# At what age do we stop Baptizing our children?



## Roldan (Jan 6, 2004)

or If a parent comes to believe and has a child who is 10yrs old, does that parent baptize that child or does that child have the capability to believe savingly?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 6, 2004)

The question of whther or not the child can believe is really not the issue. OF course they can believe. The issue from the peado perspective anyway, is whether or not the child stands on his own or still under his parents headship.

Puritan Sailor


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 6, 2004)

Ooh... I look forward to reading the paedo responses to this.
Come on boys, entertain me!


----------



## Roldan (Jan 7, 2004)

[quote:f101b3dd14][i:f101b3dd14]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:f101b3dd14]
The issue from the peado perspective anyway, is whether or not the child stands on his own or still under his parents headship.

Puritan Sailor [/quote:f101b3dd14]

Thanx for clearing that up, for that is what I was trying to ask. 

When is a child on his own or ceases to be under the parent's headship?

Thanx again Popeye. LOL:biggrin: corny huh?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 7, 2004)

[quote:a019af77fe][i:a019af77fe]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:a019af77fe]
The question of whther or not the child can believe is really not the issue. OF course they can believe. The issue from the peado perspective anyway, is whether or not the child stands on his own or still under his parents headship.

Puritan Sailor [/quote:a019af77fe]

I think I should clarify this. I'm assuming the child has not professed faith yet in this scenario. If the child already believes then obviously they should be baptised with the parents too. 

Oh I seem to have lost my spinach... Ah ga ga ga ga....


----------



## dkicklig (Jan 7, 2004)

I can't help but think of the instances of household baptisms in Acts. There are no indicators of the age of any of the individuals, so one could assume that not only were there possibly infants, but wide variey of ages.

In our house, my daughter and 1st son were born before I became a paedo. My daughter professed faith recently so that solves the issue with her. However my son is 2 and we have another baby due in about 3 months. I am definitely having my new son and 2 year old baptized, and then have my daughter baptized on her profession of faith.

So my household will be covered on all counts.


----------



## Optimus (Jan 7, 2004)

Roldan posted that question for me. When do we NOT consider our children Holy? Isnt that one of the reasons why we baptize them?

I really hope someone can answer my question.

By the way, i am a baby dunker!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 7, 2004)

At what point would you excommunicate a &quot;brother&quot; from the church? After excommunication would they be deemed holy?

So we know there is a point where an apostasized child would not be deemed holy. If they were not apostasized then they would continue to be what we have presumed about them all along.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 7, 2004)

[quote:761db952e7][i:761db952e7]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:761db952e7]
When do we NOT consider our children Holy? 
[/quote:761db952e7]

Hmmm.... Let's say I'm a 70 year old Christian and my child is a 50 year old p0rn producer.
My vote is that the child isn't holy.

Drat! Matt, you posted before I could make my sarcastic post thus you stole my thunder!

[Edited on 1-7-2004 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## Roldan (Jan 8, 2004)

[quote:7200be1669][i:7200be1669]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:7200be1669]
or If a parent comes to believe and has a child who is 10yrs old, does that parent baptize that child or does that child have the capability to believe savingly? [/quote:7200be1669]

Anyone?:saint:


----------



## Roldan (Jan 8, 2004)

oops meant to ask this again along with the other.

At what age do we stop Baptizing our children?

:question:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 8, 2004)

Roldan,
If it was me, I would baptize. Point being, at that point, I am not so concerned with the splitting of the hair in regards to the childs understanding as much as my own. I would place the sign.


----------



## kceaster (Jan 8, 2004)

*Roldan....*

I think, federally, I should baptize any in my house who have not yet been baptized. They will live with me in a covenant house with a covenant worldview. We will be discipling them and they will be obedient to the teaching of the house. They have no choice in this.

If after they have left my house they choose to live a life opposed to the gospel, then their baptism is on their own head. They will be judged by God because they have tasted of the heavenly gift and have spurned it. They do not lose salvation because they never had it. The outward sign was applied. Yet, baptism is about what the Spirit does not about what we do.

I would not allow them to be communicant members until they were able to articulate faith in Christ and discern His body and blood. But other than the Table, I would baptize them and treat them as a covenant member with all the benefits we can have in this life.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Optimus (Jan 8, 2004)

thanx for postin kceaster,

So you would baptize your 16 year old son? (Not by his own proclaimation of faith, but by yours.)


----------



## Optimus (Jan 8, 2004)

SolaScriptura,

i guess you totally misunderstood my question. My question is concerning baptism.

At what age do we stop automatically baptize our children?

17?16?15?14?13?12?11?10?9?8?7?6?5? 0r is it 4?


----------



## kceaster (Jan 8, 2004)

*Optimus...*

[quote:e96b520d89][i:e96b520d89]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:e96b520d89]
thanx for postin kceaster,

So you would baptize your 16 year old son? (Not by his own proclaimation of faith, but by yours.) [/quote:e96b520d89]

I guess perhaps I should qualify that a bit. If he is living as a complete heathen and I can do nothing with him, I don't think I would baptize him. I think I would be much more apt to treat him as Deut. 21:18-21 dictates. Of course we may not stone him, but we would treat him as though he were a covenant breaker and put away the evil from among us as soon as he may be expelled from our household.

The laws of the land would dictate that. I would probably allow him to live with me until he graduates from high school.

As long as behavior may be maintained, though, that son or daughter may be baptized on my profession of faith, although I would encourage a genuine profession of faith from them.

My sons were baptized on their own profession of faith last year. Had they not been able to articulate their own faith, they would have been baptized anyway because they live in my household.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## JohnV (Jan 8, 2004)

[quote:ae36a44c4e]At what age do we stop Baptizing our children?[/quote:ae36a44c4e]
As soon as we're done.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 8, 2004)

Wow, you all may have triggered an idea for a paper for my CT work I have to do later for school. Maybe a paper on the Puritan Perspective of the &quot;Age of Discernment&quot; not to be confused with the nonsense surrounding the &quot;age of accountability.&quot; I think that topic would be a good survey of the writings of the puritans since they spoke about this articulately.


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2004)

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.


----------



## Susan (Jan 13, 2004)

*A Question*

This is before I was a member, so I may not have all the facts exactly right here. Our OPC decided to plant a church in Kentucky for several families who had been driving an hour and a half to join us for worship. There were quite a few children there who had never been baptized from infant to I think about 8 years old. The 8 year old had been asking quite a lot of questions about the Bible and her/his? parents thought that the child understood his guilt and would soon be saved.
The new church had no steady pastor at the time, and several churches would take turns sending elders and pastors there to preach. Our former pastor went there one Sunday to baptize all the children. They baptized the 8 year old along with the other children, even though the child seemed to be so close to conversion.
My question to the paedos is--Is it somehow preferable in your eyes to baptize a child [i:f17e28704b]based on the profession of the parents' faith[/i:f17e28704b] instead of based on the child's [i:f17e28704b]own[/i:f17e28704b] profession of faith?

If you had to call the shots there, what would you have done?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 13, 2004)

[quote:8af7aa91de]
My question to the paedos is--Is it somehow preferable in your eyes to baptize a child based on the profession of the parents' faith instead of based on the child's own profession of faith? 
[/quote:8af7aa91de]

Preferable or not, Covenant Theology teaches that the Bible makes this plain. Instacnes of Abraham's household is a perfect example. Ishmael had not professed faith, nor even Isaac. So, until we reach the &quot;age of Discretion&quot; (not the age of accountability) then we would baptize them. If the 8 year old came to understand these things, we would baptize him, and if he did not we would still baptize him. In either case, with covenant children, you have the sign placed on them by the proxy of the parent. But the parent must be a believer. (This was Edward's tension with his grandfather and how the half-way covenant came about in some respects.)


----------



## Roldan (Jan 14, 2004)

[quote:8ab0af4568][i:8ab0af4568]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:8ab0af4568]
[quote:8ab0af4568]
My question to the paedos is--Is it somehow preferable in your eyes to baptize a child based on the profession of the parents' faith instead of based on the child's own profession of faith? 
[/quote:8ab0af4568]

Preferable or not, Covenant Theology teaches that the Bible makes this plain. Instacnes of Abraham's household is a perfect example. Ishmael had not professed faith, nor even Isaac. So, until we reach the &quot;age of Discretion&quot; (not the age of accountability) then we would baptize them. If the 8 year old came to understand these things, we would baptize him, and if he did not we would still baptize him. In either case, with covenant children, you have the sign placed on them by the proxy of the parent. But the parent must be a believer. (This was Edward's tension with his grandfather and how the half-way covenant came about in some respects.) [/quote:8ab0af4568]



Excellent! Great point Dr. Webmaster


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2004)

Susan asks:
My question to the paedos is--Is it somehow preferable in your eyes to baptize a child based on the profession of the parents' faith instead of based on the child's own profession of faith? 

Scott says: 
Placing the sign is actually a by product of faith. We place the sign upon the child because of the command and promises of God.


----------



## Optimus (Jan 15, 2004)

God has continued His covanent, that started with Abraham, and gave it to my son last sunday!:smilegrin:


----------



## JohnV (Jan 16, 2004)

Just to let you know, I was 42 when I stopped baptizing my children, or rather having them baptized by the Church. I think it was a very good age to stop; that was the year my last child was born. 

Just though you might like to know. :biggrin:


----------



## Preach (Feb 14, 2004)

What about the other members of the household (for example, a 75 year old grandmother)? Should she be baptized? She is a member of the household, yet, she has past the age of discretion. What should happen with her? Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 15, 2004)

If she is willing............

Her willingness would validate her faith.


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 15, 2004)

[quote:f3535a949e][i:f3535a949e]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f3535a949e]
If she is willing............

Her willingness would validate her faith. [/quote:f3535a949e]

So you don't believe in household Covenant theology but in individualistic profession? After all, Abraham administered the sign of the Covenant to his servants and everyone directly under his household regardless or their personel confession...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 15, 2004)

[quote:c2090502cd][i:c2090502cd]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:c2090502cd]
[quote:c2090502cd][i:c2090502cd]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:c2090502cd]
If she is willing............

Her willingness would validate her faith. [/quote:c2090502cd]

So you don't believe in household Covenant theology but in individualistic profession? After all, Abraham administered the sign of the Covenant to his servants and everyone directly under his household regardless or their personel confession... [/quote:c2090502cd]


No, I didn't say that. I do belive in household baptisms. However, what if grammy is not &quot;willing&quot;? Do I, by the neck, force her into the baptism. I guess I could use a squirt gun huh?

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 15, 2004)

[quote:3fbe25e98c][i:3fbe25e98c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:3fbe25e98c]
[quote:3fbe25e98c][i:3fbe25e98c]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:3fbe25e98c]
[quote:3fbe25e98c][i:3fbe25e98c]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:3fbe25e98c]
If she is willing............

Her willingness would validate her faith. [/quote:3fbe25e98c]

So you don't believe in household Covenant theology but in individualistic profession? After all, Abraham administered the sign of the Covenant to his servants and everyone directly under his household regardless or their personel confession... [/quote:3fbe25e98c]


No, I didn't say that. I do belive in household baptisms. However, what if grammy is not &quot;willing&quot;? Do I, by the neck, force her into the baptism. I guess I could use a squirt gun huh?

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by Scott Bushey] [/quote:3fbe25e98c]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 15, 2004)

[/quote]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything? [/quote]

Her willingness is the result of her faith-no?


----------



## Roldan (Feb 15, 2004)

[quote:f72522e743][i:f72522e743]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f72522e743]
[/quote:f72522e743]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything? [/quote]

Her willingness is the result of her faith-no? [/quote]

Absolutley:saint:


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 15, 2004)

[quote:bbaca7efb8][i:bbaca7efb8]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:bbaca7efb8]
[quote:bbaca7efb8][i:bbaca7efb8]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:bbaca7efb8]
[/quote:bbaca7efb8]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything? [/quote:bbaca7efb8]

Her willingness is the result of her faith-no? [/quote]

Absolutley:saint: [/quote]

Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other... but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession. 

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 16, 2004)

Tertullian says :

&quot;Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other...&quot;

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that &quot;she could care less one way or the other&quot; then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON&quot;T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says &quot;well everybody else is doing it&quot; then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at.

Tertullian says: &quot;but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession.&quot;

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:4e62ef3e34]physical[/color:4e62ef3e34] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted. 

In God's [i:4e62ef3e34]Eternal[/i:4e62ef3e34] Covenant, Ricky


----------



## Roldan (Feb 16, 2004)

I just wanted to pause for a moment and express that I am thoroughly enjoying these convo's with Tertullian and others, Love ya guys MAAAAAAAAAAAN! 

This website is like going to message board Reformed Seminary! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 16, 2004)

[quote:7b72563f6c][i:7b72563f6c]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:7b72563f6c]
Tertullian says :

&quot;Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other...&quot;

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that &quot;she could care less one way or the other&quot; then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON&quot;T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says &quot;well everybody else is doing it&quot; then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at. [/quote:7b72563f6c]

All right you agree with Reformed Baptist here...

[quote:7b72563f6c]Tertullian says: &quot;but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession.&quot;

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:7b72563f6c]physical[/color:7b72563f6c] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted. 

In God's [i:7b72563f6c]Eternal[/i:7b72563f6c] Covenant, Ricky [/quote:7b72563f6c]

All right, you agree with Reformed Baptist here, why not come all the way and join the Reformed Baptist camp and say the same thing about infants... I mean why zig, zig, zig, and than out of the blue zag. 

If we need a proffesion of faith before we allow our grammies and servants who are under our household before we allow them to feel the joy of baptizing, why not allow our children that same joy?

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 16, 2004)

[quote:ce237f105c][i:ce237f105c]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:ce237f105c]
I just wanted to pause for a moment and express that I am thoroughly enjoying these convo's with Tertullian and others, Love ya guys MAAAAAAAAAAAN! 

This website is like going to message board Reformed Seminary! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:ce237f105c]

I would like to state my official agreement with my brother Roldan :thumbup:


----------



## Roldan (Feb 16, 2004)

[quote:cc0843a977][i:cc0843a977]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:cc0843a977]
[quote:cc0843a977][i:cc0843a977]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:cc0843a977]
Tertullian says :

&quot;Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other...&quot;

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that &quot;she could care less one way or the other&quot; then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON&quot;T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says &quot;well everybody else is doing it&quot; then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at. [/quote:cc0843a977]

All right you agree with Reformed Baptist here...

Roldan: Man, are you serious?

[quote:cc0843a977]Tertullian says: &quot;but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession.&quot;

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:cc0843a977]physical[/color:cc0843a977] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted. 

In God's [i:cc0843a977]Eternal[/i:cc0843a977] Covenant, Ricky [/quote:cc0843a977]

All right, you agree with Reformed Baptist here, why not come all the way and join the Reformed Baptist camp and say the same thing about infants... I mean why zig, zig, zig, and than out of the blue zag. 

If we need a proffesion of faith before we allow our grammies and servants who are under our household before we allow them to feel the joy of baptizing, why not allow our children that same joy?

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian [/quote:cc0843a977]uzzled:

Roldan: Now I know you are kidding.

Talk about reading the New into the Old.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 16, 2004)

[quote:5da16aad8a][i:5da16aad8a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:5da16aad8a]
[quote:5da16aad8a][i:5da16aad8a]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:5da16aad8a]
[quote:5da16aad8a][i:5da16aad8a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:5da16aad8a]
Tertullian says :

&quot;Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other...&quot;

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that &quot;she could care less one way or the other&quot; then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON&quot;T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says &quot;well everybody else is doing it&quot; then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at. [/quote:5da16aad8a]

All right you agree with Reformed Baptist here...

Roldan: Man, are you serious? [/quote:5da16aad8a]

yep, in fact, if I recall I think I told you that once in person...

[quote:5da16aad8a][quote:5da16aad8a]Tertullian says: &quot;but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession.&quot;

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:5da16aad8a]physical[/color:5da16aad8a] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted. 

In God's [i:5da16aad8a]Eternal[/i:5da16aad8a] Covenant, Ricky [/quote:5da16aad8a]

All right, you agree with Reformed Baptist here, why not come all the way and join the Reformed Baptist camp and say the same thing about infants... I mean why zig, zig, zig, and than out of the blue zag. 

If we need a proffesion of faith before we allow our grammies and servants who are under our household before we allow them to feel the joy of baptizing, why not allow our children that same joy?

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian [/quote:5da16aad8a]uzzled:

Roldan: Now I know you are kidding.

Talk about reading the New into the Old.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:5da16aad8a]

Wait a second one of the very same arguments I use, as Reformed Baptist, to show how infants could be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old but not in the New, is the exact same argument you used to show why adults could be given the Old Covenant sign in the Old without a personal profession of faith but not in the New.

I only ask for consistency, if the argument works in the case of adult household members it also works with infant household members, you cannot have your cake and eat it to.



[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 18, 2004)

Whatup Tert? I will keep you posted on the meeting and the exact day and all that.

Tertullian: &quot;Wait a second one of the very same arguments I use, as Reformed Baptist, to show how infants could be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old but not in the New, is the exact same argument you used to show why adults could be given the Old Covenant sign in the Old without a personal profession of faith but not in the New. 

I only ask for consistency, if the argument works in the case of adult household members it also works with infant household members, you cannot have your cake and eat it to.&quot;

I see what you are saying and [i:3ee84a1d75]agree[/i:3ee84a1d75]:shocked: to an extent. What do I mean?

Well we would both agree that Father Abraham was commanded to circumcise every male under his rule. Yes?

Again that was a physical aspect, sort of like marking his possesions(servants etc...) 

But, they(servants) were not the emphasis of the Covenant, but his actual children from generation to generation which still continues in the New Covenant.

hence, the physical and spiritual aspects.

Now, I know that this can be articulated better than that but it's 2:15 in the morning and I feel really lazy right now, I hope that was some kind of clarification between your view and mine with respect to the discontinuity and continuity of certain aspects of the OC. 

Grace and Peace my brotha

:thumbup:


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:a637b51c94][i:a637b51c94]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:a637b51c94]
Whatup Tert? I will keep you posted on the meeting and the exact day and all that. [/quote:a637b51c94]

yes please do... thanks 

[quote:a637b51c94] [quote:a637b51c94] Tertullian: &quot;Wait a second one of the very same arguments I use, as Reformed Baptist, to show how infants could be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old but not in the New, is the exact same argument you used to show why adults could be given the Old Covenant sign in the Old without a personal profession of faith but not in the New. 

I only ask for consistency, if the argument works in the case of adult household members it also works with infant household members, you cannot have your cake and eat it to.&quot; [/quote:a637b51c94]

I see what you are saying and [i:a637b51c94]agree[/i:a637b51c94]:shocked: to an extent. What do I mean?

Well we would both agree that Father Abraham was commanded to circumcise every male under his rule. Yes?

Again that was a physical aspect, sort of like marking his possesions(servants etc...) 

But, they(servants) were not the emphasis of the Covenant, but his actual children from generation to generation which still continues in the New Covenant.

hence, the physical and spiritual aspects.

Now, I know that this can be articulated better than that but it's 2:15 in the morning and I feel really lazy right now, I hope that was some kind of clarification between your view and mine with respect to the discontinuity and continuity of certain aspects of the OC. 

Grace and Peace my brotha

:thumbup: [/quote:a637b51c94]

&quot;But, they (servants) were not the emphasis of the Covenant, but his actual children from generation to generation which still continues in the New Covenant&quot;

If the emphasis of the Covenant was on the children then why only the male the children? and why not follow continuality with the Old Covenant and say that only male babies ought to be baptized in the New Covenant? You could say that the New Testament allows adult women to be baptized but how it that relevant to female infants- should we go dispensational or Covenantal on the quetion of female infants? 

But even letting that pass, I think that it is really ad hoc to say that the emphasis was on the children more than the servants, God's emphasis was that all males were to receive the sign of the Covenant who were in the household of Israel. I suggest that the real emphasis is on the Covenant Lord's right to administer the sacraments of the Covenant to whom He will, if to males to males, if to disciples than disciples, if no sign then no sign, etc. Hence, I do not think that the "children emphasis" argument is really successful in avoiding the charge of inconsistency because it doesn't seem to be the emphasis at all, but the emphasis was upon the male aspect of it, and beyond that God's right to administer the sacraments of his Covenants as He commands. 

Roldan, please do not take me wrong, I highly respect you and do not mind telling people that. May the Lord use you to Reform his churches!!!

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:1f31606e62][i:1f31606e62]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1f31606e62]
[quote:1f31606e62]
If the emphasis of the Covenant was on the children then why only the male the children? and why not follow continuality with the Old Covenant and say that only male babies ought to be baptized in the New Covenant? You could say that the New Testament allows adult women to be baptized but how it that relevant to female infants- should we go dispensational or Covenantal on the quetion of female infants? 
[/quote:1f31606e62]

Emphasis was on ALL the cjildren. Look at all the verses that say, &quot;To you CHILDREN.&quot; This meant both sexes. Now, if you are asking why did male children get circumcised, fine...but don't say that they emphasis was on them. They were circumcised because sin entered the world through the seed of the man. We can get into the fascinating reason why it was given to the male if you want to.

You ask why not follow continulaly? Well becasue as COVENANT theologians we say that a command is considered standing UNLESS future revelation comes along to change it. Furture revelation came alon and changed the sexes. Therefore, we are consistant with our covenant hermeneutics.

You ask how is that relevant to infants. well, because there is no MALE OR FEMALE. This accounts for ALL the members of the class entitled MALE and FEMALE. To put it into a form: Now all the members X and Y are included, M is a member of X and W is a member of Y. Therefore M and W are included.

We should go covenantal...as I have shown.

-Paul [/quote:1f31606e62]

Exactly, again I was beat to the post, thanx Paul for clearing that up for us.


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:f36c950703][i:f36c950703]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f36c950703]
sorry to steal your thunder.. [/quote:f36c950703]

Its ok brotha, but next time I will have to gather my THEONOMIC brothas and have you stoned


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

Alright first off, 
We may need to back track to remember what we are talking about, we are talking about why we cannot agree with the argument of those who advocate position "B" because of household argument, but we can accept position "A" on the basis of the same household argument, 

Position "B": "baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household servants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptize this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision" 

But we can find this identical argument persuasive, 

Position A: "Baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household infants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptism this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision"

To make matters worse, Roldan constructed a perfectly valid critique of the argument that supports both A and B, when he mentioned that we Old Covenant had a physical aspect that is no longer present in the New and so we must no take that in to account and baptize servants on the basis of faith, so how can this argument that proves way to much and is fundamentally flawed be used to support infant baptism but not household servant baptism? 

Roldan pleads that children had a special "emphasis" and this emphasis still continues into the New while this "emphasis" was not present in the case of the servants and so we must no longer continue to baptize household servants but we must continue to baptize infants.

My counter- it is a nice theory but in Scripture no such "emphasis" can be deduced from Scripture. Well, lets see if I was wrong and there is an "emphasis" about who gets the Covenant sign.



[quote:1894ea678d] Emphasis was on ALL the children. Look at all the verses that say, &quot;To you CHILDREN.&quot; This meant both sexes. [/quote:1894ea678d].


It is hard to know what verses you are using, is this just your impression if it is, how I am I to argue against your impression but with my own impression that circumcision was given to males and the emphasis was on the male. I guess we could just trade impressions all day but let us get back to the serious arguments. 

Genesis 17, over an over again emphasis the male aspect it says, "Every [b:1894ea678d] male [/b:1894ea678d] among you shall be circumcised" (v 10) and "Through out of your generation every [b:1894ea678d] male [/b:1894ea678d] among you shall be circumcised" (v. 12).

Note who got the circumcision and who didn't, Abraham, Ishmael, male household servants, Male infants, Male Gentiles who join the household, all male household members, now look at who didn't get circumcision Sarah, female household servants, female gentiles who joined the household, female infants, etc. Now I ask you what was the man differences between the groups who got it and did not get it... was it not maleness. Hence maleness was the main emphasis, because that is how God decided, so where does that children emphasis come in? It doesn't unless we read Presbyterianism between the lines. 

[quote:1894ea678d] Now, if you are asking why did male children get circumcised, fine...but don't say that they emphasis was on them. They were circumcised because sin entered the world through the seed of the man. We can get into the fascinating reason why it was given to the male if you want to. [/quote:1894ea678d]

The reason was because God is Lord of the Covenant and He determines who in his Covenant gets the sign, disciples, males, none, etc/

[quote:1894ea678d] You ask why not follow continually? Well because as COVENANT theologians we say that a command is considered standing UNLESS future revelation comes along to change it. [/quote:1894ea678d] 

Agree in fact this is one of my arguments if there was a special emphasis on male children than that emphasis should continue unless otherwise directly revoked!

(quote] Future revelation came along and changed the sexes. [/quote]

Where what verse? You could show me were female disciples got baptized but that is not even important to our discussion about female infants- why don't you want to follow that "special emphasis" when the argument works against your side?

[quote:1894ea678d] Therefore, we are consistent with our covenant hermeneutics. [/quote:1894ea678d]

Only if you can show a verse that specifically says, both female infants can be baptized and not just male children with that special emphasis. I would rather just say that no such male infant emphasis existed

[quote:1894ea678d] You ask how is that relevant to infants. well, because there is no MALE OR FEMALE. This accounts for ALL the members of the class entitled MALE and FEMALE. To put it into a form: Now all the members X and Y are included, M is a member of X and W is a member of Y. Therefore M and W are included. [/quote:1894ea678d] 

Well obviously there was only a "special emphasis" on male children, so if you deny it exists in the New Covenant, so much for Rholdan's original counter argument... remember you are the one trying to prove that children have a special emphasis... and key word is prove... if there was a special emphasis on male infants than we should continue to baptize only male infants, if there no longer is a "special emphasis" then so much for the argument... if all children now have the emphasis where is the Scripture that directly repeals the Old Covenant special emphasis and why don't those verses prove servant household baptism? You see the burdon of proof is on you to prove these things... 

[quote:1894ea678d] We should go covenantal...as I have shown. [/quote:1894ea678d]
I am the one trying to be Covenantal and read continuity if there was a spcial emphasis on male children than lets continue to baptize only male children... may be the answer to this riddle is there is no special emphasis on male children... where is the proof for special emphasis on male children.

But if I am correct and the emphasis is on &quot;male&quot; than if the arguement were sucessful we need to baptize servants and everyone in Christian households... the only way to escape all these absuridities is to suppose that God's right to define who gets the sign of the Covenant continues into the New and God has decided that only discples should get the sign of the Covenant.



To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

May the Lord bless both of you.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:0422806ff5][i:0422806ff5]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:0422806ff5]
Alright first off, 
We may need to back track to remember what we are talking about, we are talking about why we cannot agree with the argument of those who advocate position "B" because of household argument, but we can accept position "A" on the basis of the same household argument, 

Position "B": "baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household servants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptize this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision" 

But we can find this identical argument persuasive, 

Position A: "Baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household infants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptism this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision"

To make matters worse, Roldan constructed a perfectly valid critique of the argument that supports both A and B, when he mentioned that we Old Covenant had a physical aspect that is no longer present in the New and so we must no take that in to account and baptize servants on the basis of faith, so how can this argument that proves way to much and is fundamentally flawed be used to support infant baptism but not household servant baptism? 

Roldan pleads that children had a special "emphasis" and this emphasis still continues into the New while this "emphasis" was not present in the case of the servants and so we must no longer continue to baptize household servants but we must continue to baptize infants.

My counter- it is a nice theory but in Scripture no such "emphasis" can be deduced from Scripture. Well, lets see if I was wrong and there is an "emphasis" about who gets the Covenant sign.



[quote:0422806ff5] Emphasis was on ALL the children. Look at all the verses that say, &quot;To you CHILDREN.&quot; This meant both sexes. [/quote:0422806ff5].


It is hard to know what verses you are using, is this just your impression if it is, how I am I to argue against your impression but with my own impression that circumcision was given to males and the emphasis was on the male. I guess we could just trade impressions all day but let us get back to the serious arguments. 

Genesis 17, over an over again emphasis the male aspect it says, "Every [b:0422806ff5] male [/b:0422806ff5] among you shall be circumcised" (v 10) and "Through out of your generation every [b:0422806ff5] male [/b:0422806ff5] among you shall be circumcised" (v. 12).

Note who got the circumcision and who didn't, Abraham, Ishmael, male household servants, Male infants, Male Gentiles who join the household, all male household members, now look at who didn't get circumcision Sarah, female household servants, female gentiles who joined the household, female infants, etc. Now I ask you what was the man differences between the groups who got it and did not get it... was it not maleness. Hence maleness was the main emphasis, because that is how God decided, so where does that children emphasis come in? It doesn't unless we read Presbyterianism between the lines. 

[quote:0422806ff5] Now, if you are asking why did male children get circumcised, fine...but don't say that they emphasis was on them. They were circumcised because sin entered the world through the seed of the man. We can get into the fascinating reason why it was given to the male if you want to. [/quote:0422806ff5]

The reason was because God is Lord of the Covenant and He determines who in his Covenant gets the sign, disciples, males, none, etc/

[quote:0422806ff5] You ask why not follow continually? Well because as COVENANT theologians we say that a command is considered standing UNLESS future revelation comes along to change it. [/quote:0422806ff5] 

Agree in fact this is one of my arguments if there was a special emphasis on male children than that emphasis should continue unless otherwise directly revoked!

(quote] Future revelation came along and changed the sexes. [/quote:0422806ff5]

Where what verse? You could show me were female disciples got baptized but that is not even important to our discussion about female infants- why don't you want to follow that "special emphasis" when the argument works against your side?

[quote:0422806ff5] Therefore, we are consistent with our covenant hermeneutics. [/quote:0422806ff5]

Only if you can show a verse that specifically says, both female infants can be baptized and not just male children with that special emphasis. I would rather just say that no such male infant emphasis existed

[quote:0422806ff5] You ask how is that relevant to infants. well, because there is no MALE OR FEMALE. This accounts for ALL the members of the class entitled MALE and FEMALE. To put it into a form: Now all the members X and Y are included, M is a member of X and W is a member of Y. Therefore M and W are included. [/quote:0422806ff5] 

Well obviously there was only a "special emphasis" on male children, so if you deny it exists in the New Covenant, so much for Rholdan's original counter argument... remember you are the one trying to prove that children have a special emphasis... and key word is prove... if there was a special emphasis on male infants than we should continue to baptize only male infants, if there no longer is a "special emphasis" then so much for the argument... if all children now have the emphasis where is the Scripture that directly repeals the Old Covenant special emphasis and why don't those verses prove servant household baptism? You see the burdon of proof is on you to prove these things... 

[quote:0422806ff5] We should go covenantal...as I have shown. [/quote:0422806ff5]
I am the one trying to be Covenantal and read continuity if there was a spcial emphasis on male children than lets continue to baptize only male children... may be the answer to this riddle is there is no special emphasis on male children... where is the proof for special emphasis on male children.

But if I am correct and the emphasis is on &quot;male&quot; than if the arguement were sucessful we need to baptize servants and everyone in Christian households... the only way to escape all these absuridities is to suppose that God's right to define who gets the sign of the Covenant continues into the New and God has decided that only discples should get the sign of the Covenant.



To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

May the Lord bless both of you.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote]

Tertullian, you know I love you brother, but honestly that was absolutley terrible. Man, are you kidding, your conclusion of what I said was let us baptize only males, WOW!


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:e71c1ca6f3][i:e71c1ca6f3]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:e71c1ca6f3]

Tertullian, you know I love you brother, but honestly that was absolutley terrible. Man, are you kidding, your conclusion of what I said was let us baptize only males, WOW! [/quote:e71c1ca6f3]

I did not say that was your conclusion... your position in order for your arguement to work is that infants had a special emphasis such that they have to receive the Covenant sign... while servants did not have the special emphasis... my counter to that is that infants have no innate rite to the sign of the Covenant but that God can give the Covenant sign to whom he wills, if it be males only, disciples only, ect. Infants have no &quot;special emphasis&quot; that they must be included in the sign administration of the Covenant of Grace, in fact not all infants were given the sign in the Old.

Hope this clarifies...

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

Paul,

In all due respect. I think we are talking passed each other, please try to understand that you are jumping in the middle and that I am not debating Covenant placement but the right to have the Covenant sign (Hence I think this makes the first part of your argument something worthy of another debate) and then the last part of your arguement contradicts what Rholdan said... as I will attempt to show (with respect) below... 



> [quote:4a00ec743c] T-states:
> [quote:4a00ec743c]It is hard to know what verses you are using, is this just your impression if it is, how I am I to argue against your impression but with my own impression that circumcision was given to males and the emphasis was on the male. I guess we could just trade impressions all day but let us get back to the serious arguments. [/quote:4a00ec743c]
> 
> well, I didn't think I would have to show that the Bible has a special emphasis on ALL the children of believer not just males...but since asked:
> ...


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

Tertullian, There is one obvious point that I must say that you are ENTIRELY and EMPHATICALLY wrong! And I am 120% that you are wrong on.


My name is Roldan not Rhodan


----------



## Optimus (Feb 20, 2004)

Christ is the fullfilment of the Old testament sacrifices. So their is no need for anymore sacrifices. No subtraction here, Christ's Sacrifice = the old.

Correct me if im wrong.


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:031f41342d][i:031f41342d]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:031f41342d]
Tertullian, There is one obvious point that I must say that you are ENTIRELY and EMPHATICALLY wrong! And I am 120% that you are wrong on.


My name is Roldan not Rhodan [/quote:031f41342d]

Please forgive my bad spelling, I think we have gone back in forth in this issue and have come to opposite conclusions, we will just have to let the readers decide.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:7ddfdc796b][i:7ddfdc796b]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:7ddfdc796b]
Tertullian,

Sorry for jumping in and posting irrelevant material. But I guess we disagree, I think those passages do show that children have a special place in the covenant, and I think that your argument that the emphasis was on males is true ine ONE SENSE. But my counter that women were allowed to receive ONE of the sacrements kidof lessens your arguments force. Anyway, as you said maybe we can pick it up on another thread..I'll let you continue with Ro brother

-Paul [/quote:7ddfdc796b]

Thanks, Paul for your willingness to talk these issues out with me... I pray that the Lord continue to edify me through your words...


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:f7652e68e0][i:f7652e68e0]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:f7652e68e0]
Christ is the fullfilment of the Old testament sacrifices. So their is no need for anymore sacrifices. No subtraction here, Christ's Sacrifice = the old.

Correct me if im wrong. [/quote:f7652e68e0]

What do you mean by &quot;subtraction?&quot; Surely God's people practice them at one time but now we no longer practice them, hence that is what I meant by &quot;subtracted&quot; for they have been subtracted from our worship serverses. Also Roldan even said that the practice of household servants receiving the Covenant sign automaticially and without personal profession of faith has been subtracted in the New.... I think it is safe to say that there are subtracted. 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## Optimus (Feb 20, 2004)

Whats up tertiliono.

You said:
&quot;So should we continue to have priests and alters in our worship services after all they were in the Old Covenant and the Covenant is additive not subtractive... of course not, in reality there is no such principle as the Covenant is only additive and never subtractive... an adoption of such principles would contradict the book of Hebrews when it subtracts the sacrifices. And since the rest of your argument rests upon a premise that is faulty your argument from that premise holds no water.&quot;

&quot;What do you mean by &quot;subtraction?&quot; Surely God's people practice them at one time but now we no longer practice them, hence that is what I meant by &quot;subtracted&quot; for they have been subtracted from our worship serverses.&quot;


ME:
Maybe i didnt make myself clear.
Christ REPLACED the old testament sacrafices. I thought you knew that.
uzzled:


----------



## Roldan (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:3d1ed124d4][i:3d1ed124d4]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:3d1ed124d4]
[quote:3d1ed124d4][i:3d1ed124d4]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:3d1ed124d4]
Tertullian, There is one obvious point that I must say that you are ENTIRELY and EMPHATICALLY wrong! And I am 120% that you are wrong on.


My name is Roldan not Rhodan [/quote:3d1ed124d4]

Please forgive my bad spelling, I think we have gone back in forth in this issue and have come to opposite conclusions, we will just have to let the readers decide.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:3d1ed124d4]

No problem, I was just kidding and to your second assesment I Agree

You are a passionate man of God and will always want you as an ally, if I spelled that right.

See you on Sat. 7pm. at Holy Trinity?


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 21, 2004)

Rholdan,

I will be there Lord willing

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:b903548eeb][i:b903548eeb]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:b903548eeb]
[quote:b903548eeb][i:b903548eeb]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:b903548eeb]
Whats up tertiliono.

You said:
&quot;So should we continue to have priests and alters in our worship services after all they were in the Old Covenant and the Covenant is additive not subtractive... of course not, in reality there is no such principle as the Covenant is only additive and never subtractive... an adoption of such principles would contradict the book of Hebrews when it subtracts the sacrifices. And since the rest of your argument rests upon a premise that is faulty your argument from that premise holds no water.&quot;

&quot;What do you mean by &quot;subtraction?&quot; Surely God's people practice them at one time but now we no longer practice them, hence that is what I meant by &quot;subtracted&quot; for they have been subtracted from our worship serverses.&quot;


ME:
Maybe i didnt make myself clear.
Christ REPLACED the old testament sacrafices. I thought you knew that.
uzzled: [/quote:b903548eeb]

Alright I agree I can with that, (I think I said that but whatever the case may be that is what I meant). So in the end we both disagree with the principle that the Covenant administration is only additive and not subtractive, for example we both agree, that the coming of Christ &quot;abrogated&quot; (Westminster Confession) the ceremonial part of the law. Therefore, there are both subtractions and additions in the administration of the One Covenant of Grace. 

Hence, the premise of &quot;nothing is abraged (subtracted) but only added&quot; in the Covenant, is faulty and so no complelling arguement can be deduced that utulizes this principle

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:b903548eeb]

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Tertullian]


----------

