them. He did this, interestingly enough, in the shadow of the Church council that had just concluded. I fear, unfortunately, that too many Baptists read Galatians very uncarefully regarding what circumcision means in its different uses. To haphazardly read Paul and assume that he speaks of circumcision in one way is to miss his very important points.



> Rich - great comments on Abraham. You'll find my understanding less dispensational than you think, but more than you're comfortable with. But the circumcision made without hands (try baptizing without hands ) is the circumcision of the heart. Again, it's ALL of God.


Yes, exactly, it is ALL of God, which is why the significance of our baptism is not found inside of us. I don't make a mistake of conflating (mashing together) sign and thing signified. Baptism _signifies_ circumcision of the heart, union with Christ, remission of sins, etc. The sacrament signifies them but is not them per se. Yet, it is silly to say, when Paul talks about baptism of the Spirit and circumcision without hands to say that baptism and circumcision are disconnected. You keep looking at the outward sign, I keep pointing to their significance. If you Read Romans 4 you will note that Circumision signified union with Christ. Baptism signifies the same.



> From this point of view infant baptism introduces a human element in the plan of salvation through works. This is why I see so much of a problem in this statement of yours; "Parents are still _aided_ by God in the conversion of the Elect." Though there is a nuance of what you say that I agree with, I could never state this. Parents are a means by which God converts children, absolutely. But your statement seems to turn His sovereignty in election into a rite we can exercise. And your word for administration, unless I misunderstood something, is the same as dispensation.


Absolutely not. Again, this is a projection of Baptist thought upon the Sacrament. I have labored to show that the sign is _extra nos_ outside of ourselves. As Rev. Winzer pointed out in another thread, Romans 3:3 points out that man's failure to embrace a Promise doesn't nullify its significance. Interestingly, it is the Baptist view that brings man into the equation and keeps changing around the significance of a sign based on the recipient. This is why it is common for you to say that Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. Whose inwards? The man who receives it.

Also, you completely miss the point in the equation. As a means of Grace, God is the one who Elects not based on willing or running but works through means. Baptism is one of the means God has ordained to convert and confirm His elect in the Promise. Your view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes. Then and only then is he "worthy" of Romans 4-8.



> The Galatians passage is helpful in that it pictures baptism in the Spirit. One must be baptized into Christ before one receives the baptism of Christ. The second is a picture of the first. And the first makes one of the seed of Abraham. I hope that's not too anti-dispensational.


Really, one must be baptized into Christ before they are baptized? I'm sorry but, I must ask, how do you know a man is baptized into Christ. Please don't say profession.



> Judas is not a good example - if he was baptized (and I assume he was) then it was by the baptism of John. This is not the same as the baptism of Jesus.


No, Jesus baptized to (or others baptized under His authority). This is why the Apostles and the rest of the disciples had already received Christian Baptism at the time of Pentecost. You see, my understanding of the Sacrament is not overthrown by the fact that Judas was baptized but it literally destroys the significance if you acknowledge the the Son of God Himself knowingly had an unbeliever baptized.



> Also, Rich, at what age would you put a rebellious child out of the church? I found this comment intriguing.


Well, _I_ wouldn't excommunicate a child but the Elders would. A child would be disciplined on the basis of open, unrepentant sin just like any other believer. I'm not sure why this is so intriguing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

dalecosby said:


> It was Inigo Montoya, son of Domingo Montoya.
> 
> Sorry just being a movie curmudgeon.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was going to mention that.
> After all, how can we trust the theology of a man that can't get the Princess Bride right?
> lol
> Just kidding!
Click to expand...


I repent in dust and ashes.

I wish to make a public statement to all Baptists on the PuritanBoard.

I WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT I SAID

about Inigo Montoya

Now, prepare to die!


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> dalecosby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was Inigo Montoya, son of Domingo Montoya.
> 
> Sorry just being a movie curmudgeon.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was going to mention that.
> After all, how can we trust the theology of a man that can't get the Princess Bride right?
> lol
> Just kidding!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I repent in dust and ashes.
> 
> I wish to make a public statement to all Baptists on the PuritanBoard.
> 
> I WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT I SAID
> 
> about Inigo Montoya
> 
> Now, prepare to die!
Click to expand...


I am printing Rich's post and having it framed. It will hang just below my double portrait of John Gill and Charles Spurgeon.


----------



## non dignus

Why did Peter add, "_and to your children_" in Acts 2:39?


_"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children." _
The Baptist assumes the children must repent.


If someone said,
_"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."_ 
Would the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?


----------



## JM

Tom Bombadil said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Br. Tom, I'll have to read it again when I get back from thai boxing.
> 
> Until then, peace and God bless.
> 
> j
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't take it too easy on your shins. Pain is good, extreme pain is extremely good.
Click to expand...


I have shin splints from running, it seems I'm always in pain.

Your second post is very well written, I'll have to think on it a little more, this topic comes up so often that I get tired of reading and thinking about it. I'll send you a pm in a short while.


----------



## Calvibaptist

dalecosby said:


> It was Inigo Montoya, son of Domingo Montoya.
> 
> Sorry just being a movie curmudgeon.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I was going to mention that.
> After all, how can we trust the theology of a man that can't get the Princess Bride right?
> lol
> Just kidding!
Click to expand...


It's Inconceivable!

And that's probably all I want to say on this particular thread!


----------



## 44jason

ATTENTION TO ALL.

Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.

This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.

I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!


----------



## Calvibaptist

non dignus said:


> Why did Peter add, "_and to your children_" in Acts 2:39?
> 
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children." _
> 
> The Baptist assumes the children must repent.
> 
> 
> If someone said,
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."_
> 
> Does the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?



But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.

_"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call." _

The equivalent in your example would be:

_"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."_

By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.

And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

*sigh*

I love you guys.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> ATTENTION TO ALL.
> 
> Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.
> 
> This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.
> 
> I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
> As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!




All should know that both Jason and I have reconciled in private discussions. Both sides have asked, and granted, forgiveness.


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Richard, the same applies to adults. We grant them the judgment of charity. Only the Lord knows who are elect, and therefore who are true believers.



But, Matthew, an adult can make a credible profession of faith, when examined by a Session, which is, humanly speaking, the basis of his baptism. An infant cannot do that. An infant has no intellectual comprehension of the gospel or of Christianity at all.

Infants are baptized because (1) they are born into a covenant home, which means (2) the parents are acknowledging their biblical responsibility to raise their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Even if the parents diligently do this, there is _still_ no guarantee that the infant is elect.

I understand that there's no guarantee that the newly-baptized adult is actually elect, either (after all, it's only a _credible_ profession, not an _actually guaranteed honest and correct_ confession, from our point of view). But, one can't grant an infant a "judgment of charity" because there's no content to his participation in the sacrament.


----------



## Calvibaptist

bookslover said:


> Infants are baptized because (1) they are born into a covenant home, which means (2) the parents are acknowledging their biblical responsibility to raise their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Even if the parents diligently do this, there is _still_ no guarantee that the infant is elect.



So, all this conversation about "infants" is great. But what about teenage children? Suppose a husband and wife become believers and want to join the local Presbyterian church. Their 15 year old son does not believe but wants to join the fellowship as well. Would you baptize him?


----------



## non dignus

Calvibaptist said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Peter add, "_and to your children_" in Acts 2:39?
> 
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children." _
> 
> The Baptist assumes the children must repent.
> 
> 
> If someone said,
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."_
> 
> Does the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call." _
> 
> The equivalent in your example would be:
> 
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."_
> 
> By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.
Click to expand...


Hello again, Pastor.
Thanks for the challenge.
Those who work show they have been selected. But children are not in the pool of potential selectees because they are not yet able to work. When they are able to work (profess belief) it will be manifest if the boss has selected them. In the meanwhile they benefit from a representative (patriarch of household) in enjoying the abundance (outward Baptism)



> And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?



Since Peter is quoting Genesis, the promise is all the benefits of Christ promised to Abraham. No, I'm not saying all who are baptized are elect, I'm saying the promise is to individuals in believing households who do not grow up to despise their baptism. In other words, _"you are now saved if you persevere in faith. If you do not persevere in faith, you are not now saved." _ This is the promise to holy infants.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the same applies to adults. We grant them the judgment of charity. Only the Lord knows who are elect, and therefore who are true believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, Matthew, an adult can make a credible profession of faith, when examined by a Session, which is, humanly speaking, the basis of his baptism. An infant cannot do that. An infant has no intellectual comprehension of the gospel or of Christianity at all.
Click to expand...


If the Spirit works within them they have as much as what an adult requires in order to make a credible profession of faith. That suffices. The disciples don't seem to have had any intellectual comprehension of the gospel prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, yet our Lord credits them with saving knowledge, John 14. That is because what He did they knew not then, but they would know thereafter, John 13.



bookslover said:


> Infants are baptized because (1) they are born into a covenant home, which means (2) the parents are acknowledging their biblical responsibility to raise their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Even if the parents diligently do this, there is _still_ no guarantee that the infant is elect.



This is insufficient. Baptism signifies something. If the infant has no part in what baptism signifies then the sign of baptism should not be administered. Otherwise the administration of the sacrament would be a facade.



bookslover said:


> I understand that there's no guarantee that the newly-baptized adult is actually elect, either (after all, it's only a _credible_ profession, not an _actually guaranteed honest and correct_ confession, from our point of view). But, one can't grant an infant a "judgment of charity" because there's no content to his participation in the sacrament.



There is as much probability of a baptised infant walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless as there is of a baptised adult. In fact, if the infant is trained correctly, there is more probability, since he/she does not have carnal things to unlearn. Blessings!


----------



## 44jason

The unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor. 7 does not despise the faith of their believing spouse. Why not baptize them? Because we know that they are unbelievers. What if that spouse due to a health issue becomes mentally incapable of expressing faith or lack of faith anymore, should we go ahead now and baptize them since they are as capable now as an infant? No, because they have not repented. But neither had the infants. But God told Abraham to circumcise his children. Yes, but God never told us to baptize anyone who is unrepentant including infants.


----------



## MW

44jason said:


> The unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor. 7 does not despise the faith of their believing spouse. Why not baptize them? Because we know that they are unbelievers. What if that spouse due to a health issue becomes mentally incapable of expressing faith or lack of faith anymore, should we go ahead now and baptize them since they are as capable now as an infant? No, because they have not repented. But neither had the infants. But God told Abraham to circumcise his children. Yes, but God never told us to baptize anyone who is unrepentant including infants.



Please demonstrate one call to repentance in the NT which would be required of an infant who will grow up believing in the Triune God.


----------



## 44jason

Matthew,
Can you please rephrase your question?
Specifically I am confused by "will grow up believing."
Are you suggesting that they were saved through discipleship?
Are you suggesting that adults have to be born-again but children can just "grow up believing"?
Like I said, I just want you to rephrase the question so that I will not be accidentally guilty of assuming something about your beliefs that are incorrect. Bear with me, I may just be slow.


----------



## MW

44jason said:


> Matthew,
> Can you please rephrase your question?
> Specifically I am confused by "will grow up believing."
> Are you suggesting that they were saved through discipleship?
> Are you suggesting that adults have to be born-again but children can just "grow up believing"?
> Like I said, I just want you to rephrase the question so that I will not be accidentally guilty of assuming something about your beliefs that are incorrect. Bear with me, I may just be slow.



When a minister issues a call to repentance, he does so on the understanding that there is an actual false belief or immoral practice which requires repentance. Given that a baptised infant will be brought up in the worshipping profession of the Triune God, what actual false belief or immoral practice does the NT require the baptised infant to repent of?


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> The unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor. 7 does not despise the faith of their believing spouse. Why not baptize them? Because we know that they are unbelievers. What if that spouse due to a health issue becomes mentally incapable of expressing faith or lack of faith anymore, should we go ahead now and baptize them since they are as capable now as an infant? No, because they have not repented. But neither had the infants. But God told Abraham to circumcise his children. Yes, but God never told us to baptize anyone who is unrepentant including infants.




Disanalogous. Adults are not infants. 

Adult proselytes who came into the OT faith were required to repent and turn towards Jehovah, abandoning their idols (same us proselytes to the NC!), but their infant children were not.... because they couldn't.

The only way they could enter was by repentance, much like today, but they also brought their children.

This was *not* because the children were required for the phsyical descent of Messiah - since he would be a "true Israelite," ethnically speaking.

They were the down payments of the promise to Abraham that many, many peoples would be blessed by his faith - people coming into the Olive Tree by faith. The NT Christian is the grander fulfillment of these OT down payments. And we bring our children into the faith, just like our adult proselyte forefathers did.


----------



## KMK

Tom Bombadil said:


> Adults are not infants.



 What church do you go to?


----------



## 44jason

Again, I just want to move a little slower here before responding.
I am still a little shell shocked from trying to just jump right in and converse.

Matthew asks,


> what actual false belief or immoral practice does the NT require the baptised infant to repent of?



Paul says,


> Adult proselytes... were required to repent... but their infants were not... because they couldn't... we bring our children into the faith...



Brothers, I do not agree with this AT ALL. Please spare me from quoting all the Scriptures that declare that salvation involves repentance. Nowhere does the Bible teach that some must repent but others do not.

If this is not agreed upon this discussion may have come to an impasse.

Please explain if I am reading your statements wrong.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Again, I just want to move a little slower here before responding.
> I am still a little shell shocked from trying to just jump right in and converse.
> 
> Matthew asks,
> 
> 
> 
> what actual false belief or immoral practice does the NT require the baptised infant to repent of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul says,
> 
> 
> 
> Adult proselytes... were required to repent... but their infants were not... because they couldn't... we bring our children into the faith...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brothers, I do not agree with this AT ALL. Please spare me from quoting all the Scriptures that declare that salvation involves repentance. Nowhere does the Bible teach that some must repent but others do not.
> 
> If this is not agreed upon this discussion may have come to an impasse.
> 
> Please explain if I am reading your statements wrong.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Jason, let me be clearer.

Proselytes were required to repent *before entering the covenant people of God.* I said this, but perhaps it slipped past you. I can see why. I meant, that they had to *profess* repentance. Of course we don't ever know if someone has *truly* repented. Proselytes were required to *repent* (i.e., make a public profession of their repentance) before they were circumcised, but not their infants. So, your comments about adults repenting before they get the sign, and enter the covenant community, have nothing to do with the exclusion of our children from the NT. You're just saying that things should be the way they've always been when a proselyte enters the people of God. Thus all your verses about adults repenting are rendered useless in the paedo/credo debate. 

This is *exactly* analogous to today's situation.

Where am I off?


----------



## MW

44jason said:


> Brothers, I do not agree with this AT ALL. Please spare me from quoting all the Scriptures that declare that salvation involves repentance. Nowhere does the Bible teach that some must repent but others do not.



OK. So you have an infant, and he's a month old. He is a child of Adam and is condemned in him. You say salvation requires repentance. He cannot repent, cannot be called upon to repent, in fact he's done or said nothing to require him to repent. Does this mean that infant is going to hell, or is there provision made for him through the blood of Christ to go to heaven?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me try to take a stab at this Pastor Robertson.

I think you would misconstrue Rev Winzer by assuming that he is implying that children of believers never repent of the sins they commit.

The fundamental disconnect we have is whether or not you view your children as disciples or not. We do. You do not. As disciples, they are _visibly_ disciples the same way others in your Church are visibly disciples. As disciples, they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age.

Notice that the disjunction between Richard and Matthew occured over whether a child could rightly be called a believer if they have not intellectually stated their faith. As Rev. Winzer rightly pointed out, if a child is elect or an adult is elect capacity is immaterial to God's favor.

Remember, election is not of him who _wills_ or of him who runs but of Him who shows Mercy.

It is not that believers are to have God's certainty that their children are elect to treat them with the judgment of charity. From our perspective, it is not any different than the judgment of charity extended to a professing adult. Now, I know you are conditioned to accept the fact that a profession is some sort of rock solid guarantee but you make an unwarranted presumption to give more credence to the profession than the fact that a child has been born into a believing household. Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.

THUS, IF you accept the preceding, you would understand what Rev. Winzer is saying. Stop thinking of children for a moment and assume you went up to one of the people in your Church who has been a member for 10 years in good standing and declared to him: "Repent of your sins and turn from your wicked ways!"

Now, I'm not saying that you would not be enjoining the man on a weekly basis to repent of his sins as part of corporate worship and the man would be ever aware of his need for Christ.

But, he need not be told to turn from idolatry and licentious behavior by you if he is showing no signs of rebellion.

You may object that children are not disciples so we can't treat them that way but that rather begs the question from our standpoint. I don't believe I have any stronger warrant to assume ill of my children than I do of the other members in my Church. I've seen the lives and comprehension of some of my fellow Church members and I actually have a little greater confidence for my children some times because they're in a home that prays with and presents the Gospel to them more clearly and regularly than other visible members. Since I don't know God's will of election but I do know who is a disciple along with me, though, I simply assume that the others are in Christ with me - and that includes my kids.


----------



## MW

SemperFideles said:


> But, he need not be told to turn from idolatry and licentious behavior by you if he is showing no signs of rebellion.



Exactly. Or suppose he is exhorted to depart from that practical atheism which is still a part of the remnants of sin in him, this presupposes a work of grace in the man's heart. And the same applies to an infant. You can't bring them up IN the Lord on the presupposition that they are OUT of the Lord.


----------



## 44jason

Rich why would you make such a claim:


> I know you are conditioned to accept the fact that a profession is some sort of rock solid guarantee


I have never been conditioned in such a way and find that statement based upon some erroneous presuppositions that may poison the well here. 

But you are right when you assert that I...


> give more credence to the profession than the fact that a child has been born into a believing household


. Salvation comes by faith not family.

And I am not following this line of thinking:


> But, he need not be told to turn from idolatry and licentious behavior by you if he is showing no signs of rebellion.


 I preach repentance to all -- even "good" people.

And your last paragraph begs the question:


> You may object that children are not disciples so we can't treat them that way but that rather begs the question from our standpoint. I don't believe I have any stronger warrant to assume ill of my children than I do of the other members in my Church. I've seen the lives and comprehension of some of my fellow Church members and I actually have a little greater confidence for my children some times because they're in a home that prays with and presents the Gospel to them more clearly and regularly than other visible members. Since I don't know God's will of election but I do know who is a disciple along with me, though, I simply assume that the others are in Christ with me - and that includes my kids.


On what basis is your confidence, that your kids are being discipled by a good dad or that your kids have evidence repentance and faith?
If you believe that salvation involves repentance and faith, why not wait for that day when they repent and believe? Why not let them publicly display their faith and cognitively enjoy their baptism?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich why would you make such a claim:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you are conditioned to accept the fact that a profession is some sort of rock solid guarantee
> 
> 
> 
> I have never been conditioned in such a way and find that statement based upon some erroneous presuppositions that may poison the well here.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for poisoning the well. Let me rephrase...



> But you are right when you assert that I...
> 
> 
> 
> give more credence to the profession than the fact that a child has been born into a believing household
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You just said it for me.



> Salvation comes by faith not family.


The instrument of salvation is faith alone. If you want to poison the well, you might as well state that I believe salvation comes by family. I didn't say this. Of course the two propositions are not mutually exclusive as if family has nothing to do with faith. How many Baptists are there in Saudi Arabia anyhow?



> And I am not following this line of thinking:
> 
> 
> 
> But, he need not be told to turn from idolatry and licentious behavior by you if he is showing no signs of rebellion.
> 
> 
> 
> I preach repentance to all -- even "good" people.
Click to expand...

If you would read this again then you would see I noted the necessity of corporate repentance and that men live lives of repentance. You do not, however, walk up to a man who is in good standing and tell him to repent and to begin worshipping the True God if, for 10 years, you assume he has been. That was my point. Please read more carefully.



> And your last paragraph begs the question:
> 
> 
> 
> You may object that children are not disciples so we can't treat them that way but that rather begs the question from our standpoint. I don't believe I have any stronger warrant to assume ill of my children than I do of the other members in my Church. I've seen the lives and comprehension of some of my fellow Church members and I actually have a little greater confidence for my children some times because they're in a home that prays with and presents the Gospel to them more clearly and regularly than other visible members. Since I don't know God's will of election but I do know who is a disciple along with me, though, I simply assume that the others are in Christ with me - and that includes my kids.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I just said that it would from your standpoint. 


> On what basis is your confidence, that your kids are being discipled by a good dad or that your kids have evidence repentance and faith?


The confidence I have is a God who elects. The confidence I have is that, like other disciples, they are members of good standing in the Body where the Gospel is proclaimed.


> If you believe that salvation involves repentance and faith, why not wait for that day when they repent and believe? Why not let them publicly display their faith and cognitively enjoy their baptism?


If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Salvation comes by faith not family.



...and not by profession either, i.e., a mere uttering of the words "I believe in Jesus."

What basis do we believe our children are elect?

Speaking of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 30 we read: "This is what the LORD says: " 'I will restore the fortunes of Jacob's tents and have compassion on his dwellings; From them will come songs of thanksgiving and the sound of rejoicing. I will add to their numbers, and they will not be decreased; Their children will be as in days of old, and their community will be established before me, Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them" 'So you will be my people, and I will be your God.' " 

Talking about the time of the New Covenant Jeremiah says “At that time, saith Jehovah, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:1).

Again, referring to the times of the New Covenant, the Lord says through Ezekiel in chapter 37: 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them.”

Zech 10 reads, "And I shall strengthen the house of Judah, And I shall save the house of Joseph, And I shall bring them back, Because I have had not rejected them. And their heart will be glad as if from wine; Indeed, their children will see it and be glad, Their heart will rejoice in the LORD. "I will whistle for them to gather them together, For I have redeemed them; And they will be as numerous as they were before. "When I scatter them among the peoples, They will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”

In the last book of the Old Testament we read about John the Baptist and part of what his mission entailed: Mal 4:5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”

And what, according to the New Testament, is the reason for this?: Luke 1:17 "And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." 

This is in contrast to what would happen to the breakdown between the fathers and children of the Old Covenant because of God’s covenantal curses brought upon them. Ezekiel 5:10 “Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers.”

The New Covenant restores the people of God. As Jeremiah had stated -- at that time I will be a God to the families of New Covenant Israel, and that they will be my people. And Zech 10:8-10 "I will whistle for them to gather them, they will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”

The Mother of Jesus applies the Old Testament idea of covenantal succession to her day and every day after that: Luke 2:48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. 50 "and his mercy is upon generation after generation, toward those who fear Him.”

In Jeremiah 31:33 New Covenant members will have God’s law written upon their heart. Why would this mean a removal of the children of covenant members when Hosea says that because the law was not on the Old Covenant members heart this meant their children were cast off? “Because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children”(4:6). Wouldn’t New Covenant Jews, who were familiar with Hosea mind you, at least have asked for clarification if the Apostles had told them that their children were not part of God’s people? “You mean the law is on our heart, but our children are still forgotten!? They don’t, as Jeremiah said, return with us? Please explain!” Perhaps they didn’t ask that because they were too busy having numerous debates about the inclusion of Gentiles. Note that. The New Testament notes numerous heated debates the church had over Gentiles being included among the covenant people. It was unexpected so much so that even the Apostle Peter had to have a private talk with God in order to get with the program. But what did these Jewish Christians do when they found out their own children had been excluded? Surely they debated much more vigorously than they had about the inclusion of the Gentiles, right? If the Jews were debating over the inclusion of the Gentiles, how much more would they have debated the exclusion of their own children? But in the New testament we find utter silence. But, that silence is deafening.


----------



## 44jason

Paul,
I must be really slow tonight. I'm still not following you. Maybe I missed something in a comment somewhere but what are you saying here:


> So, your comments about adults repenting before they get the sign, and enter the covenant community, have nothing to do with the exclusion of our children from the NT.


You see, Paul, my comments have to do with the fact that some statements in comments above are suggesting that some enter the New Covenant Church by spiritual birth and others by physical birth.

You now seem to be arguing that I believe in excluding children. That is just not true. I was born-again at age seven and baptized. A good friend of mine, at age five. My son, at age 8. I have another son who has professed faith and is seemingly growing in wisdom and practical righteousness and we look forward to his soon baptism. I am so thankful that my parents did not rob me of the cognitive decision I made to be baptized, to obey the Scripture and publicly confess my baptism into Christ. The joy that I see on people's faces, including the day I baptized my Dad, my wife, and my son, -- Oh I am so glad that they were able to experience that glorious day of being baptized in obedience to Scripture. The grace they experienced will never be forgotten. I am so glad that baptism for me and for them was not some religious ceremony that happened to us as infants because someone said, "Hey because we have repented and come into the Covenant community by faith, lets just baptize this baby and teach him from the beginning that all he needs to do is not buck the system, to not deny the faith." Alright, I know that is not exactly what you are saying --but that is what it sounds like to us.

So drop the "your trying to exclude children" argument, please. It didn't work against Gene and it will not work with me. It is just a false assumption, at least by you, I don't know if other paedo's share this false presupposition.

The irony is, Baptist have baptized some children numerous times!!!! But that is a different issue, but it does illustrate how false your presupposition is.


----------



## 44jason

Paul,
Nice burning of this strawman:


> ...and not by profession either, i.e., a mere uttering of the words "I believe in Jesus."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> You see, Paul, my comments have to do with the fact that some statements in comments above are suggesting that some enter the New Covenant Church by spiritual birth and others by physical birth.



Here is the disconnect. Now you said I poisoned the well by noting that you are conditioned to think of profession as being _some sort_ of rock solid guarantee (I didn't say you thought it was a guarantee but just some sort of rock solid guarantee).

Notice how you let slip the way you feel about this:

Professors are those in the Church by spiritual birth.
Children of Professors are those in the Church by physical birth.

Seriously, Jason, can't you see the presumption you are making? How can you fault me saying it's _some sort_ of rock solid guarantee for you when you make the rock solid claim that professors are necessarily spiritually re-born and children of professors are simply those of physical birth?

See, we wouldn't presume either to be of that category. I do not have enough information on the mind of God to look at the visible Church and say: "That one is not regenerated."


----------



## non dignus

[side bar]

Rev. Winzer,

Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be _converted, _but that doesn't necessarily show itself in _repentance._

In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?

[/side bar]


----------



## 44jason

Rich, this statement


> If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?


... is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.

Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.

Lets look at a hypothetical to make this a little more... unclear.

If your church had 100 children born to families in your congregation over the last 25 years and so did mine, and your church baptized all 100 and our church baptized all 100 over the 25 years -- does this discussion matter? I think it does, because the issue is not about children but about the definition of "baptism" and the nature of the visible church.

But lets say that 10 of your children apostatized and so did 10 of ours. Both of our churches would grieve over this. And we would say I remember when those 10 made a credible profession of faith and we baptized them, but they went out from us because they were never truly converted. What would your church's feelings be? I'm sure the same.

Now lets say that your church baptized all 100 and 25 apostatized. But our church only baptized 75 because the other 25 never had a credible profession. Which scenario would give a clearer testimony as to the true nature of the New Covenant? Which scenario was more in sync with God's election and will? 

I obviously have more confidence in the credo approach to baptism than the paedo approach. Hopefully you can see why? My only desire is to reflect God's will, and be in sync with the mind of Christ as a church, and to give God glory in all things including WHO we baptize and WHY? If we have no credible reasons to believe that God has baptized them into Christ and Christ is their federal head, then we cannot in clear conscience put the sign of the NC upon them. And we don't feel Scripture is silent -- but sufficiently clear to baptize those who repent and believe.

Sincerely,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich, this statement
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?
> 
> 
> 
> ... is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.
> 
> Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.
> 
> Lets look at a hypothetical to make this a little more... unclear.
> 
> If your church had 100 children born to families in your congregation over the last 25 years and so did mine, and your church baptized all 100 and our church baptized all 100 over the 25 years -- does this discussion matter? I think it does, because the issue is not about children but about the definition of "baptism" and the nature of the visible church.
> 
> But lets say that 10 of your children apostatized and so did 10 of ours. Both of our churches would grieve over this. And we would say I remember when those 10 made a credible profession of faith and we baptized them, but they went out from us because they were never truly converted. What would your church's feelings be? I'm sure the same.
> 
> Now lets say that your church baptized all 100 and 25 apostatized. But our church only baptized 75 because the other 25 never had a credible profession. Which scenario would give a clearer testimony as to the true nature of the New Covenant? Which scenario was more in sync with God's election and will?
> 
> I obviously have more confidence in the credo approach to baptism than the paedo approach. Hopefully you can see why? My only desire is to reflect God's will, and be in sync with the mind of Christ as a church, and to give God glory in all things including WHO we baptize and WHY? If we have no credible reasons to believe that God has baptized them into Christ and Christ is their federal head, then we cannot in clear conscience put the sign of the NC upon them. And we don't feel Scripture is silent -- but sufficiently clear to baptize those who repent and believe.
> 
> Sincerely,
Click to expand...


I understand your motivation for it. I don't agree that it is a Scriptural motivation obviously but you ought not perceive that as a personal slight. As I stated before the calculus is relatively simple:

1. All who have ever been saved are united to Christ.
2. This was true before and after the Mosaic Administration.
3. The community of faith (visible Church) has always been a means for the conversion of God's elect.
4. God not only commands a thing but provides the very means to help toward that end.

What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end. All the hypotheticals about 25 going apostate here and 75 believing there focus too much on the apostate. The apostate and the reprobate cannot shipwreck God's plan. The reprobate cannot be dissuaded from being reprobate or encouraged to be reprobate by being more careful to treat them as reprobate.

Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".

And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the _essence_ of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

To me, all your theoretical concerns about what people are saying about a perfect Covenant that cannot be corrupted by anything that man tries to do against it pale in comparison against the very obvious ways in which that false dichotomy undermines the whole program of training a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.


----------



## MW

non dignus said:


> [side bar]
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be _converted, _but that doesn't necessarily show itself in _repentance._
> 
> In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?
> 
> [/side bar]



That is correct, I would never deny the necessity of conversion. Certainly metanoia can be understood of conversion, but I interpreted our Baptist friend as referring to repentance in the strict theological idea of the term, as "turning" or altering the course of one's life. According to my understanding an infant of believers has no "turning" to do since he is brought up IN the Lord.

In reflecting on this discussion and others like it, I can see that the revivalistic view of regeneration/conversion creates difficulties for some. When did conversion and/or repentance become a one time event in reformed theology? There appears to be a revivalistic view of conversion meshed in with the reformed ordo salutis to create an almost legalistic understanding of personal salvation. We need to remember that the ordo salutis is not a chronological but a logical order, and that the Spirit of God works according to His own sovereign will in each case.


----------



## non dignus

armourbearer said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> [side bar]
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be _converted, _but that doesn't necessarily show itself in _repentance._
> 
> In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?
> 
> [/side bar]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct, I would never deny the necessity of conversion. Certainly metanoia can be understood of conversion, but I interpreted our Baptist friend as referring to repentance in the strict theological idea of the term, as "turning" or altering the course of one's life. *According to my understanding an infant of believers has no "turning" to do since he is brought up IN the Lord.*
> In reflecting on this discussion and others like it, I can see that the revivalistic view of regeneration/conversion creates difficulties for some. When did conversion and/or repentance become a one time event in reformed theology? * There appears to be a revivalistic view of conversion meshed in with the reformed ordo salutis to create an almost legalistic understanding of personal salvation. * We need to remember that the ordo salutis is not a chronological but a logical order, and that the Spirit of God works according to His own sovereign will in each case.
Click to expand...


You are a great help to me in sorting this out. Thank you.


----------



## 44jason

Rich you said:


> ... you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey". And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.


That is a false assumption on your part that has caused you to once again claim something false about me and reformed Baptist.

Such false presuppositions lead to more, like this one


> What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end.


There are so many things wrong about this line of thinking.
#1 -- you seem to suggest that baptized infants have more of a CHANCE to get saved than non baptized ones. I guess you can prove that there are more Presbyterians in the invisible church than not??? Gosh, I don't want my kid to have less of a means of grace than yours... give me a cup of water!
#2 -- do you think that unbaptized kids are welcomed in our church???
#3 -- do you think that during our family devotions and prayer time, I only allow my baptized son to participate, but make my other children sit out on the porch???

Come on Rich, this is why Baptist hear this kind of stuff and do more than just disagree -- it is down right insulting.

But I am sure you have no intentions of being offensive, so I was just making note of what happens among many.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey". And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a false assumption on your part that has caused you to once again claim something false about me and reformed Baptist.
Click to expand...

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?


> Such false presuppositions lead to more, like this one
> 
> 
> 
> What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end.
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many things wrong about this line of thinking.
> #1 -- you seem to suggest that baptized infants have more of a CHANCE to get saved than non baptized ones. I guess you can prove that there are more Presbyterians in the invisible church than not??? Gosh, I don't want my kid to have less of a means of grace than yours... give me a cup of water!
Click to expand...

No, I don't base baptism on a probability calculus that one might be more elect than another. It's not a danger I'm accustomed to. I actually believe your children are in the Covenant. I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.


> #2 -- do you think that unbaptized kids are welcomed in our church???


No, I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.


> #3 -- do you think that during our family devotions and prayer time, I only allow my baptized son to participate, but make my other children sit out on the porch???


Do you allow them to pray? If so, on what basis? Who is mediating their prayers in your mind if you are not presuming them regenerated in some sense?

I am very happy when Baptists train their kids. I just wish they wouldn't go out of their way to claim that they are unregenerate.



> Come on Rich, this is why Baptist hear this kind of stuff and do more than just disagree -- it is down right insulting.
> 
> But I am sure you have no intentions of being offensive, so I was just making note of what happens among many.


It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to _confidently presume_ that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.


----------



## Wannabee

Paul,
You asked a question and I responded. I wasn't sure if it was just a curiosity for you, or if you missed my response.


SemperFideles said:


> Baptism is one of the means God has ordained to convert and confirm His elect in the Promise. Your view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes. Then and only then is he "worthy" of Romans 4-8.


Baptism is a means of convertion? I can't buy this. In fact, I have to think you misspoke, unless your talking about the spiritual reality. 
And to say that my "view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes" is completely foreign to my thinking. If you read my post from about three posts ago you'll see that I see it as a vital part of declaring the Gospel, which I do and encourage from the earliest of ages. I wholeheartedly would agree tha this is usually left out of witnessing, which shouldn't be. Obviously Phillip included it, or the eunich would have no idea about baptism. Of course this nullifies your comment on Romans 4-8, so I'll drop it here.




> Really, one must be baptized into Christ before they are baptized? I'm sorry but, I must ask, how do you know a man is baptized into Christ. Please don't say profession.


Actually, haven't you heard of the new litmus test the SBC has come out with? It's great. Just take a specimen, dip the little paper in, and if it turns purple then voilla, you have a new born Christian. The rabbit test was too inconsistent, so they were pretty excited about it when this one came out. 
Profession is all we have. If one claims Christ then who am I do withhold baptism? Prior to baptism they get to share their testimony and declare publicly their faith in Christ. Remember Jesus' words, if one "says" they repent then we forgive them. It doesn't say that we forgive them when we know they have repented. The same would go for baptism.



> Judas is not a good example - if he was baptized (and I assume he was) then it was by the baptism of John. This is not the same as the baptism of Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Jesus baptized to (or others baptized under His authority). This is why the Apostles and the rest of the disciples had already received Christian Baptism at the time of Pentecost. You see, my understanding of the Sacrament is not overthrown by the fact that Judas was baptized but it literally destroys the significance if you acknowledge the the Son of God Himself knowingly had an unbeliever baptized.
Click to expand...

It really destroys nothing. Again, I accept the testimony of one who claims to believe. This argument accomplishes nothing.



> Also, Rich, at what age would you put a rebellious child out of the church? I found this comment intriguing.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, _I_ wouldn't excommunicate a child but the Elders would. A child would be disciplined on the basis of open, unrepentant sin just like any other believer. I'm not sure why this is so intriguing.
Click to expand...

Because no age was given. A five year old is a habitual liar. He lies, is confronted, lies, is confronted, etc. Is he excommunicated. If so, what does excommunication look like for a 5 year old? Is he put in day care, left home or what?



non dignus said:


> Why did Peter add, "_and to your children_" in Acts 2:39?
> 
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children." _
> The Baptist assumes the children must repent.
> 
> 
> If someone said,
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."_
> Would the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?


Not a good argument because it claims the text says something it doesn't. This was dealt with earlier in this thread.


armourbearer said:


> When a minister issues a call to repentance, he does so on the understanding that there is an actual false belief or immoral practice which requires repentance. Given that a baptised infant will be brought up in the worshipping profession of the Triune God, what actual false belief or immoral practice does the NT require the baptised infant to repent of?


This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.

Rich, if you see disciples as students, then our children absolutely are disciples. If you mean it to be "little believers" (as some do), then you are correct in your above assessment. And I absolutely agree that "they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age." And it is acknowledged that they can be believers without vocalizing it properly. However, we cannot know/think that they are until they can properly give testimony of their faith.



> Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.


Suspicious eye... Hmmm. Actually, I do this with my baptized children. I think they're both saved. They've both given credible testimony and their lives reflect it in many ways. But they still lean on my faith to a great degree. I still challenge them on their salvation. I'd rather challenge them on their salvation than take it for granted and find out, too late, that they were never saved.


> Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".
> 
> And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.


This is really wierd. Who thinks this way?

Jason makes some good points above.


Much speculation and attempting to corner the Baptist position by steering the conversation and attempting to win the argument. Think about this guys, are you really trying to persuade, or are you trying to win an argument/debate? I've attempted to pull the conversation back and go slower so that the things we agree on can be staged and the specifics we disagree on can be focused on. I thought that was what Paul was trying to do in his question to me. Jason seems to have tried the same thing. But the conversation goes so fast and begins to bring in so many elements that it becomes a free-for-all that looks more like a demolition derby than any orderly desire to pursue truth. I truly want to understand where you guys are coming from. I get some of it, but there's a disconnect somewhere that simply eludes me. I see you holding on to tradition and scared to let go. If you do then your entire system collapses. You see me as... well, something else. The thing is, my position is not reliant upon my system, nor is my system reliant upon my position. My position is simply reliant upon my exegesis of Scripture, which shows me that those who give credible profession of faith are to be baptized.


----------



## Wannabee

SemperFideles said:


> It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to _confidently presume_ that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.


Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.


> Deuteronomy 6:6-7
> “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.


We all agree; right?


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.



They haven't done anything requiring repentance, so they shouldn't be baptised -- a strange species of reasoning. Should we be waiting for them to do something which requires repentance so that we can urge repentance and then baptise them? Perhaps if they sold themselves to do evil, they could have a real dramatic conversion, and then we could feel all the more sure about their salvation. This wisdom definitely does not come from above.


----------



## Wannabee

No, twisted that way it wouldn't.
The fact is, we are commanded to repent. Repentance is a sign of salvation. Therefore, baptism presupposes repentance. I simply connected the dots without going into it.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Paul,
> I must be really slow tonight. I'm still not following you. Maybe I missed something in a comment somewhere but what are you saying here:



Yes, Jason, you are misunderstanding. Get some sleep, take three Exedrin, and call me in the morning. 



> You see, Paul, my comments have to do with the fact that some statements in comments above are suggesting that some enter the New Covenant Church by spiritual birth and others by physical birth.



Then you must think that either the children of the proselytes didn't enter the covenant community, or they were spiritually born again.

But, furthermore, I've tried to explain that you view the NC as having only one face - a living relationship alone. I view it as two-sided - a living relationship and a legal one.

So, I can understand that if you read my statements as applying to a baptists way of looking at things you'd naturally be confused. I'm offering defeater-defeaters though. And, I'm showing that your statements areundermined by the actual facts of Scripture.



> You now seem to be arguing that I believe in excluding children. That is just not true.



No, I'm not arguing that. In fact, I said the proselytes to the covenant community in the OT brought in their *infant* children. They had to enter by profession of faith, but not their infants. So, when you cite that a NT proselyete cannot enter the covenant community unless he has faith, all you're doing is saying what has always been. I have proven, though, that this doesn't mean that children enter in by birth.



> The grace they experienced will never be forgotten. I am so glad that baptism for me and for them was not some religious ceremony that happened to us as infants because someone said, "Hey because we have repented and come into the Covenant community by faith, lets just baptize this baby and teach him from the beginning that all he needs to do is not buck the system, to not deny the faith."



Argument from sentementalism, eh?



> So drop the "your trying to exclude children" argument, please. It didn't work against Gene and it will not work with me. It is just a false assumption, at least by you, I don't know if other paedo's share this false presupposition.



Can you quote me saying as much? Or, is this another straw man you are forced to build because dealing with my actual arguments is too tough a challenge? ;-)

Hope that helped.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Paul,
> Nice burning of this strawman:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and not by profession either, i.e., a mere uttering of the words "I believe in Jesus."
Click to expand...


That was in response to your strawman. Just so you know, I go by the motto, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.
> 
> Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.



Jason, there you go again talking about the "logical implication" of my statements.

Please substantiate these claims of yours. Tell us that you have more than mere assertions.

Here is an example of logical implication:

1) Ted is taller than Sam.

2) Sam is taller than Pete.

3) Therefore, Ted is taller than Pete.

Can you do the above with my claims? Or, like Gene, does simply "asserting" that my argument is "absurd" or "silly" or "illogical" carry weight with you?

I know it's tough, but I do expect assertions to be substantiated or, if they cannot be, then dropped.


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> No, twisted that way it wouldn't.
> The fact is, we are commanded to repent. Repentance is a sign of salvation. Therefore, baptism presupposes repentance. I simply connected the dots without going into it.



But if you went into it, tying repentance and salvation together the way that you do, would you not have to wait for the child to do or say something evil which requires repentance before you could say they are saved and therefore candidates for baptism? So you are really left saying that they must do evil that good may come.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is one of the means God has ordained to convert and confirm His elect in the Promise. Your view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes. Then and only then is he "worthy" of Romans 4-8.
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is a means of convertion? I can't buy this. In fact, I have to think you misspoke, unless your talking about the spiritual reality.
Click to expand...

It is a means of Grace that points to the same object and comforts and sustains a believer. By noting the object of Baptism (and not the Baptism iself) when joined with the Word, it could potentially be a means to conversion.


> And to say that my "view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes" is completely foreign to my thinking. If you read my post from about three posts ago you'll see that I see it as a vital part of declaring the Gospel, which I do and encourage from the earliest of ages. I wholeheartedly would agree tha this is usually left out of witnessing, which shouldn't be. Obviously Phillip included it, or the eunich would have no idea about baptism. Of course this nullifies your comment on Romans 4-8, so I'll drop it here.


So you would command an unbaptized child with these words:


> 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 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.





> Really, one must be baptized into Christ before they are baptized? I'm sorry but, I must ask, how do you know a man is baptized into Christ. Please don't say profession.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, haven't you heard of the new litmus test the SBC has come out with? It's great. Just take a specimen, dip the little paper in, and if it turns purple then voilla, you have a new born Christian. The rabbit test was too inconsistent, so they were pretty excited about it when this one came out.
> Profession is all we have. If one claims Christ then who am I do withhold baptism? Prior to baptism they get to share their testimony and declare publicly their faith in Christ. Remember Jesus' words, if one "says" they repent then we forgive them. It doesn't say that we forgive them when we know they have repented. The same would go for baptism.
Click to expand...

Thus, as I noted, you are baptizing on the basis of something visible. I would obviously argue that the children of believers are recipients as well but you state that the only visible means we have of determining recipients is profession. Let's just be clear that you are not baptizing _because_ they are baptized into Christ.



> It really destroys nothing. Again, I accept the testimony of one who claims to believe. This argument accomplishes nothing.
> 
> Because no age was given. A five year old is a habitual liar. He lies, is confronted, lies, is confronted, etc. Is he excommunicated. If so, what does excommunication look like for a 5 year old? Is he put in day care, left home or what?
> 
> Not a good argument because it claims the text says something it doesn't. This was dealt with earlier in this thread.
> This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.


What is this, make up crazy hypothetical week or what? What kind of apostasy do you think a 5 year old is capable of? Incidentally, if you see a brat screaming on the floor of Walmart, do you just chalk it up to his nature? I also do hope that the habitual liar is not in your household. It's been my experience that habitually lying 5 year olds have habitually bad parents.



> Rich, if you see disciples as students, then our children absolutely are disciples. If you mean it to be "little believers" (as some do), then you are correct in your above assessment. And I absolutely agree that "they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age." And it is acknowledged that they can be believers without vocalizing it properly. However, we cannot know/think that they are until they can properly give testimony of their faith.


Why?



> Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Suspicious eye... Hmmm. Actually, I do this with my baptized children. I think they're both saved. They've both given credible testimony and their lives reflect it in many ways. But they still lean on my faith to a great degree. I still challenge them on their salvation. I'd rather challenge them on their salvation than take it for granted and find out, too late, that they were never saved.
Click to expand...

Yet, is it your contention that, without any knowledge, you are suspicious or skeptical of the fact that they are regenerate. Seems like your skeptical until they prove it to you instead of hopeful that they will confirm it to you.


> Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".
> 
> And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.
> 
> 
> 
> This is really wierd. Who thinks this way?
Click to expand...

I agree it is weird to say of children that they are unregenerate and born in Adam until they prove otherwise. I know you don't act this way but your Baptism and your doctrine keeps repeating this point. If they are presumed unregenerate, how are they to be trained?



> Much speculation and attempting to corner the Baptist position by steering the conversation and attempting to win the argument. Think about this guys, are you really trying to persuade, or are you trying to win an argument/debate? I've attempted to pull the conversation back and go slower so that the things we agree on can be staged and the specifics we disagree on can be focused on. I thought that was what Paul was trying to do in his question to me. Jason seems to have tried the same thing. But the conversation goes so fast and begins to bring in so many elements that it becomes a free-for-all that looks more like a demolition derby than any orderly desire to pursue truth. I truly want to understand where you guys are coming from. I get some of it, but there's a disconnect somewhere that simply eludes me. I see you holding on to tradition and scared to let go. If you do then your entire system collapses. You see me as... well, something else. The thing is, my position is not reliant upon my system, nor is my system reliant upon my position. My position is simply reliant upon my exegesis of Scripture, which shows me that those who give credible profession of faith are to be baptized.


We're speculative cornerers of a Baptist who are bound by tradition now? All my arguments have been from Scriptural principles. I'm not trying to score any debate points here. Go back and read the thread through again. I have answered every question forthrightly even when they came in rapid succession. I know there is much confusion on this. I am trying to be forthright in my answers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to _confidently presume_ that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.
Click to expand...

I apologize if you feel I'm being irresponsible. Could you please characterize the manner in which I am supposed to perceive the unregenerate children in my household. Am I supposed to perceive them as my friends or as my enemies? This is a very basic question. Much has been made of the fact that they are "born of the flesh" and not by me. Why is the necessary conclusion of this understanding not acceptable to you at this point? 



> Deuteronomy 6:6-7
> “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.
> 
> 
> 
> We all agree; right?
Click to expand...

I know I agree with that but I'm not sure who among the Baptists agree with a command made in the Old Covenant. If you agree with this then why do you say that your children are not in the Covenant until they profess?


----------



## Jim Johnston

Wannabee said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> I'm sure you'd agree that our position is not unbiblical, or not-commanded if we cannot find *one* verse that *explicitly* states "you should baptize infants," right?
> 
> I explained commands in my second post in this thread, do you agree with the substance?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> Good question. I will agree that it is possible to have commands that are not explicit. One example, which you have already brought up, is the Trinity. We are commanded, through individual commands (to worship God, not blaspheme the HS, proclaim Christ, etc.), to worship the Trinity. The command is almost explicit, except it does not say specifically to worship the Trinity because it never explicitly deals directly with the Trinity. Having said that, I would say that there does need to be a clear command in order biblical, whether it's explicit or not (the example of the Trinity should suffice). The example you give of whether or not we are commanded to repent is interesting. I find it hard to work through because the command is clear, "repent and be baptized." And the Old Testament drips with the need for repentance. Furthermore, I know that you believe that it is a clear commandment, which makes it a bit difficult to grapple with in the vein you're pursuing.
> I will disagree with Malone's statement that Scripture says to baptize believers only. I've already dealt with that. Rather I would say that Scripture explicitly states only that we are baptize believers. It says no more. It also might be helpful, at this point, to give us a clear definition of "inference." I know how I would use it, but you might see it in a broader sense than I would. From my understanding, I would be very hesitant to say that inferences equal commands. Furthermore, inferences deduced from inferences are very tenuous and generally equate to a departure from truth. It's much like possibilities derived from possibilities equal improbabilities and eventually impossibilities.
> Paul, I've tried to share some thoughts as I read through what you wrote. Hopefully this will give you enough of my own thoughts to give a good clear reply. Or, maybe it is just a confusing mess of jumbled thoughts with no cohesion.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Randy on the rest. There's just too much going on in this thread to grasp a hold of it all.
Click to expand...


Joe,

An inferences is like this:

All men have green eyes.

Joe is a man.

Therefore Joe has green eyes. 

It's a complicated discussion that I don't think we need to get in to. There are deductive, inductive, abductive, direct, indirect, etc., inferences. The above was deductive.

Anyway, Scripture can command something even if a premise is not explicitly stated.

So,

1) God commands all men everywhere to repent. (express command).

___________

C1) Therefore, Joe is to repent.

Wait, that was too fast! We need another premise:

2) Joe is a man.

Okay, where is (2) in Scripture? And, where is (3) in Scripture? Nowhere explicitly, but (3) is implicitly in there and (2) is not at all (but it doesn't contradict Scripture and so is consistent with Scripture). Does this mean that (C1) isn't commanded? No, of course it is. But, (C1) wasn't an *express* statement in Scripture. And, (C1) needs a premise that is not even explicit or implicit in Scipture. If the above counts as a command, then surely my syllogism for infant baptism does since I think that *both* of my premises can be shown from Scipture.

Baptists in this thread have been calling for "just ONE verse that commands infants to be baptized."

But this is rather sophomoric, isn't it?

I could ask for "just ONE verse that commands JOE to repent."

You cannot give me one.

Sure, you can give me one, and then add an extrabiblical premise i.e., (2). But, that is not the *same* as having "one verse" that "commands Joe to repent."

But, we would agree that you are commanded to repent, even though you can't find "one verse" that says this. Not even a verse that says *you* are a man. So, your conclusion and your premise (2) are not to be found in the Bible, yet that doesn't stop you from saying that *you* are commanded to repent.

Therefore, since "commands" may be gained or known by inference, then it is not a problem if a paedo cannot give "ONE" verse that "commands infants to be baptized," using that exact terminology.

But, we could draw the command this way:

1) All those in the NC are commanded to be baptized.

2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent are in the NC.

3) Therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parent are commanded to be baptized.

Or, if you like,

4) All those in the visible church are commanded to be baptized.

5) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent are in the visible church.

6) Therefore, of one or more professing Christian parent are commanded to be baptized.

So, if the paedo could prove the above, then we could say that we are "commanded" to baptize our children even without having "ONE" verse that says, "baptize your infant children."

Now, I know you'll disagree that we can prove the middle premises of both the above, but isn't that why we've been debating for two-thousand years (roughly)?

So, I'm arguing that it is rather disingenuous to ask someone for "ONE command to do X" where "command" is taken to mean "one verse saying 'Do X,' and then act as if they were unbiblical for not producing said verse.

In fact, we let out theological notions determine if even _commands_ are normative! Women are *commanded* to wear a cover in church, but most people have some sort of theological response whereby they don't have to practice said command. So, I find this entire line of questioning rather silly.


----------



## mgeoffriau

Wait a second.....

Infants haven't done anything requiring repentance?

Are not all infants born with a sin nature (other than Christ himself)? Are we not required to repent from rebelling against God?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

Did you just read a single post or do we actually have to re-type about 30 of them? This is exhausting enough as it is.


----------



## MW

mgeoffriau said:


> Wait a second.....
> 
> Infants haven't done anything requiring repentance?
> 
> Are not all infants born with a sin nature (other than Christ himself)? Are we not required to repent from rebelling against God?



How do you convey this to a one month old?


----------



## mgeoffriau

No, I've read the entire thing.

Why would you need to convey it to a one month old? Barring tragic events, that one month old will become a two year old, and then a 4 year old, and can be shown his or her own sin and his or her need for God's saving grace.


----------



## MW

mgeoffriau said:


> Why would you need to convey it to a one month old? Barring tragic events, that one month old will become a two year old, and then a 4 year old, and can be shown his or her own sin and his or her need for God's saving grace.



Correct -- they can then be *shown*.


----------



## mgeoffriau

By your previous statements it appeared you were comfortable with presuming the child to be regenerate _until_ they have demonstrated they are not; that is, you wondered why baptism would be withheld from the child when they have no _apparent_ need of repentence (not yet having the capacity to understand sin and repentence).

I would counter that I have no need to see some outward sin in order to know the child needs to repent; I am told by scripture that all of Adam's children are born in sin, and until they are united by faith to Christ, they remain in sin. Therefore I feel quite safe in assuming, until I have evidence otherwise, that the child remains an unrepentent sinner.


----------



## MW

mgeoffriau said:


> By your previous statements it appeared you were comfortable with presuming the child to be regenerate _until_ they have demonstrated they are not; that is, you wondered why baptism would be withheld from the child when they have no _apparent_ need of repentence (not yet having the capacity to understand sin and repentence).
> 
> I would counter that I have no need to see some outward sin in order to know the child needs to repent; I am told by scripture that all of Adam's children are born in sin, and until they are united by faith to Christ, they remain in sin. Therefore I feel quite safe in assuming, until I have evidence otherwise, that the child remains an unrepentent sinner.



In response to the first paragraph, I don't presume the child is regenerate. I acknowledge that God's saving purpose includes infants; that to them belongs the promise and the seal of His saving benefits; and therefore to them is owing a judgment of charity as in the case of any other member of the church. We walk by faith, not by sight.

In response to the second paragraph, your position is presumptive non-regeneration, and would require us to deny that any infant can be saved and that to such the kingdom of God does not belong. This is contrary to holy writ, and to the gracious covenant therein contained.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to _confidently presume_ that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.
Click to expand...

I apologize if you feel I'm being irresponsible. Could you please characterize the manner in which I am supposed to perceive the unregenerate children in my household. Am I supposed to perceive them as my friends or as my enemies? This is a very basic question. Much has been made of the fact that they are "born of the flesh" and not by me. Why is the necessary conclusion of this understanding not acceptable to you at this point? [/QUOTE]

Incidentally to Joe and to Jason (and other Baptists).

My point in this is not to purposefully insult your kindness or warmheartedness toward your children. We are now at the point of an internal critique. Please critique this logical syllogism based on what I've been interacting with Baptists on:

1. Children of unbelievers are to be presumed unregenerate.
2. The unregenerate are enemies of God.
3. They are, thus, our enemies.

Now we can love our enemies but they are our enemies nevertheless. Is there any flaw in the above reasoning?

More pointedly:

4. Children of unbeliever are to be presumed unregenerate.
5. The unregenerate's prayers are not heard by God.
6. We should not train our children to pray to God while presumed unregenerate.

I can construct many such syllogisms.

This is the very place that Baptists start getting mad at me but they constantly want to debate me on the premise itself. Why is it offensive to you when I start drawing conclusions based on the premise that you are most wanting me to accept about the children of believers?


----------



## mgeoffriau

Why would it require us to deny that any infant can be saved? I don't deny that God may count the child who dies in infancy as one of His elect; I merely hold that we are not privy to that knowledge. Rather, what we _do_ know is that the child was born in sin, and that _without_ God's saving grace, he or she is condemned. Therefore, I would withhold baptism until understanding of sin, repentence, and faith has been demonstrated.


----------



## mgeoffriau

SemperFideles said:


> Please critique this logical syllogism based on what I've been interacting with Baptists on:
> 
> 1. Children of unbelievers are to be presumed unregenerate.
> 2. The unregenerate are enemies of God.
> 3. They are, thus, our enemies.
> 
> Now we can love our enemies but they are our enemies nevertheless. Is there any flaw in the above reasoning?



Only that you just brushed past the main point: that we are to love our enemies, and pray for their salvation.



> More pointedly:
> 
> 4. Children of unbeliever are to be presumed unregenerate.
> 5. The unregenerate's prayers are not heard by God.
> 6. We should not train our children to pray to God while presumed unregenerate.



If you were evangelizing an adult, how would you approach this? Would you instruct him or her not to attempt prayer until he or she is sure he or she is really saved?


----------



## MW

mgeoffriau said:


> Why would it require us to deny that any infant can be saved? I don't deny that God may count the child who dies in infancy as one of His elect; I merely hold that we are not privy to that knowledge. Rather, what we _do_ know is that the child was born in sin, and that _without_ God's saving grace, he or she is condemned. Therefore, I would withhold baptism until understanding of sin, repentence, and faith has been demonstrated.



If you believe that an infant can be saved, then I must ask, by what? By the covenant of works or by the covenant of grace? Not by the covenant of works, because he stands condemned by it. Then it must be by the covenant of grace and redemption in Jesus Christ. What is baptism, but a sign of the covenant of grace and a seal of redemption by Jesus Christ. Well then, if God has His elect amongst infants, and purposes to save them by the covenant of grace and redemption in Christ, surely He would require the sign and seal of these things to be given to them in order to serve as a means of strengthening their faith and preparing them for glory.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

mgeoffriau said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please critique this logical syllogism based on what I've been interacting with Baptists on:
> 
> 1. Children of unbelievers are to be presumed unregenerate.
> 2. The unregenerate are enemies of God.
> 3. They are, thus, our enemies.
> 
> Now we can love our enemies but they are our enemies nevertheless. Is there any flaw in the above reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only that you just brushed past the main point: that we are to love our enemies, and pray for their salvation.
Click to expand...

How did I brush past that point? I anticipated it. They are still enemies of God is the point and, thus, enemies within our household.



> More pointedly:
> 
> 4. Children of unbeliever are to be presumed unregenerate.
> 5. The unregenerate's prayers are not heard by God.
> 6. We should not train our children to pray to God while presumed unregenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were evangelizing an adult, how would you approach this? Would you instruct him or her not to attempt prayer until he or she is sure he or she is really saved?
Click to expand...

If an adult denied Christ and was praying to an unknown God? I would be telling them to repent. I would not recommend they pray without knowledge. Non-Trinitarian prayer, without the mediation of Christ, is sin.

Now, you see Joe, Mark in fact is not the least bit offended by my syllogisms so I'm never sure when Baptist premises are going to offend and when they are not.


----------



## Iconoclast

non dignus said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did Peter add, "_and to your children_" in Acts 2:39?
> 
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children." _
> 
> The Baptist assumes the children must repent.
> 
> 
> If someone said,
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."_
> 
> Does the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call." _
> 
> The equivalent in your example would be:
> 
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."_
> 
> By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello again, Pastor.
> Thanks for the challenge.
> Those who work show they have been selected. But children are not in the pool of potential selectees because they are not yet able to work. When they are able to work (profess belief) it will be manifest if the boss has selected them. In the meanwhile they benefit from a representative (patriarch of household) in enjoying the abundance (outward Baptism)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Peter is quoting Genesis, the promise is all the benefits of Christ promised to Abraham. No, I'm not saying all who are baptized are elect, I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism. In other words, _"you are now saved if you persevere in faith. If you do not persevere in faith, you are not now saved." _ This is the promise to holy infants.
Click to expand...


These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved? 
The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> mgeoffriau said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it require us to deny that any infant can be saved? I don't deny that God may count the child who dies in infancy as one of His elect; I merely hold that we are not privy to that knowledge. Rather, what we _do_ know is that the child was born in sin, and that _without_ God's saving grace, he or she is condemned. Therefore, I would withhold baptism until understanding of sin, repentence, and faith has been demonstrated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that an infant can be saved, then I must ask, by what? By the covenant of works or by the covenant of grace? Not by the covenant of works, because he stands condemned by it. Then it must be by the covenant of grace and redemption in Jesus Christ. What is baptism, but a sign of the covenant of grace and a seal of redemption by Jesus Christ. Well then, if God has His elect amongst infants, and purposes to save them by the covenant of grace and redemption in Christ, surely He would require the sign and seal of these things to be given to them in order to serve as a means of strengthening their faith and preparing them for glory.
Click to expand...


Matthew, The only clear sign and seal in the Nt. is Spirit baptism. Eph 1:13 1cor12:13
It is clear and sure because it is only said to be true of God's elect.
Water baptism, is no seal of redemption. Water baptism is an outward sign of Identification with Christ. In Acts this is how water baptism was used. Those who outwardly professed that they believed, by an inward work of the Spirit used water baptism as an outward sign.
The outward sign was only given to those who professed this[ male or female]. This is different from the OT.sign of circumcision to the male infant only,which was only outward and physical to those of the physical nation who were non elect,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
> Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
> The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
> Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8



MOD ON

Please read the new Baptism guidelines Anthony. Before you begin accusing men of the Federal Vision error I expect due diligence on your part. If you want to ask questions to clarify then do so but do not accuse men of conflating the sign with the thing signified unless you understand the difference.

If you do not then either study the Paedo confession further or ask for clarification.

But do not accuse of an un-Confessional error unless it is grounded.


----------



## 44jason

Rich asked:


> What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?


Rich, there is a great difference between being unregenerate and reprobate.
There is a great difference between being unelect and unconverted.
Your assertions are just based on false theological presuppositions that makes a response impossible beyond saying, maybe you don't understand the differences between these realities. BUT I do believe you know the difference. So why are you acting like you don't?

Anyway, you said,


> What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then?


 Do you call all the infants you baptize regenerate? Of course not. So your comparison has no basis.

Then you said


> so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep


 Another false accusation. Are you claiming that I assume my youngest son and daughter are wolves? Are you calling my children wolves because I didn't baptize them as infants? No of course you aren't. But are you saying that me and my wife think this of our kids just because we didn't baptize them as infants???

You continue by saying about my family:


> I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.


 My wife and I are impoverishing our children by not baptizing them before their conversion but after?? You really believe that? 

Is paedobaptism now a crapshoot: Baptize them all so I don't accidentally miss any elect?

Rich, I think I actually would like to go back to arguing with Paul M. At least his statements were aimed at me rather than my entire family.

Not only that, you charge my church: saying of our children's ministry


> I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.



*I wrote all of the above in a reply but did not post it.*I had already been in enough hot water with Paul M. today. *So I decided to wait and see* if any moderator would call Rich on this (whom I notice is an administrator.) I thank Joe Johnson for calling Rich on these types of statements. And I appreciate Rich thinking about it. (With Fall coming soon, I wish I could actually keep all of Rich's strawmen 

So, since I don't need to respond to Rich's false presuppositions and more, let me just say to Mark Geoffriau *-- THANK YOU!* Finally I don't feel alone when disagreeing with this "consider infants regenerate until they prove otherwise" or "infants haven't sinned yet" theology.


----------



## Iconoclast

44jason said:


> David,
> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
> 
> For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.



Good post, I do not think the padeo's when discussing baptism see the promise as much of the Holy Spirit, as what they say the Holy Spirit might be doing secretly.
When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's. 
Yet in discussing baptism somehow there is this very very gray area, about the condition of the covenant child. He might be in the Covenant of grace, but we are not sure.
He might be in saving union with Christ from conception, but maybe not, or maybe later on, or never.
We who believe are instructed to instruct our children. We also know that without a person being indwelt by the Spirit, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit.
However if you read many of these posts,somehow the covenant child seems to be able to
have an "ability" to welcome these things,before conversion, or partially.


----------



## 44jason

Just to be clear, and fair, I am sure my statements:


> "consider infants regenerate until they prove otherwise" or "infants haven't sinned yet" theology


 will be denied by my infant-sprinkling brothers. But I can't help the fact that this is what your theology sounds like.

Anthony,


> Good post, I do not think the padeo's when discussing baptism see the promise as much of the Holy Spirit, as what they say the Holy Spirit might be doing secretly.
> When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's. Yet in discussing baptism somehow there is this very very gray area, about the condition of the covenant child. He might be in the Covenant of grace, but we are not sure. He might be in saving union with Christ from conception, but maybe not, or maybe later on, or never.
> We who believe are instructed to instruct our children. We also know that without a person being indwelt by the Spirit, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit.
> However if you read many of these posts,somehow the covenant child seems to be able to have an "ability" to welcome these things,before conversion, or partially.



Thank you for the kind words. And also thank you for the concise summary of your thoughts that I share and affirm. God bless you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich asked:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, there is a great difference between being unregenerate and reprobate.
> There is a great difference between being unelect and unconverted.
> Your assertions are just based on false theological presuppositions that makes a response impossible beyond saying, maybe you don't understand the differences between these realities. BUT I do believe you know the difference. So why are you acting like you don't?
Click to expand...

You are right, I used the word reprobate sloppily. I tried to catch the places where I did. Whether reprobate or unregenerate, you certainly did spend an awful lot of time trying to convince me there was nothing special about our children until your children came into view. You see, the difference between us, I suppose, is that I cannot argue in my head about baptism without thinking about my own children when I'm doing it.



> Anyway, you said,
> 
> 
> 
> What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you call all the infants you baptize regenerate? Of course not. So your comparison has no basis.
Click to expand...

No, but surely you understand the asymmetry here. Do you not see a difference between you saying: "These are surely unregenerate before they profess."

and me saying: "I do not have sufficient information about the regenerate status for any in the visible Church."



> Then you said
> Another false accusation. Are you claiming that I assume my youngest son and daughter are wolves? Are you calling my children wolves because I didn't baptize them as infants? No of course you aren't. But are you saying that me and my wife think this of our kids just because we didn't baptize them as infants???


I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater? If you are offended by the conclusion of your premises why do you keep arguing it to me? I'm not saying your wife and you think this of your children at all. I assumed you were arguing with your head for a theology and then when your kids came up you didn't like what you were hearing yourself say about them - namely that they are unregenerate. I assume you love your children dearly and treat them very well. I'm trying to determine what the necessary conclusion of your view that all children in the Church that are not professors are in the flesh means for you.



> You continue by saying about my family:
> 
> 
> 
> I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I are impoverishing our children by not baptizing them before their conversion but after?? You really believe that?
Click to expand...

I should have said unregenerate again. I apologize for my carelessness. I don't believe you are purposefully impoverishing them. I believe you are doing what you think God requires of you. From my standpoint, however, if they are elect then you repeatedly saying of them that they are unregenerate is an impoverishment of the manner in which you might otherwise nurture them. I'm thinking like a man who believe in Covenant nurture. You are thinking like a Baptist. That's fine. I don't know why you have to assume this is a personal attack. I know we're talking about your kids but why wasn't I warranted to be indignant when you were talking about my young'uns and calling them children of the flesh? See how smiley they are above (and Sophia too in my profile). Do they deserve to be called children of the flesh until they've proven otherwise and Scripture calls them holy?



> Is paedobaptism now a crapshoot: Baptize them all so I don't accidentally miss any elect?


Again, I would urge you to read the Confessions. I assume you are a man of integrity and must not understand our view of baptism to be making this facile statement.



> Rich, I think I actually would like to go back to arguing with Paul M. At least his statements were aimed at me rather than my entire family.


Well, again Brother, when we're talking about Covenant theology, every time you denigrate Baptism and you say of my Covenant children that they are children of the flesh when they have not rebelled against God in any way to make that pronouncement, you are always talking about my entire family. I don't understand, personally, how Baptists can work so hard to say of their kids that they are just like any other heathen under the wrath of God and then get bent out of shape when I say the same thing to you.

Seriously, this is not meant to insult or attack you as a father. If you felt like I was being specifically mean to you and yours then I apologize. I do think you need to be more existential in your criticisms, however, and remember that you are talking about your own children when you argue that all non-Confessing children are just like the world.



> Not only that, you charge my church: saying of our children's ministry
> 
> 
> 
> I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.
Click to expand...

Is this a lie? I have heard Gene say it. I have heard you say that non-Confessing children are unregenerate. Do you only say it on the Narrow Mind or do you say it at Church too. If you only say it behind their backs then I apologize for stating that you say it to their face. Again, this is not about you being purposefully mean but do you deny that you have repeatedly argued that non-Confessing children are unregenerate?



> *I wrote all of the above in a reply but did not post it.*I had already been in enough hot water with Paul M. today. *So I decided to wait and see* if any moderator would call Rich on this (whom I notice is an administrator.) I thank Joe Johnson for calling Rich on these types of statements. And I appreciate Rich thinking about it. (With Fall coming soon, I wish I could actually keep all of Rich's strawmen


As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.

Incidentally, I believe that you are doing your best toward your children and are loving them and treating them like Covenant children. I have noted this before. I believe this is inconsistent with your premises and this is why it is so frustrating for you when we get out of the ideal world of the New Covenant and down on the ground where Saints are being converted by the ministry of Word and Sacrament.



> So, since I don't need to respond to Rich's false presuppositions and more


Which false presupposition would that be?


----------



## Iconoclast

SemperFideles said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
> Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
> The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
> Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOD ON
> 
> Please read the new Baptism guidelines Anthony. Before you begin accusing men of the Federal Vision error I expect due diligence on your part. If you want to ask questions to clarify then do so but do not accuse men of conflating the sign with the thing signified unless you understand the difference.
> 
> If you do not then either study the Paedo confession further or ask for clarification.
> 
> But do not accuse of an un-Confessional error unless it is grounded.
Click to expand...


Rich, 1] what new guidelines?where are they?
2] I did not accuse anyone of the federal vision error. I know the men on the board all repudiate that heretical teaching. I spent an hour reading through this thread,and several of the arguments based on logic or that sound somewhat conditional do not sound any different to me than what i heard by Doug Wilson, or Steve Schlissel.That is my opinion.
I have not accused anyone here of that error , And if anyone got that impression that was not my intent.
3] you keep saying this idea about "conflating" things when you respond to my posts.
This is why we often do not come to agreement.
I do not agree with your understanding of it. I think you often try to keep seperate, what the scripture does blend together. Others have the same concerns as I read their posts.
Look in this thread alone. many of the credo's see the inconsistencies and raise questions. To your credit you do offer a response as do some of the other men.
But if we were all agreed at this point,we would not be going back and forth as we do.
These discussions help frame out the issues, but only the Lord can allow someone to see and hold what they understand.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
> Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
> The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
> Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOD ON
> 
> Please read the new Baptism guidelines Anthony. Before you begin accusing men of the Federal Vision error I expect due diligence on your part. If you want to ask questions to clarify then do so but do not accuse men of conflating the sign with the thing signified unless you understand the difference.
> 
> If you do not then either study the Paedo confession further or ask for clarification.
> 
> But do not accuse of an un-Confessional error unless it is grounded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, 1] what new guidelines?where are they?
> 2] I did not accuse anyone of the federal vision error. I know the men on the board all repudiate that heretical teaching. I spent an hour reading through this thread,and several of the arguments based on logic or that sound somewhat conditional do not sound any different to me than what i heard by Doug Wilson, or Steve Schlissel.That is my opinion.
> I have not accused anyone here of that error , And if anyone got that impression that was not my intent.
> 3] you keep saying this idea about "conflating" things when you respond to my posts.
> This is why we often do not come to agreement.
> I do not agree with your understanding of it. I think you often try to keep seperate, what the scripture does blend together. Others have the same concerns as I read their posts.
> Look in this thread alone. many of the credo's see the inconsistencies and raise questions. To your credit you do offer a response as do some of the other men.
> But if we were all agreed at this point,we would not be going back and forth as we do.
> These discussions help frame out the issues, but only the Lord can allow someone to see and hold what they understand.
Click to expand...


They are here Brother: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24468

When you say of a man that it sounds like Auburn Avenue then you are not asking questions at that point.

I know this is frustrating. The reason inconsistencies are seen is because of basic presuppositional differences. There are very few paedos on this board that understand credo- presups clearly and very few credos that understand paedo presups.

One of the reasons that Baptists often say that the Federal Vision theology is the logical conclusion to a Confessional reformed view on Baptism is that the Federal vision is actually a mash-up of a Baptist view of the sign of Baptism with a Paedo view.

When a credo-baptist baptizes a man you want to wait until you can administer it to a man who you can say: "Surely this signifies of you what is being given you." That is the sign is conflated with the thing signified.

In like manner, the Federal Vision theology retains the idea of baptizing children but they believe, like Baptists, that when a person is baptized it is because: "Surely this signifies of you what is being given you." The sign is again conflated with the thing signified.

Baptists retain the notion that a person must be united to Christ by faith in order to be saved. The FV believes that a person must be united to Christ by Covenant and stay in Covenant in order to be saved.

I don't want to draw this out but I'm just saying that you need to be careful in ascribing a theological error to all Confessing paedobaptists here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
> 
> For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good post, I do not think the padeo's when discussing baptism see the promise as much of the Holy Spirit, as what they say the Holy Spirit might be doing secretly.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it is visible contra John 3 in terms of us knowing who is _truly_ regnerate?


> When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's.


Well, yes, because you guys got the 5 points from us. 



> Yet in discussing baptism somehow there is this very very gray area, about the condition of the covenant child. He might be in the Covenant of grace, but we are not sure.
> He might be in saving union with Christ from conception, but maybe not, or maybe later on, or never.


I'm not sure why you call this a very very gray area. Let me just say that the confusion exists because, again, you seem to think that a professor is the only type of elect Saint that exists. Yet, assuming that is true, at best we can say of the entire visible Church that each saint might be in saving union with Christ on the one hand but preach to them all with confidence as Paul does in Romans 4-8 as if all are in union with Christ. We simply assume the best of everyone in the visible Church until they rebel.

This issue of rebellion is an interesting point. Consider this for a second Anthony. Notice how certain you are that a non-professing person in your Church is unregenerate until they confess. Now, they profess and you treat them (rightly) as if they are regenerate but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.

Now, if the brother is brought under Church discipline and he is excommunicated as the man in 1 Corinthians for being unrepentant and denying his faith, do you have the same confidence of him now that he is unregenerate? Think carefully about this for a moment. If profession and non-profession is truly the arbiter for our knowledge of regeneration then ought we not assume that a man visibly is regenerate when profession is made and then unregnerate whe profession is denied and then regenerate again when restored to fellowship?



> We who believe are instructed to instruct our children. We also know that without a person being indwelt by the Spirit, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit.
> However if you read many of these posts,somehow the covenant child seems to be able to
> have an "ability" to welcome these things,before conversion, or partially.


Conversion follows regeneration. This is the way it works and I know it's not satisfactory to your way of thinking but here it is:

1. God commands us to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
2. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
3. Fools despise wisdom.
4. Fools are unbelievers.

Hence, if non-Confessing children _must_ be presumed unregenerate then we are commanded by God to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

The very command of God has to give us some hope then when we're instructing our children that the work is not completely futile and that God is not sending us on a fool's errand.


----------



## Iconoclast

*guidelines*

Rich,
I like the guidelines and if I had read them first I would have worded my concern more in athe form of a question . Again I did not intend it to sound like an attack to anyone ,just a concern. 
I agree that it is useful to have these discussions as I have learned much from them and agree with your accessment that it is healthy to be open in these things.

When I try to use the quote feature,how do you get more than One white box?
I always wind up with the whole post copied, rather than one idea at a time?
so I will just cut and paste till i figure it out[ carolina calvinist tried to tell me how, but I kept messing it up!

Quote:
When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's. 

Well, yes, because you guys got the 5 points from us. 

Actually, I see the apostles as the first reformed baptists,covered up by the errors of the Roman Church, partly uncovered by the reformers

This issue of rebellion is an interesting point. Consider this for a second Anthony. Notice how certain you are that a non-professing person in your Church is unregenerate until they confess. Now, they profess and you treat them (rightly) as if they are regenerate but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.

Let me try to clarify here this part; [but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.]
The way you believe God works through the family drawing out His elect. I believe God works through the professing Church. 
In this biblical example from 2tim2. let me know if you agree here.

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 

18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 

19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 

21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 

These two vessels of dishonor although among the church , were not really part of the church, or those spoken of in verse 19 [ the Lord knoweth those that are His,ie the church, the sheep, or perhaps to use the term I do not like and resist at all cost, the "invisible church"]

When we see those among us that give no evidence of the fruit of the new birth, or their teaching is a clear denial of the faith once delievered, we are called to address them.
this is what you asked next :
You said: Now, if the brother is brought under Church discipline and he is excommunicated as the man in 1 Corinthians for being unrepentant and denying his faith, do you have the same confidence of him now that he is unregenerate? Think carefully about this for a moment. If profession and non-profession is truly the arbiter for our knowledge of regeneration then ought we not assume that a man visibly is regenerate when profession is made and then unregnerate whe profession is denied and then regenerate again when restored to fellowship?

This is where almost all reformed baptists I know would look to 1 jn 2:19
We are our brothers keeper, but as even Paul says if any man that is "called a brother"
commit sin we are to react accordingly.
I believe you would do something similar with anyone who is said to be a brother but looks and sounds more like a goat than a sheep.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Rich,
> I like the guidelines and if I had read them first I would have worded my concern more in athe form of a question . Again I did not intend it to sound like an attack to anyone ,just a concern.


Understood. It was a friendly reminder and not a harsh rebuke.


> When I try to use the quote feature,how do you get more than One white box?
> I always wind up with the whole post copied, rather than one idea at a time?
> so I will just cut and paste till i figure it out[ carolina calvinist tried to tell me how, but I kept messing it up!


Whenever you want to quote something you need to start the quoted portion with a quote tag and close it by one. I know these get really confusing because there is alot of text and several quote tags but a simple quote lookes like this:


HTML:


[quote]Insert text here[/quote]

But what happens is that sometimes you only want to quote part of it and there are nested quotes. Just make sure that you count the number of open "quote" tags equals the number of close "/quote" tags to ensure that your quoted text looks right. For instance here is what a nested quote looks like:


HTML:


[quote][quote]Hey you said this...[/quote]No I didn't say this[/quote]

Which will look like this:


> Hey you said this...
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't say this
Click to expand...


See how the number of quote equals the number of /quote that close it?



> Quote:
> When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's.
> 
> Well, yes, because you guys got the 5 points from us.
> 
> Actually, I see the apostles as the first reformed baptists,covered up by the errors of the Roman Church, partly uncovered by the reformers


Well, yes, the Reformed recovered the catholic faith but, the _point_ is that the 5 points originated from the Council of Dort which was a reaction to the Remonstrants.



> This issue of rebellion is an interesting point. Consider this for a second Anthony. Notice how certain you are that a non-professing person in your Church is unregenerate until they confess. Now, they profess and you treat them (rightly) as if they are regenerate but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.
> 
> Let me try to clarify here this part; [but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.]
> The way you believe God works through the family drawing out His elect. I believe God works through the professing Church.
> In this biblical example from 2tim2. let me know if you agree here.
> 
> 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
> 
> 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
> 
> 17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
> 
> 18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
> 
> 19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
> 
> 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
> 
> 21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
> 
> These two vessels of dishonor although among the church , were not really part of the church, or those spoken of in verse 19 [ the Lord knoweth those that are His,ie the church, the sheep, or perhaps to use the term I do not like and resist at all cost, the "invisible church"]
> 
> When we see those among us that give no evidence of the fruit of the new birth, or their teaching is a clear denial of the faith once delievered, we are called to address them.


Are you saying then that every act of Church discipline, in your estimation is saying that a man is reprobate? The Lord certainly knows who are His elect but you do not.


> this is what you asked next :
> You said: Now, if the brother is brought under Church discipline and he is excommunicated as the man in 1 Corinthians for being unrepentant and denying his faith, do you have the same confidence of him now that he is unregenerate? Think carefully about this for a moment. If profession and non-profession is truly the arbiter for our knowledge of regeneration then ought we not assume that a man visibly is regenerate when profession is made and then unregnerate whe profession is denied and then regenerate again when restored to fellowship?
> 
> This is where almost all reformed baptists I know would look to 1 jn 2:19
> We are our brothers keeper, but as even Paul says if any man that is "called a brother"
> commit sin we are to react accordingly.
> I believe you would do something similar with anyone who is said to be a brother but looks and sounds more like a goat than a sheep.


I think you are missing my point Anthony. Paul commanded that the man under Church discipline needed to be put out in one passage (treated like a tax collector) but for the purpose of causing him to repent. Most Baptists will acknowledge that Church discipline is intended to be _restorative_ and they pray that a man will return from his apostate condition as they do not know whether he is elect or not. They do not _presume_ he is unregerate but _hope_ he is regenerate and that conviction will fall upon him.

Thus, I find a strange contrast in presumption at this point on the part of Reformed Baptists. On the one hand, a child is _presumed_ unregenerate who has not yet rebelled but simply has not professed. On the other hand, a man who has both rebelled and denied the faith receives the judgment of charity from the Church and the Church hopes for his repentance.

How do you account for this assymetry?


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater?



Are you talking about children when they are born, or after they have been instructed for a few years. Honestly, Rich, sometimes it sounds (to us Baptists at least) as if you believe your children pop out regenerate. But the teaching of Scripture is that in Adam, all sinned. That is the teaching of your confession as well. So everyone is born in sin and unregenerate.



> From my standpoint, however, if they are elect then you repeatedly saying of them that they are unregenerate is an impoverishment of the manner in which you might otherwise nurture them.



Elect does not equal regenerate. If it did, there would be no need for the cross of Christ.



> See how smiley they are above (and Sophia too in my profile). Do they deserve to be called children of the flesh until they've proven otherwise and Scripture calls them holy?



I will admit, it is hard to look at a picture of your kids (who are too cute) and consider them children of the flesh. But Ephesians 2 says that we are all born, by nature, children of wrath and under the judgment of almighty God. Romans 3 says that all have sinned. No matter how cute kids look, they are born in the flesh, without the Spirit of God. There are some adorable kids in my sons first grade class that have never been to church a day in their lives. They don't look any less cute than your kids do, but you would consider them unregenerate simply because they aren't children of believers.



> As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.



I am going to admit something here as a Baptist. We don't really know when our kids "get regenerated." If we are doing our job as parents, we are teaching them from the day they come home about the gospel. We are not only telling them to repent and believe in the gospel, but we are showing them how the gospel touches every facet of our lives. When daddy gets a pay cut, we are teaching our kids by our word and our actions how the gospel affects our trust in God. When tragedy strikes our family, our reliance on God is a function of the gospel and is taught to our kids. When we sin and repent, we are teaching our kids the gospel. When God blesses our family with another child, we see it as a result of the cross and teach our kids that all of God's blessings flow to His people through the cross of Christ. We teach the catechism, we have Sunday School, we worship together as a church, we worship together as a family. All of this is loaded with the gospel.

Now, here is my point. When, exactly, does the gospel produce the desired effect (regeneration). At age 2? Age 6? Age 15? No one knows. That is our problem as Baptists. When do we baptize. Is a child regenerate a long time before they confess? We don't really know. There was another thread about this already. But the problem still exists.

One thing I am beginning to understand about paedos is that you don't look for a big "moment of conversion" from your children because you expect that the gospel will have its effect. Baptists, unfortunately I think, have come to look for that big moment. I think our reaction to the way you state things is that we hear you saying that your children are regenerate the second they are born. Now, I don't put anything past God, but the *normal* means of regeneration involves the Word of God. And that, I think, is the problem we see.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Calvibaptist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about children when they are born, or after they have been instructed for a few years. Honestly, Rich, sometimes it sounds (to us Baptists at least) as if you believe your children pop out regenerate. But the teaching of Scripture is that in Adam, all sinned. That is the teaching of your confession as well. So everyone is born in sin and unregenerate.
Click to expand...


I know it _sometimes_ sounds like we are saying they are popping out regenerate but that's not precisely the case. I think it's fairer to say that they pop out members of the visible Church and their parents are commaned to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I would also say that we, conversely, see professors treated as if they "pop out" of profession as regenerate when we listen to some of you conflate the sign of baptism with what it signifies.

I believe the best we can work from is the commands of God and not worry about God's secret knowledge. We paedos know who the disciples are - professors and their children - and we disciple them in hope and faith to believe on Christ.

As I did nightly devotionals tonight with my kids with sang Psalm 1 together. James and Anna sing that Psalm to each other while riding in the car. Then we prayed together. James and Anna both ask for their devotional time. When I prayed tonight I asked God to cause us all to flee from sin and to believe on the Cross of Christ. You see, like James and Anna, my faith is pitiful. The assurance of salvation is not found in the strength of my trust but my very frail trust that God saves to the uttermost everyone who calls on the name of the Lord. I was struck by how my faith, though much more intellectually informed, was not some massive edifice that towered above what a child could muster. Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!



> From my standpoint, however, if they are elect then you repeatedly saying of them that they are unregenerate is an impoverishment of the manner in which you might otherwise nurture them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Elect does not equal regenerate. If it did, there would be no need for the cross of Christ.
Click to expand...

Regeneration is but a stage in the decree that was as sure to be accomplished as when God purposed it in Eternity. It cannot be shipwrecked. It is my hope to be said of God that I was a means to His eternal plan for the good of many - especially those who He providentially placed in my charge to train.



> See how smiley they are above (and Sophia too in my profile). Do they deserve to be called children of the flesh until they've proven otherwise and Scripture calls them holy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit, it is hard to look at a picture of your kids (who are too cute) and consider them children of the flesh. But Ephesians 2 says that we are all born, by nature, children of wrath and under the judgment of almighty God. Romans 3 says that all have sinned. No matter how cute kids look, they are born in the flesh, without the Spirit of God. There are some adorable kids in my sons first grade class that have never been to church a day in their lives. They don't look any less cute than your kids do, but you would consider them unregenerate simply because they aren't children of believers.
Click to expand...

I was being a bit silly but I think everyone now realizes the existential angst that paedobaptists experience when credo-baptists start throwing kids under the bus and talking about little ones as dispassionately as losing a spleen. It happens far too often in conversations about Covenant theology. It should never be an impersonal exercise.

What makes my kids special is not how cute and smiley they are but that they have been privileged to be in a believing household whose father has been commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Yes, my children, like I are destined for Hell, sprinting toward it, except for the Sovereign work of a God who elects unconditionally. And that unconditional election includes electing a great many to be raised in Covenant homes while, God be praised, saving some like me as wild shoots.



> As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to admit something here as a Baptist. We don't really know when our kids "get regenerated." If we are doing our job as parents, we are teaching them from the day they come home about the gospel. We are not only telling them to repent and believe in the gospel, but we are showing them how the gospel touches every facet of our lives. When daddy gets a pay cut, we are teaching our kids by our word and our actions how the gospel affects our trust in God. When tragedy strikes our family, our reliance on God is a function of the gospel and is taught to our kids. When we sin and repent, we are teaching our kids the gospel. When God blesses our family with another child, we see it as a result of the cross and teach our kids that all of God's blessings flow to His people through the cross of Christ. We teach the catechism, we have Sunday School, we worship together as a church, we worship together as a family. All of this is loaded with the gospel.
> 
> Now, here is my point. When, exactly, does the gospel produce the desired effect (regeneration). At age 2? Age 6? Age 15? No one knows. That is our problem as Baptists. When do we baptize. Is a child regenerate a long time before they confess? We don't really know. There was another thread about this already. But the problem still exists.
> 
> One thing I am beginning to understand about paedos is that you don't look for a big "moment of conversion" from your children because you expect that the gospel will have its effect. Baptists, unfortunately I think, have come to look for that big moment. I think our reaction to the way you state things is that we hear you saying that your children are regenerate the second they are born. Now, I don't put anything past God, but the *normal* means of regeneration involves the Word of God. And that, I think, is the problem we see.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Thank you for acknowledging this. I think this _big moment_ theology creates problems of its own because it doesn't recognize the fact that all faith is feeble in this life and dependent, always, upon Christ's means. It all needs to be fed and sustained and encouraged regularly. It never stops growing or achieves a point at which it is too little or more than enough to be salvific. If it is Spirit born then it is fixed upon Christ. I believe the Baptist ordinance that points to the strength of your faith instead of the Promise to save creates a theology of gradation unintentionally.

Thanks for the interaction Brother. It has been a very long and somewhat discouraging day. I'm really trying hard here to not offend.

I told Jason and Joe in private message that I really do repent if I cause unnecesary offense. It is quite unintentional.


----------



## non dignus

Iconoclast said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.
> 
> _"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call." _
> 
> The equivalent in your example would be:
> 
> _"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."_
> 
> By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello again, Pastor.
> Thanks for the challenge.
> Those who work show they have been selected. But children are not in the pool of potential selectees because they are not yet able to work. When they are able to work (profess belief) it will be manifest if the boss has selected them. In the meanwhile they benefit from a representative (patriarch of household) in enjoying the abundance (outward Baptism)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Peter is quoting Genesis, the promise is all the benefits of Christ promised to Abraham. No, I'm not saying all who are baptized are elect, I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism. In other words, _"you are now saved if you persevere in faith. If you do not persevere in faith, you are not now saved." _ This is the promise to holy infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
> Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
> The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
> Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8
Click to expand...


Hello Anthony, 

I said, " {at the least} outward baptism". 
The FV would wrongly teach "inward baptism in all cases". 

I said, "If you do not persevere in faith, you are not NOW saved.".
The FV would wrongly teach "if you do not persevere in faith, you still had union in Christ".

'hope that helps.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

44jason said:


> ATTENTION TO ALL.
> 
> Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.
> 
> This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.
> 
> I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
> As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!



Greetings:

I like your post - it shows a kind and gentle spirit.

Now, you ask the question concerning a command to baptize infants in the New Testament?

In the same way that Jesus responds I will ask you:

"Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"

(In arguing like a credo) We have no specific command nor do we have any example in the New Testament of women being allowed the Lord's Supper. Thus, if you are going to be consistent with your hermeneutic, then you must forbid women the Lord's Supper on the same grounds that you forbid children baptism.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## 5solasmom

I don't have much to add here, but I did want to say that this statement (bolding mine)...



> I think this big moment theology creates problems of its own because it doesn't recognize the fact that all faith is feeble in this life and dependent, always, upon Christ's means. *It all needs to be fed and sustained and encouraged regularly. It never stops growing or achieves a point at which it is too little or more than enough to be salvific. If it is Spirit born then it is fixed upon Christ.* I believe the Baptist ordinance that points to the strength of your faith instead of the Promise to save creates a theology of gradation unintentionally.



...is a great encouragement.

Thank you.


----------



## CDM

44jason said:


> Just to be clear, and fair, I am sure my statements:
> 
> 
> 
> "consider infants regenerate until they prove otherwise" or "infants haven't sinned yet" theology
> 
> 
> 
> will be denied by my infant-sprinkling brothers. But I can't help the fact that this is what your theology sounds like.
Click to expand...


"Reformed" Baptist theology sounds like God has now cast off children from the covenant of Grace upon the arrival of Christ and this is to be considered a "new" and "better covenant". Children, who God once called "His" children, are now His enemies. They are to be considered cut off from Him - without hope until they do [or work] 1 very _special_ thing: "profess belief". And the children's parents should rejoice at the "perfection" of this Covenant (even though it means their children are seperated from them and God). Gene Cook said something like the New Covenant was better because it has "better benefits".



Yeah, better, now your children are cursed and have no part with Jehovah. They are like the philistines, Muslims, and all other God haters the world over. 

To be clear, and fair, I am sure my statements will be denied by my full-grown-dunking brothers. But I can't help the fact that this is what their theology sounds like.


----------



## VictorBravo

The disadvantage I have is that while you guys are working this subject over I'm sleeping and then commuting. Man, what a lot of stuff overnight!

Rich, I have to say I really struggle trying to grasp your argument about our different views of children. I once said stated to you that the reason Baptists train their children in the ways of the Lord could be justified simply by obedience to the Word of God and faith. Yet that reason was rejected as being inconsistent.

That I have trouble understanding.

In my case, at least, I can testify from personal experience. I personally recall a time when I was unregenerate. I vividly remember my world view and (in fact) I vividly remember an actual change in literal vision and ability to think. Nothing mystical or magical: simply the world became "God's World". It was more solid.

So, in light of that, I find this quote strange:



> As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.



I hope you can see why I find it strange. Why would anyone conclude that teaching in spiritual things is a futile errand commanding to train fools? I was a total fool, yet certain men came into my life at a rather late age and taught me spiritual things (through books and by hearing). I was first conscious of hearing the gospel in my teens. I did not repent and believe until my 40s.

I'm glad Jason made the distinction between reprobate (destined for damnation) and unregenerate (not yet believing), because it is exactly where your argument loses me. I personally don't presume regeneracy nor do I presume reprobation. I don't know any Christian who does. But I know many who have similar experiences to mine: they remember a time of unregenerate rebellion and they remember a conversion. Baptists train their children in the way of the Lord simply because they believe that it is their duty (a charge God has given to their care), because they love them, and because they pray God will bring a renewing change in their heart.

So, I can follow and respect many of the paedo arguments, but I just don't get this one at all. I don't see how the Baptist has an internal inconsistency regarding his children.


----------



## Iconoclast

*good posts*



SemperFideles said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about children when they are born, or after they have been instructed for a few years. Honestly, Rich, sometimes it sounds (to us Baptists at least) as if you believe your children pop out regenerate. But the teaching of Scripture is that in Adam, all sinned. That is the teaching of your confession as well. So everyone is born in sin and unregenerate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know it _sometimes_ sounds like we are saying they are popping out regenerate but that's not precisely the case. I think it's fairer to say that they pop out members of the visible Church and their parents are commaned to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
> 
> I would also say that we, conversely, see professors treated as if they "pop out" of profession as regenerate when we listen to some of you conflate the sign of baptism with what it signifies.
> 
> I believe the best we can work from is the commands of God and not worry about God's secret knowledge. We paedos know who the disciples are - professors and their children - and we disciple them in hope and faith to believe on Christ.
> 
> As I did nightly devotionals tonight with my kids with sang Psalm 1 together. James and Anna sing that Psalm to each other while riding in the car. Then we prayed together. James and Anna both ask for their devotional time. When I prayed tonight I asked God to cause us all to flee from sin and to believe on the Cross of Christ. You see, like James and Anna, my faith is pitiful. The assurance of salvation is not found in the strength of my trust but my very frail trust that God saves to the uttermost everyone who calls on the name of the Lord. I was struck by how my faith, though much more intellectually informed, was not some massive edifice that towered above what a child could muster. Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!
> 
> 
> Regeneration is but a stage in the decree that was as sure to be accomplished as when God purposed it in Eternity. It cannot be shipwrecked. It is my hope to be said of God that I was a means to His eternal plan for the good of many - especially those who He providentially placed in my charge to train.
> 
> 
> I was being a bit silly but I think everyone now realizes the existential angst that paedobaptists experience when credo-baptists start throwing kids under the bus and talking about little ones as dispassionately as losing a spleen. It happens far too often in conversations about Covenant theology. It should never be an impersonal exercise.
> 
> What makes my kids special is not how cute and smiley they are but that they have been privileged to be in a believing household whose father has been commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Yes, my children, like I are destined for Hell, sprinting toward it, except for the Sovereign work of a God who elects unconditionally. And that unconditional election includes electing a great many to be raised in Covenant homes while, God be praised, saving some like me as wild shoots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am going to admit something here as a Baptist. We don't really know when our kids "get regenerated." If we are doing our job as parents, we are teaching them from the day they come home about the gospel. We are not only telling them to repent and believe in the gospel, but we are showing them how the gospel touches every facet of our lives. When daddy gets a pay cut, we are teaching our kids by our word and our actions how the gospel affects our trust in God. When tragedy strikes our family, our reliance on God is a function of the gospel and is taught to our kids. When we sin and repent, we are teaching our kids the gospel. When God blesses our family with another child, we see it as a result of the cross and teach our kids that all of God's blessings flow to His people through the cross of Christ. We teach the catechism, we have Sunday School, we worship together as a church, we worship together as a family. All of this is loaded with the gospel.
> 
> Now, here is my point. When, exactly, does the gospel produce the desired effect (regeneration). At age 2? Age 6? Age 15? No one knows. That is our problem as Baptists. When do we baptize. Is a child regenerate a long time before they confess? We don't really know. There was another thread about this already. But the problem still exists.
> 
> One thing I am beginning to understand about paedos is that you don't look for a big "moment of conversion" from your children because you expect that the gospel will have its effect. Baptists, unfortunately I think, have come to look for that big moment. I think our reaction to the way you state things is that we hear you saying that your children are regenerate the second they are born. Now, I don't put anything past God, but the *normal* means of regeneration involves the Word of God. And that, I think, is the problem we see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. Thank you for acknowledging this. I think this _big moment_ theology creates problems of its own because it doesn't recognize the fact that all faith is feeble in this life and dependent, always, upon Christ's means. It all needs to be fed and sustained and encouraged regularly. It never stops growing or achieves a point at which it is too little or more than enough to be salvific. If it is Spirit born then it is fixed upon Christ. I believe the Baptist ordinance that points to the strength of your faith instead of the Promise to save creates a theology of gradation unintentionally.
> 
> Thanks for the interaction Brother. It has been a very long and somewhat discouraging day. I'm really trying hard here to not offend.
> 
> I told Jason and Joe in private message that I really do repent if I cause unnecesary offense. It is quite unintentional.
Click to expand...


The response by Pastor Mixer was what I was trying to get across,and your response indicates you see what the concern is. I will take more time to consider these things as I am off to work now, thank you for your instructive responses


----------



## bnmhebda

*Baptize infants?*

There is no specific command in the Bible to baptize infants. There is also no specific command or example in God's Word of allowing women to the Lord's Table. 
-Bri


----------



## Semper Fidelis

victorbravo said:


> The disadvantage I have is that while you guys are working this subject over I'm sleeping and then commuting. Man, what a lot of stuff overnight!
> 
> Rich, I have to say I really struggle trying to grasp your argument about our different views of children. I once said stated to you that the reason Baptists train their children in the ways of the Lord could be justified simply by obedience to the Word of God and faith. Yet that reason was rejected as being inconsistent.
> 
> That I have trouble understanding.
> 
> In my case, at least, I can testify from personal experience. I personally recall a time when I was unregenerate. I vividly remember my world view and (in fact) I vividly remember an actual change in literal vision and ability to think. Nothing mystical or magical: simply the world became "God's World". It was more solid.


This I don't deny happens. My experience isn't quite as similar but somewhat. I think the problem created these days (both Baptist and Presbyterian) is that there is an _expectation_ that a dramatic turning occurs. Testimonies are measured by how great the turn is from the human standpoint - the drug dealing homosexual child molester is dramatically converted and we all sit back and are overawed that such a man could now be a Christian. We even note the conversion of celebrities here with somewhat greater interest. I think within us is a slight hanging on to the idea that some of us aren't so wicked and that God's sacrifice is more meaningful if you're a really "bad" person when you turn.

Many Churched children do not have such a dramatic experience. It's not to say that they were never unregenerate but I'm not certain that regeneration will always be felt dramatically. God has blessed some children (increasingly few these days) with parents who don't beat them, who don't ignore them, who don't divorce and share custody of them, and who discipline them in Christian love. Are they all, like we, born in Adam? Yes and need Christ's atonement. My point is that regeneration need not be dramatic.



> So, in light of that, I find this quote strange:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you can see why I find it strange. Why would anyone conclude that teaching in spiritual things is a futile errand commanding to train fools? I was a total fool, yet certain men came into my life at a rather late age and taught me spiritual things (through books and by hearing). I was first conscious of hearing the gospel in my teens. I did not repent and believe until my 40s.
> 
> I'm glad Jason made the distinction between reprobate (destined for damnation) and unregenerate (not yet believing), because it is exactly where your argument loses me. I personally don't presume regeneracy nor do I presume reprobation. I don't know any Christian who does. But I know many who have similar experiences to mine: they remember a time of unregenerate rebellion and they remember a conversion. Baptists train their children in the way of the Lord simply because they believe that it is their duty (a charge God has given to their care), because they love them, and because they pray God will bring a renewing change in their heart.
> 
> So, I can follow and respect many of the paedo arguments, but I just don't get this one at all. I don't see how the Baptist has an internal inconsistency regarding his children.
Click to expand...


I think you noted that I re-qualified because I kept mixing my terms unintentionally. On the scale of eternity there is a huge difference. On the scale of time, the unregenerate soul is indistinguishable from the reprobate soul. It is not completely unfair to say that a person is treated as if reprobate either because the fear of baptizing the reprobate seems to be an ever present argument for credo-Baptism.

In either event, there is a big difference in expectation with a regenerate versus an unregenerate soul. I suppose I assumed that such things are obvious but I need to draw them out a bit although I have little time right now.

As I noted previously, children are to be _trained_ in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This is another way of saying that they are supposed to be raised pursuing God's wisdom. It is a restatement of the Deuteronomic passage and it requires a strange view of Scripture to miss the obvious fact that Proverbs would be included to give wisdom toward that end especially when it is introduced as being from a father to his son in how to pursue Godliness. 

I wasn't joking when I was a bit surprised that Joe quoted that Deuteronomy passage because I'm never sure which parts of the OT are considered to be part of the "worse Covenant" that the OT saints had. I am also not being pejorative when I wonder out loud how you do not consider portions of the Proverbs to be part of the "worse Covenenant". On the one hand you state that God telling Abraham that I will be a God to you and your children can only be understood spiritually but then when actual children are supposed to be trained in the light of that Promise, you assume you're supposed to train _your_ real children in those things. This is why I find it inconsistent. At best, I might understand you saying that the Proverbs and other passages apply to you professors (assuming you grant them NC status) because you are his spiritual children but not those you presume to still be in the flesh and who have no Covenant status in the Lord.

When Romans 8 states that the mind of the flesh has no apprehension of Spiritual things - things pertaining to the pursuit of righteousness (as Paul notes this pursuit consisting of the Cross) then I would wonder how you suppose a child could be trained and admonished in the pursuit of this goal. Training and admonishment indicate _progression_ and not a static repitition of first principles.

Prior to your regeneration and conversion it was right and proper for you to have the Gospel proclaimed to you but you were not being trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The first is a herald to invite weary souls into a place where they might cast off their burdens and take up the pursuit of Christ. The latter is where one is instructed in the Way. 

The idea of training carries with it the idea of the training audience, the curriculum, and the goal. The goal is the fear and admonition of the Lord. The curriculum is the Word. The training audience is our children within the specific family. To _presume_ before the training begins that the training audience is incapable of achieving the end state in mind with the curriculum given is to throw the whole training program into futility. If, on the other hand, we neither insist upon our children being regenerate or unregenerate then we have some hope that the training is an instrument that God can use toward the goal He has in mind.

I hope that clears it up. If not, let's continue to pursue this because it is very helpful to understand where the breakdowns are in understanding each other.


----------



## VictorBravo

Rich, thanks for your reply, I also don't have a lot of time right now.



> Prior to your regeneration and conversion it was right and proper for you to have the Gospel proclaimed to you but you were not being trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord.



I think the seed of our different understandings is right here. I agree that as an unregenerate heathen, I could not grasp the "fear and admonition of the Lord", but that doesn't mean that it didn't have an effect. Before I grasped the gospel, I grasped the idea that God must be feared. I even grew to fear a judgment and did all I could to reason my way out of such a thing. 

I remember even daring God to come down and reason with me, I'd show him a thing or two! Praise him that he left me alone to my own foolishness.

So, in a nutshell, I take the notion of raising children to fear the Lord as something akin to teaching them the truth of Romans 1. I don't think a child understands without instruction what sin is, what God's law is, etc. They can be raised to understand these things, but it takes preaching and the Spirit to regenerate their mind to the point of holding to them.

By the way, I agree with you completely about the overuse of dramatic conversion stories. In my case it was quite undramatic. I can say there was very little change in my personality or habits, except for this: everything I thought and observed I knew had to conform to what my God commanded. The attitude change was dramatic, but not really observable to anyone else. And I know dear believers, from both credo and paedo families, who cannot remember a time when they did not believe. I consider them truly blessed.


----------



## 44jason

CalvinandHodges said:


> "Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"-CH



If I were to agree with your premise, then we would agree on two things.
There is no command to baptize infants and no command that specifies women partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Ok. Lets say we agree.

But we would also agree that there are commands to baptize those who repent. Right? I don't need to quote all of those passages -- there is no doubt we both baptize believers.

So here we have clear Biblical common ground -- Believers are to be baptized.

We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper.

So lets update our common Biblical ground -- Baptize believers and all believers are welcome to the Lord's Table. So far we are all Credo-baptist.

Now, where can we clearly deduce that all infants are believers. Nowhere. We can agree that some may be and many children of believers may become believers themselves. But we do not have any clear Scripture that we can even use to imply that ALL infants of believers are also believers in their infancy.

So we can not add to our common Biblical ground.

So maybe we should ask, Does the Bible say that we can or should baptize more than just believers. Well you may say, "Yes there are clear Scriptures on that." I disagree.

So at the end of the day,* almost all of the reformed community can agree *that as far as baptizing believers and welcoming all believers to the Lord's Table, we are in agreement.
We agree on two very important truths: baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.

So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist?


----------



## Jim Johnston

Notice that Jason continues to ignore my detailed discussions (3 posts in this thread now) of "commands." His entire questioning is based on ambiguity.



> We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
> Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper



That's an INFERENCE. You asked us for ONE command. Did you mean that we could make inferences? Okay, my syllogism I mused in the debate counts as just one of our many "commands" we have to baptize our covenant children.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

44jason said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"-CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to agree with your premise, then we would agree on two things.
> There is no command to baptize infants and no command that specifies women partaking of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Ok. Lets say we agree.
> 
> But we would also agree that there are commands to baptize those who repent. Right? I don't need to quote all of those passages -- there is no doubt we both baptize believers.
> 
> So here we have clear Biblical common ground -- Believers are to be baptized.
> 
> We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
> Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> So lets update our common Biblical ground -- Baptize believers and all believers are welcome to the Lord's Table. So far we are all Credo-baptist.
> 
> Now, where can we clearly deduce that all infants are believers. Nowhere. We can agree that some may be and many children of believers may become believers themselves. But we do not have any clear Scripture that we can even use to imply that ALL infants of believers are also believers in their infancy.
> 
> So we can not add to our common Biblical ground.
> 
> So maybe we should ask, Does the Bible say that we can or should baptize more than just believers. Well you may say, "Yes there are clear Scriptures on that." I disagree.
> 
> So at the end of the day,* almost all of the reformed community can agree *that as far as baptizing believers and welcoming all believers to the Lord's Table, we are in agreement.
> We agree on two very important truths: baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.
> 
> So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist?
Click to expand...


Hey:

That is very good! However, as a "credo" Lord's Supper Only person I would say that we should only allow *male* disciples into the Lord's Supper. You "paedo" Lord's Supper people have no New Covenant argument for the inclusion of women into the Lord's Supper.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Davidius

44jason said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"-CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to agree with your premise, then we would agree on two things.
> There is no command to baptize infants and no command that specifies women partaking of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Ok. Lets say we agree.
> 
> But we would also agree that there are commands to baptize those who repent. Right? I don't need to quote all of those passages -- there is no doubt we both baptize believers.
> 
> So here we have clear Biblical common ground -- Believers are to be baptized.
> 
> We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
> Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> So lets update our common Biblical ground -- Baptize believers and all believers are welcome to the Lord's Table. So far we are all Credo-baptist.
> 
> Now, where can we clearly deduce that all infants are believers. Nowhere. We can agree that some may be and many children of believers may become believers themselves. But we do not have any clear Scripture that we can even use to imply that ALL infants of believers are also believers in their infancy.
> 
> So we can not add to our common Biblical ground.
> 
> So maybe we should ask, Does the Bible say that we can or should baptize more than just believers. Well you may say, "Yes there are clear Scriptures on that." I disagree.
> 
> So at the end of the day,* almost all of the reformed community can agree *that as far as baptizing believers and welcoming all believers to the Lord's Table, we are in agreement.
> We agree on two very important truths: baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.
> 
> So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist?
Click to expand...


Why are you allowed to make inferences while requiring a "direct command" from the paedos?


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Matthew, The only clear sign and seal in the Nt. is Spirit baptism. Eph 1:13 1cor12:13
> It is clear and sure because it is only said to be true of God's elect.
> Water baptism, is no seal of redemption. Water baptism is an outward sign of Identification with Christ. In Acts this is how water baptism was used. Those who outwardly professed that they believed, by an inward work of the Spirit used water baptism as an outward sign.
> The outward sign was only given to those who professed this[ male or female]. This is different from the OT.sign of circumcision to the male infant only,which was only outward and physical to those of the physical nation who were non elect,



Anthony, we could get off track here and delve into the nature of sacraments, but there's really no need. However you understand baptism to be related to salvation, even if its is a mere formal sign, if you hold that infants are saved then you have no basis for withholding baptism from them.


----------



## Herald

> if you hold that infants are saved then you have no basis for withholding baptism from them.



Matthew - I've heard that before. Is that a textual argument, a dialectic argument or neither?


----------



## 44jason

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Why are you allowed to make inferences while requiring a "direct command" from the paedos?



I thought that we agreed on the inference that women are considered disciples in the New Testament church.

I am looking for common biblical ground. If paedo's do not agree with this inference then lets drop it from our definition of common ground.

But if both paedo's and credo's agree on this inference then lets keep it.

I am assuming we both agree on this one. So that is why I left it in the definition of our common ground.
And since we do not both agree on the other inference then I left it out.

*That was the whole point. Namely, when it comes to what almost all of the Reformed have believed in common, we should be credo-baptist.*

But if you are telling me that paedo's don't believe that women are inferred in the teachings of the Lord's Supper then our common ground would look like this:
Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.

So which in your opinion is more historically correct as common ground for most all of the Reformed:

Baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.
Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.

Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.


----------



## MW

BaptistInCrisis said:


> if you hold that infants are saved then you have no basis for withholding baptism from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew - I've heard that before. Is that a textual argument, a dialectic argument or neither?
Click to expand...


I suppose "textual," Bill. Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21. Whilst one might be saved without being baptised, it is certain that these passages teach that baptism belongs to the saved and ordinarily ought to be administered as a token thereof.


----------



## 44jason

Tom Bombadil said:


> I should also point out the ambiguity involved in asking for a "command." Can a "command" be drawn by inference, or does it need to be explicitly stated? The latter can't be upheld, and the former is what we paedos have been saying we have - whether we've convinced anyone is another matter all together. But, make no mistake, given a proper and logically coherent view of "commands," us paedos believe that Scripture "commands" us to baptize our children.
> 
> Malone states,
> 
> _“This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.”_
> 
> Fred Malone frequently argues that he is on better theological grounds because he (thinks) he has explicit commands telling him to baptize believers alone while paedobaptist simply have “possibly erroneous inferences.” He says that inferences are okay, as long as they don’t contradict express commands. But this is assuming he’s proven his case. Obviously I don’t think the Bible “expressly” commands that “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”



Paul, why is this in quotes in your comments:


> “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”


If you put that in quotes as to signify that Malone said that please give me the reference.
If Malone did not say that, then are setting up strawman.
Why? Because Malone would also not agree that only "mature" professing disciples alone are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Thus you have misrepresented Malone, established a strawman, and we know the rest...

But maybe you are quoting him, so I wanted to give you a chance to support your usage of quotes.


----------



## Davidius

44jason said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you allowed to make inferences while requiring a "direct command" from the paedos?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that we agreed on the inference that women are considered disciples in the New Testament church.
> 
> I am looking for common biblical ground. If paedo's do not agree with this inference then lets drop it from our definition of common ground.
> 
> But if both paedo's and credo's agree on this inference then lets keep it.
> 
> And since we do not both agree on the other inference then I left it out.
Click to expand...


The point is that you are recognizing the validity of inference here but not somewhere else. If you are going to accept inference, but only inference with which you agree, then you should at least change the demand to "Show me how paedobaptism can be reasonably inferred." However, your current request creates a double standard.




> *That was the whole point. Namely, when it comes to what almost all of the Reformed have believed in common, we should be credo-baptist.*
> 
> But if you are telling me that paedo's don't believe that women are inferred in the teachings of the Lord's Supper then our common ground would look like this:
> Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.
> 
> So which in your opinion is more historically correct as common ground for most all of the Reformed:
> 
> Baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.
> Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.
> 
> Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.



I don't see how it has nothing to do with commands vs. inferences when you demanded a positive command. There is no positive command. So what? This is the point which Paul made by bringing in females and the Table. Paedobaptism is an inference. If you will not accept an inference as valid here then neither should you elsewhere. 

And haven't Reformed Christians been predominantly paedobaptist?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jason,
I think that's a reasoned rejoinder, given your view that the recipients of both baptism and the L.S. are in all cases the same parties (1-to-1).

For #1, however, I would substitute "professors" in place of "believers" respecting "common ground".


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> I should also point out the ambiguity involved in asking for a "command." Can a "command" be drawn by inference, or does it need to be explicitly stated? The latter can't be upheld, and the former is what we paedos have been saying we have - whether we've convinced anyone is another matter all together. But, make no mistake, given a proper and logically coherent view of "commands," us paedos believe that Scripture "commands" us to baptize our children.
> 
> Malone states,
> 
> _“This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.”_
> 
> Fred Malone frequently argues that he is on better theological grounds because he (thinks) he has explicit commands telling him to baptize believers alone while paedobaptist simply have “possibly erroneous inferences.” He says that inferences are okay, as long as they don’t contradict express commands. But this is assuming he’s proven his case. Obviously I don’t think the Bible “expressly” commands that “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, why is this in quotes in your comments:
> 
> 
> 
> “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you put that in quotes as to signify that Malone said that please give me the reference.
> If Malone did not say that, then are setting up strawman.
> Why? Because Malone would also not agree that only "mature" professing disciples alone are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Thus you have misrepresented Malone, established a strawman, and we know the rest...
> 
> But maybe you are quoting him, so I wanted to give you a chance to support your usage of quotes.
Click to expand...



Yes, Malone believes that. "Mature" in respects to "age," i.e., not "infants," i.e., those able to give a "credible profession." This distinguishes them from merely *professing* i.e., just *saying* that they believe. So, my statement could read: "Where does the Bible command that only those able to give a credible expression of their faith in Jesus Christ, and those alone, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism."

Anyway, you're not answering my arguments. You're being a bit pedantic in your reading of what I write, too. Writers have certain rhetorical license they can take. I think your question was more of a stall tactic and an attempt to undermine my scholarship. You're failing to engage with the *substance* of my arguments.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.



This is classic goal post shiftting.

Let's read the original challenge by Jason,



> Hey, brother, *can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants*.



But now Jason says this isn't about commands or inferences. But, notice that earlier he disallowes Bruce's inference:

*BRUCE:* Gen. 17:10 is in the imperative mood.

*JASON RESPONDS:* Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.

So, just wanted to point out the goal post shifting.

And, I gave an inference, Jason has not rebutted it. That he doesn't *agree* with one of the premises hardly constitutes a reason for him to say that we don't have a command. All he's saying is hat he disagree with infant baptism, church inclusion, or covenant inclusion. But surely we didn't need 4 or 5 some odd pages to determine that!


----------



## 44jason

Tom Bombadil said:


> You're being a bit pedantic in your reading of what I write, too. Writers have certain rhetorical license they can take. I think your question was more of a stall tactic and an attempt to undermine my scholarship. You're failing to engage with the *substance* of my arguments.



Paul, with all due respect you tend to make conversation impossible with comments like the one's above. I am trying to go back as I have time and read something you wrote which you insist that I must answer or be a failure as a scholar or coward or moron or something like that. But when I ask for a clarification, you can't just give it to me. You must throw these little pop shots at me.

[By the way, your explanation of "mature" to mean "age" made all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding your argument.]

So, I find myself remembering some things you wrote Monday, and think to myself, "Is it even worth spending the time trying to talk to this guy in such a forum." If this is what the Puritan Board is all about I am not interested. If it is just you... well, I will have to think about if it is worth my time to wade through all of the pop shots and taunt... risking even more such silly remarks as, "Oh you are just stalling."

Does anyone understand my dilemma?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'd like to suggest that maybe 9 days of discussing the debate (and the aftermath) are enough.

And we can close the baptism forum for a few days. Take a breather. Visit completely different parts of the board. Get into some other discussions.

And before anyone comes back, refresh your memory on the etiquette.

With that in mind, I will be closing several of these threads later on tonight.

Finish up, brethren, in peace.

Now, I'm going to take a break, and listen to ... "*The Narrow Mind*"


----------



## 44jason

Now concerning the inference vs. command.
There is no goal post moving.
This thread has proven what we already knew. There are no clear verses that give explicit commands about infant baptism that we agree upon.

That has been stated and is not anything new or surprising.

So in the spirit of doctrinal unity, I was offering a conversation about what is common ground among paedo's and credo's. And that common ground includes both commands and inferences.

We both agree on the command to baptize professors (as Bruce duly noted).
And we both agree on the inference of male and female disciples being welcomed to the Lord's Table.

Am I right?
If so, Baptist are at least right as far as most of the Reformed community agree.
Paedo's are at least right as far as they are like the Baptist, but then we both split in different directions from there.
Am I right?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'd like to suggest that maybe 9 days of discussing the debate (and the aftermath) are enough.
> 
> And we can close the baptism forum for a few days. Take a breather. Visit completely different parts of the board. Get into some other discussions.
> 
> And before anyone comes back, refresh your memory on the etiquette.
> 
> With that in mind, I will be closing several of these threads later on tonight.
> 
> Finish up, brethren, in peace.
> 
> Now, I'm going to take a break, and listen to ... "*The Narrow Mind*"



I agree Bruce.

Gents, part of the etiquette was not to engage in tactics. Now, I think the point has been adequately made that the request for a single verse to establish the recipients of baptism is impossible for both sides.

By the powers vested in me as an Admin I declare that issue to be resolved. Sidetracks into arguing over women taking the Lord's Supper are, as Jason noted, arguing over common ground.

Jason: Please do note that people are still arguing with you over the initial insistence on a single verse command. I think we all need to honestly agree that this standard is impossible if you don't accept Bruce's passage but is not if you do.

Further, gentlemen, I want to move away from the idea that all discussions on baptism, henceforth, are in reaction to the debate itself. The last few days, I have not been interacting to defend Paul's presentation but I have been trying to interact simply to answer Baptist objections in general. This thread was split off of the debate thread purposefully. It was intended to split the discussion to an issue that is neither connected to Manata or Cook at that point but a Baptist asking a Paedbaptist a question and interacting on it.

If people want to continue to interact on baptism questions in general then let us do so. But let's keep discussions about the propriety/impropriety of specific arguments in the debate itself to that thread or simply let it die.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

But where is TNM tonight? Says right there on the homepage: 6PM PST. :frownyface:


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're being a bit pedantic in your reading of what I write, too. Writers have certain rhetorical license they can take. I think your question was more of a stall tactic and an attempt to undermine my scholarship. You're failing to engage with the *substance* of my arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, with all due respect you tend to make conversation impossible with comments like the one's above. I am trying to go back as I have time and read something you wrote which you insist that I must answer or be a failure as a scholar or coward or moron or something like that. But when I ask for a clarification, you can't just give it to me. You must throw these little pop shots at me.
> 
> [By the way, your explanation of "mature" to mean "age" made all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding your argument.]
> 
> So, I find myself remembering some things you wrote Monday, and think to myself, "Is it even worth spending the time trying to talk to this guy in such a forum." If this is what the Puritan Board is all about I am not interested. If it is just you... well, I will have to think about if it is worth my time to wade through all of the pop shots and taunt... risking even more such silly remarks as, "Oh you are just stalling."
> 
> Does anyone understand my dilemma?
Click to expand...


Jason, I thout we were all good. After all, you're having aball making fun of me on Fide-o. You've said that I'm "pouting" online when you spoke to MVC about the debate. and, may I remind you what you told me about all the previous discussions:



> With all this aside, I want you to know that *I never was as bothered by our debate/discussion as others were*. I guess a little "back and forth" never bothered me.



So I was just taking you at your word. 

I understand that getting your arguments refuted hurts. Sometimes we get emotionally attached to our arguments. I would try to separate myselof from my arguments, though. For what it's worth.


----------



## 44jason

My question was answered to my satisfaction. And I was trying to move on.
And I, too, feel all that needs to be said has been said.
Thanks, LtCol.


----------



## 44jason

Paul, You crack me up, really.


----------



## Jim Johnston

I know.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Sorry Bruce but I have an unanswered question that I want to address.


victorbravo said:


> I think the seed of our different understandings is right here. I agree that as an unregenerate heathen, I could not grasp the "fear and admonition of the Lord", but that doesn't mean that it didn't have an effect. Before I grasped the gospel, I grasped the idea that God must be feared. I even grew to fear a judgment and did all I could to reason my way out of such a thing.
> 
> I remember even daring God to come down and reason with me, I'd show him a thing or two! Praise him that he left me alone to my own foolishness.
> 
> So, in a nutshell, I take the notion of raising children to fear the Lord as something akin to teaching them the truth of Romans 1. I don't think a child understands without instruction what sin is, what God's law is, etc. They can be raised to understand these things, but it takes preaching and the Spirit to regenerate their mind to the point of holding to them.



I think if I knew for sure that this was the monolithic view of Baptists on this point, Victor, it would be easier to interact with. Be that as it may, it is quite arbitrary to my mind that God is using the means of just "Romans Chapter 1"-like material to train and admonish children. This is my argument with Bill in the other thread about this issue. By presuming they are unregenerate, you (it seems to me) are sensibly advocating that only Romans 1 be preached to them while Romans 6 cannot be rightly used to sanctify them because there is nothing to sanctify - just flesh that has to be regenerated.

I also think this runs aground of what Paul teaches about the nature of knowledge in Romans 10:


> 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.


It is in the nature of unregenerate man to even take something like Romans Chapter 1 and twist that into "do this and live". It is a supernatural gift to actually pursue real righteousness. It's not that the Pharisees disagreed that God was Holy. They didn't argue with Jesus about hell and that men are justly deserving of Hell. They just thought it didn't apply to _them_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bruce,

If you think we ought to close the Baptism forum for a couple of days then let me know. I can make it read only.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Rich,
with all the kissing and sweetness, I don't know what to think. Go Right Ahead, start another thread if ya'll want.


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> Bruce,
> 
> If you think we ought to close the Baptism forum for a couple of days then let me know. I can make it read only.



I think shutting this one down is fine (read only), given the original title has been exhausted into irrelevence

Thanks, Rich, for your response. I think we could probably discuss more fully...another time.


----------

