# Infant Baptism is a sin against God



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay, I guess I am just SHOCKED that it's the Baptists that are going this route. I would have expected it from some extreme Presbyterians, but I think I'm going to need smelling salts on this one...maybe I should change my signature...



As a Baptist, I view paedocommunion as much a sin against God as I do paedobaptism. Did I confuse you? Sorry if I did.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Greg,
Please explain to me why PaedoBaptism is a sin..............


----------



## doulosChristou

Scott,

Have you been convinced of the peado error so recently and yet forgot what Reformed Baptists believe and why they believe it? I don't think I should need to explain these things to a former Baptist, but here are a few reasons, adapted from Robert Boyt C. Howell's work:

Infant baptism is a sin because its practice is unsupported by the word of God.

Infant baptism is a sin because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of Scripture.

Infant baptism is a sin because it engrafts Judaism upon the gospel of Christ.

Infant baptism is a sin because it falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity.

Infant baptism is a sin because the doctrines upon which it is predicated contradict the great fundamental principle of justification by faith.

Infant baptism is a sin because it is in direct conflict with the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.

Infant baptism is a sin because it despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which are essential to the church of Christ.

Infant baptism is a sin because its practice perpetuates the superstitions that originally produced it.

Infant baptism is a sin because it subverts the scripture doctrine of infant salvation.

Infant baptism is a sin because it leads its advocates into rebellion against the authority of Christ.

Infant baptism is a sin because of the connection it assumes with the moral and religious training of children.

Infant baptism is a sin because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of church and state.

Infant baptism is a sin because it leads to religious persecutions.

Infant baptism is a sin because it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious freedom.

Infant baptism is a sin because it enfeebles the power of the church to combat error.

Infant baptism is a sin because it injures the credit of religion with reflecting men of the world.

Infant baptism is a sin because it is the great barrier to Christian union.

Infant baptism is a sin because it prevents the salutary impression which baptism was designed to make upon the minds both of those who receive it, and of those who witness its administration.

Infant baptism is a sin because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world.

The full argument can be read here:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm

See also:

http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article2_fr.html

http://www.shilohonline.org/articles/madison_avenue/lecture_7.htm




[Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Scott,
> 
> Have you been convinced of the peado error so recently and yet forgot what Reformed Baptists believe and why they believe it? I don't think I should need to explain these things to a former Baptist, but here are a few reasons, adapted from Robert Boyt C. Howell's work:
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because its practice is unsupported by the word of God.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of Scripture.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it engrafts Judaism upon the gospel of Christ.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because the doctrines upon which it is predicated contradict the great fundamental principle of justification by faith.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is in direct conflict with the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which are essential to the church of Christ.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because its practice perpetuates the superstitions that originally produced it.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it subverts the scripture doctrine of infant salvation.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it leads its advocates into rebellion against the authority of Christ.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because of the connection it assumes with the moral and religious training of children.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of church and state.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it leads to religious persecutions.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious freedom.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it enfeebles the power of the church to combat error.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it injures the credit of religion with reflecting men of the world.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is the great barrier to Christian union.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it prevents the salutary impression which baptism was designed to make upon the minds both of those who receive it, and of those who witness its administration.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world.
> 
> The full argument can be read here:
> 
> http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm
> 
> See also:
> 
> http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article2_fr.html
> 
> http://www.shilohonline.org/articles/madison_avenue/lecture_7.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]



Assertions, merely assertions. I can use the same argument against credo-baptism and given your set-up, you just have to accept it.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Assertions, merely assertions. I can use the same argument against credo-baptism and given your set-up, you just have to accept it.



Yes, as a paedobaptist, you should certainly view my not baptizing my infant daughter as a sin against God since it was a gravely serious sin for an OT Israelite not to circumcize his infant son.

As Chris stated in the original thread: 



> _orginally posted by MeDiedBlue_
> It seems logical that if the credobaptist position was in fact the truth, that paedobaptism would be a sin as much as we both view paedocommunion as a sin now. If there was in fact no biblical warrant to baptize infants, then surely taking the sacrament beyond God's defined boundaries would be sin.





[Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## kceaster

Wow.

It looks like Mr. Howell actually succeeded in giving an example for every logical fallacy.

My personal favorite is this one:

Infant baptism is a sin because it leads its advocates into rebellion against the authority of Christ.

And, of course, the paedobaptist rebellion against the authority of Christ is greater than the credobaptist rebellion against the same. If the first is led to rebellion by wrongfully baptizing an infant who is not a believer, then the latter must be led to the same by baptizing an adult who is not a believer either.

Further, the Bible says this, where? Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? There seems to be a whole lot of implying on the part of Mr. Howell.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Me Died Blue

Kevin, would you say ministers are biblically permitted to baptize adults who clearly reject and curse the faith, and are definitely _not_ part of the covenant community?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
If you don't mind; I believe the answer to that is no. However, this type of thinking is baptistic. We place the sign and make disciples, not the other way around.


----------



## lionovjudah

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Kevin, would you say ministers are biblically permitted to baptize adults who clearly reject and curse the faith, and are definitely _not_ part of the covenant community?



May I ask one question please.

Is there anythign in Scripture that speaks of an "Age of accountability?"


I cant find it...

Does believers baptism lead to a conditional covenant? How much believing is enough? 

The issue I have with infant baptism is faith by proxy. How heathen parents can swear by oath to uphold things they have no intention of doing is beyond me. And why a Church allows it.

But then I am left with the fact that it is a Gift of Gods grace, and we cannot add anything to it. So in my opinion, nothing can invalidate baptism. Unbelieving parents, Unholy priest or minister. Whatever man has twisted into their contrived definition of baptism, it is 100% God. 



Joe


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> If you don't mind; I believe the answer to that is no. However, this type of thinking is baptistic. We place the sign and make disciples, not the other way around.



Indeed - and all that Gregory is saying is that when seen _specifically in light of the Baptist position_, baptizing infants is a sin. In other words, if the credos are right, then not only is paedobaptism wrong, but it is sin. And the same applies vice-versa of course, as Gregory acknowledged.


----------



## Scott Bushey

And what Kevin said was :


> Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone


.

So, how has the conclusion been drawn that it is a sin????


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Kevin, would you say ministers are biblically permitted to baptize adults who clearly reject and curse the faith, and are definitely _not_ part of the covenant community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask one question please.
> 
> Is there anythign in Scripture that speaks of an "Age of accountability?"
> 
> 
> I cant find it...
Click to expand...


Agreed - I see it nowhere. That is why, with regard to communion--and I would say baptism as well if I was a Baptist--the time that someone can receive the sacrament is whenever the elders judge that person to be able to understand it and judge themselves.



> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> Does believers baptism lead to a conditional covenant? How much believing is enough?



While I strongly support paedobaptism, I do not see this as a good argument against the Baptist position, since, again, if I held to believer's baptism I would simply say that there is enough believing when the elders judge there to be, just like I do say now with regard to communion.



> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> The issue I have with infant baptism is faith by proxy. How heathen parents can swear by oath to uphold things they have no intention of doing is beyond me. And why a Church allows it.
> 
> But then I am left with the fact that it is a Gift of Gods grace, and we cannot add anything to it. So in my opinion, nothing can invalidate baptism. Unbelieving parents, Unholy priest or minister. Whatever man has twisted into their contrived definition of baptism, it is 100% God.



I'm not really following you here.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> If you don't mind; I believe the answer to that is no. However, this type of thinking is baptistic. We place the sign and make disciples, not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed - and all that Gregory is saying is that when seen _specifically in light of the Baptist position_, baptizing infants is a sin. In other words, if the credos are right, then not only is paedobaptism wrong, but it is sin. And the same applies vice-versa of course, as Gregory acknowledged.
Click to expand...


 Perhaps the best way for you to understand it, Scott, is to understand that I see the administration of baptism to infants as a sin against God (from my Reformed Baptist perspective) in the same exact way as you (now) see administration of communion to infants as a sin against God (from your Reformed perspective).


----------



## blhowes

Just wondering. The Westminster Confession says:

V. *Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance*,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

Does that imply, when taken along with the other parts of the baptism section, that it is considered a sin not to baptize your infants?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> And what Kevin said was :
> 
> 
> 
> Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> So, how has the conclusion been drawn that it is a sin????
Click to expand...


Going beyond God's prescribed instructions on the sacraments is surely a violation of His law as much as any part of the RPW. And people can definitely be _wrongly_ baptized, if they are _openly_ apostate, in which case a minister baptizing them would be overstepping God's boundaries with regard to the sacrament, which is to baptize _disciples_. The disagreement is over the issue of whether or not infants of believers are disciples or not, but I should think all paedobaptists would think that to knowingly baptize someone who is openly apostate would be sin.


----------



## fredtgreco

I guess I don't understand how this is hard. I believe Greg is wrong, but not unclear.

To give the sign of the covenant to one whom it does not belong is a sin. So also it would be a sin to not give the sign of the covenant to one whom it belongs.

Likewise for communion. That is why I get so "worked up" about paedocommunion. I believe it is a serious sin and heresy, and it should disqualify a man for ministry in WCF or 1689 denominations.


----------



## JohnV

Is it is sin, Greg, to believe the best you know how, and by following the Word to the best of your ability, due to your faith in a living God? Or is it a sin not to believe perfectly? Then we are all sinners, no matter what we believe. 

Yes, it is true that it follows both cannot be true, so one must be wrong, and therefore must be a sin to follow. And yes, Kevin and Chris, paedobaptism is grossly misrepresented by Mr. Howell; he does not give any reasons why I should doubt the practice and the belief I have concerning baptism, not a single one. And yes it is true that some people can have something stuck in their craw which steers their thinking to a certain conclusion that really isn't logical. I have that problem too, I'm afraid. Let's remember that we are trying to have iron sharpen iron here. I believe that those who believe in Credo baptism are mistaken, but I will not trust my own presuppositions, for I too am born in sin and am under the same fallen nature. I have been redeemed, but I am not by that token suddenly perfect in my thinking. We have to grow in faith and knowledge. And it follows that if we are to grow in faith and knowledge that we will be leaving our mistaken notions behind us. All of us will have this happen. 

I don't think anything is to be gained by volleying accusations back and forth, as if the faith commitment of each party means nothing. If we discern that that commitment isn't there, then that's another matter, but even then we must be very careful. I welcome the credo baptists because their courage and conviction helps me to understand paedobaptism much better. It helps me explain to myself why I don't believe some things that I haven't considered as carefully as I should have. And I hope and pray that my courage and conviction does the same for my brothers who are Credo.


----------



## Scott Bushey

But Greg,
To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptising infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, youwould then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.

As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Just wondering. The Westminster Confession says:
> 
> V. *Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance*,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
> 
> Does that imply, when taken along with the other parts of the baptism section, that it is considered a sin not to baptize your infants?



Indeed.



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I guess I don't understand how this is hard. I believe Greg is wrong, but not unclear.
> 
> To give the sign of the covenant to one whom it does not belong is a sin. So also it would be a sin to not give the sign of the covenant to one whom it belongs.
> 
> Likewise for communion. That is why I get so "worked up" about paedocommunion. I believe it is a serious sin and heresy, and it should disqualify a man for ministry in WCF or 1689 denominations.


----------



## fredtgreco

Let's not forget that while sin is serious, none of us are free from it. I'm not really sure what we gain by saying, "well, neither the credo nor the paedo is in sin." What we lose is the truth, and the fact that baptism is important.

Far better to say, one of us might be in sin, but that sin is not grievous (as in the case of rejection of the Trinity) so as to preclude fellowship.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But Greg,
> To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptising infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, youwould then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.
> 
> As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.



So Scott, if my pastor were to baptize Saddam Hussein, and tell him that it was a legitimate baptism, would you see him as _sinning_? How does the RPW apply any less to sacraments than to songs or any other elements of worship?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But Greg,
> To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptizing infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, you would then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.
> 
> As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Scott, if my pastor were to baptize Saddam Hussein, and tell him that it was a legitimate baptism, would you see him as _sinning_? How does the RPW apply any less to sacraments than to songs or any other elements of worship?
Click to expand...


Also, if one of the reasons for the sacraments is _"to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world"_ (WCF 27.1) then would it not be a sin to apply the sacrament to one not in the visible Church? Obviously, as a paedobaptist, I believe the sacrament is rightly applied to children, since they are members of the visible Church. But the credo take the opposite view.

Again, I believe wrongly, but it does make internal consistency


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Assertions, merely assertions. I can use the same argument against credo-baptism and given your set-up, you just have to accept it.



Yes, that is the STANDARD PRACTICE for "debating" baptism on the PuritanBoard, don't you know? What, didn't you get the memo?




> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Have you been convinced of the peado error so recently and yet forgot what Reformed Baptists believe and why they believe it? I don't think I should need to explain these things to a former Baptist....



Dag, yo! There goes the whole, "I was a xxedobaptist for xx years, so I know EVERYTHING there is to know about the xxedobaptist position, even better than you!" assertion....

[Edited on 27-1-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Let's not forget that while sin is serious, none of us are free from it. I'm not really sure what we gain by saying, "well, neither the credo nor the paedo is in sin." What we lose is the truth, and the fact that baptism is important.
> 
> Far better to say, one of us might be in sin, but that sin is not grievous (as in the case of rejection of the Trinity) so as to preclude fellowship.



 I fully expect my paedo brothers to view me and my Baptist brothers as sinning when it comes to baptism just as I view them as sinning when it comes to baptism. Baptism is important but getting it wrong is not so grievous as to preclude fellowship. That's why my Reformed Baptist church opens its table and its membership to paedobaptist believers, as did John Bunyan.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Let's not forget that while sin is serious, none of us are free from it. I'm not really sure what we gain by saying, "well, neither the credo nor the paedo is in sin." What we lose is the truth, and the fact that baptism is important.
> 
> Far better to say, one of us might be in sin, but that sin is not grievous (as in the case of rejection of the Trinity) so as to preclude fellowship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expect my paedo brothers to view me and my Baptist brothers as sinning when it comes to baptism just as I view them as sinning when it comes to baptism. Baptism is important but getting it wrong is not so grievous as to preclude fellowship. That's why my Reformed Baptist church opens its table and its membership to paedobaptist believers, as did John Bunyan.
Click to expand...


Again, beloved inconsistency! Hiscox would be turning over in his grave, along with legions of baptists! The gall of admitting one to the table who is "not baptized!"


----------



## luvroftheWord

Here are a few arguments against credobaptism:

Credobaptism is a sin because its practice is unsupported by the Word of God.

Credobaptism is a sin because it engrafts Renaissance individualism upon the gospel of Christ.

Credobaptism is a sin because it leads to dispensationalism and antinomianism.

Credobaptism is a sin because it leads to Arminianism.

Credobaptism is a sin because it is the great barrier to Christian union.

Credobaptism is a sin because its defense leads to heresy, such as Mormonism and Seventh Day Adventism.

Credobaptism is a sin because its advocates believe they are the only true Reformers.

Credobaptism is a sin because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of rock 'n' roll music and corporate worship.

Credobaptism is a sin because its advocates have been baptized at least three times to make sure it counted.

Credobaptism is a sin because Billy Graham is credobaptism.

Credobaptism is a sin because it leads to the 40 Days of Purpose.

Credobaptism is a sin because some guys will be baptized in order to impress women.

And finally...

Credobaptism is sin because its advocates do not properly represent paedobaptism.


P. S. -- To my Baptist friends, I meant this post in good humor. I don't really believe this stuff. 


[Edited on 27-1-2005 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But Greg,
> To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptising infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, youwould then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.
> 
> As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Scott, if my pastor were to baptize Saddam Hussein, and tell him that it was a legitimate baptism, would you see him as _sinning_? How does the RPW apply any less to sacraments than to songs or any other elements of worship?
Click to expand...


Did Hussein convert? If so, it is not sin! The point is Chris, and it was also Kevin's point, Both camps are possibly baptizing unregenerates; this is not sin; and there is no scriptural rationale to state so. However, to knowingly baptize and deface Christ by non confessing unregenerates and demons is sin.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Here are a few arguments against credobaptism:
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because its practice is unsupported by the Word of God.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because it engrafts Renaissance individualism upon the gospel of Christ.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because it leads to dispensationalism and antinomianism.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because it leads to Arminianism.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because it is the great barrier to Christian union.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because its defense leads to heresy, such as Mormonism and Seventh Day Adventism.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because its advocates believe they are the only true Reformers.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of rock 'n' roll music and corporate worship.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because its advocates have been baptized at least three times to make sure it counted.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because Billy Graham is credobaptism.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because it leads to the 40 Days of Purpose.
> 
> Credobaptism is a sin because some guys will be baptized in order to impress women.
> 
> And finally...
> 
> Credobaptism is sin because its advocates do not properly represent paedobaptism.
> 
> 
> P. S. -- To my Baptist friends, I meant this post in good humor. I don't really believe this stuff.
> 
> 
> [Edited on 27-1-2005 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, to knowingly baptize and deface Christ by non confessing unregenerates and demons is sin.



Scott, your sentence is a bit awkward but if what you typed above was meant to say, "To knowingly baptize non-confessing unregenerates is sin," then you just re-articulated my position perfectly.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But Greg,
> To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptising infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, youwould then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.
> 
> As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Scott, if my pastor were to baptize Saddam Hussein, and tell him that it was a legitimate baptism, would you see him as _sinning_? How does the RPW apply any less to sacraments than to songs or any other elements of worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Hussein convert? If so, it is not sin! The point is Chris, and it was also Kevin's point, Both camps are possibly baptizing unregenerates; this is not sin; and there is no scriptural rationale to state so. However, to knowingly baptize and deface Christ by non confessing unregenerates and demons is sin.
> 
> [Edited on 1-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Would you agree that the RPW applies just as much to the sacraments as to any other element of worship? In other words, do you agree that it is _sin_ to baptize anyone whom we do not have biblical warrant to baptize?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But Greg,
> To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptising infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, youwould then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.
> 
> As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Scott, if my pastor were to baptize Saddam Hussein, and tell him that it was a legitimate baptism, would you see him as _sinning_? How does the RPW apply any less to sacraments than to songs or any other elements of worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Hussein convert? If so, it is not sin! The point is Chris, and it was also Kevin's point, Both camps are possibly baptizing unregenerates; this is not sin; and there is no scriptural rationale to state so. However, to knowingly baptize and deface Christ by non confessing unregenerates and demons is sin.
> 
> [Edited on 1-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you agree that the RPW applies just as much to the sacraments as to any other element of worship? In other words, do you agree that it is _sin_ to baptize anyone whom we do not have biblical warrant to baptize?
Click to expand...


Chris,
Yes. But in the case of my children, we do have the warrant and the command. 

Greg, 
I am working, so forgive my pig latin. Let me clearify. Saddam Hussein comes to my pastor asking to be baptised. My pastor asks him if he is Christs. Hussein answers, in a pigs eye; I am Muslim. To baptize an outward confession against Christ is SIN. There is a difference between me holding fast in faith to Gods command and promises and placing the sign upon my daughter and the above scenario. One is blessed of God, the other is not.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Let's not forget that while sin is serious, none of us are free from it. I'm not really sure what we gain by saying, "well, neither the credo nor the paedo is in sin." What we lose is the truth, and the fact that baptism is important.
> 
> Far better to say, one of us might be in sin, but that sin is not grievous (as in the case of rejection of the Trinity) so as to preclude fellowship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expect my paedo brothers to view me and my Baptist brothers as sinning when it comes to baptism just as I view them as sinning when it comes to baptism. Baptism is important but getting it wrong is not so grievous as to preclude fellowship. That's why my Reformed Baptist church opens its table and its membership to paedobaptist believers, as did John Bunyan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, beloved inconsistency! Hiscox would be turning over in his grave, along with legions of baptists! The gall of admitting one to the table who is "not baptized!"
Click to expand...


While Hiscox would certainly be turning over in his grave, I see no inconsistency with Scripture, only with tradition. Perhaps if I thought Scripture taught that baptism was some sort of sign or seal of the covenant, I'd think differently. As it is, I view part of the self-examination which is to precede Communion as involving answering the question, "Have I been Scripturally baptized?" to the satisfaction of your individual conscience.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> But Greg,
> To be fair, what we are now wrestling with is not Paedo baptism vs paedocommunion, But Paedo Baptism vs Credo baptism. You say baptising infants is a sin against God. In contrast to that, youwould then have to believe it is not a sin, if we don't. This is the crux.
> 
> As Kevin stated, where in scripture do you see that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone? Clearly the scriptures draw out the sin of PaedoCommunion (1 Cor); so we together agree on this item, but to say that applying the sign is sin must be supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Scott, if my pastor were to baptize Saddam Hussein, and tell him that it was a legitimate baptism, would you see him as _sinning_? How does the RPW apply any less to sacraments than to songs or any other elements of worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Hussein convert? If so, it is not sin! The point is Chris, and it was also Kevin's point, Both camps are possibly baptizing unregenerates; this is not sin; and there is no scriptural rationale to state so. However, to knowingly baptize and deface Christ by non confessing unregenerates and demons is sin.
> 
> [Edited on 1-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you agree that the RPW applies just as much to the sacraments as to any other element of worship? In other words, do you agree that it is _sin_ to baptize anyone whom we do not have biblical warrant to baptize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Yes. But in the case of my children, we do have the warrant and the command.
Click to expand...


I fully agree - but Baptists do not, and so _if_ their position were in fact the correct one, and paedobaptism is a false doctrine, then we would have no more biblical warrant to baptize our infants than a pastor would an openly apostate person like Saddam. But as it stands now, I believe ours is the correct position, and that they are thus the ones in sin, neglecting part of God's commanded baptism. But I would equally expect them in light of their position to see us as overstepping it.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Let's not forget that while sin is serious, none of us are free from it. I'm not really sure what we gain by saying, "well, neither the credo nor the paedo is in sin." What we lose is the truth, and the fact that baptism is important.
> 
> Far better to say, one of us might be in sin, but that sin is not grievous (as in the case of rejection of the Trinity) so as to preclude fellowship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully expect my paedo brothers to view me and my Baptist brothers as sinning when it comes to baptism just as I view them as sinning when it comes to baptism. Baptism is important but getting it wrong is not so grievous as to preclude fellowship. That's why my Reformed Baptist church opens its table and its membership to paedobaptist believers, as did John Bunyan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, beloved inconsistency! Hiscox would be turning over in his grave, along with legions of baptists! The gall of admitting one to the table who is "not baptized!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Hiscox would certainly be turning over in his grave, I see no inconsistency with Scripture, only with tradition. Perhaps if I thought Scripture taught that baptism was some sort of sign or seal of the covenant, I'd think differently. As it is, I view part of the self-examination which is to precede Communion as involving answering the question, "Have I been Scripturally baptized?" to the satisfaction of your individual conscience.
Click to expand...


Actually (to play the baptist's advocate), the issue is not over the sign and seal nature of the covenant. For almost all baptists, for centuries (and set forth in formal form in Hiscox's Manual) it is:

1. Admission to the Lord's Supper is for _baptized_ Christians
2. Paedobaptism is not baptism (the same argument is used by many with reference to non-immersions)
3. Hence, those who were "baptized" as infants have not been truly or actually baptized; they are in need of "Christian baptism"
4. Therefore, as unbaptized professors, such persons cannot be admitted to the Table
4.


----------



## kceaster

*Chris...*

You bring up a good point, and I'll try to answer this. Please note that some of my comments are not directed towards your question, but towards the Baptistic theology in general.

A Baptist minister is no more sinning by baptizing a person who he believes to be a genuine disciple, than a paedobaptist is when he baptizes an infant. Both are going to be taught and discipled. However, both could be unregenerate 'til the day they die.

In your tertium quid scenario, I think Philip would have soundly said no if the eunuch would have been rebellious and cursing God.

That is not really the point.

The point is that the minister who baptizes an adult cannot see the heart nor can he know whether or not that person is regenerate. The minister who baptizes the child does not know either, no matter how faithful the parents. The key is not the performance of the baptism, but the faithfulness of the Spirit who really does the baptizing.

Now, the follow on question has to be this. I am assuming that John Calvin was baptized as an infant in the RCC. To my knowledge, he was never rebaptized. Did the Holy Spirit work in his life? Did he sin by not obeying the Lord and having himself baptized as an adult by a minister in the Reformed church?

Once again, Mr. Howell and most other baptists like him are placing too much emphasis on what happens externally in baptism. If we want to be technical and we want to continue to throw up the argument of the regulative principle - that the administration of baptism is in the confines of worship - then we must say that baptism is a spiritual action, not a physical one. Because God is spirit and we worship Him in Spirit and truth. Therefore, the physical act of baptism is not worship in and by itself. Only the spiritual aspect of baptism is worship and so the emphasis must be placed upon the Spirit in this act.

It is the same with praying. When we pray, does God physically hear the words we're saying like we do? No. The Spirit intercedes. When the Word is preached, do the hosts of heaven and our Lord physically hear the minister? No. Because worship is in spirit and truth. The Spirit does it all. For worship to take place, the Spirit must be the active party between God and man. If He isn't, then it isn't worship.

Since we are given no prohibition in the Scriptures to baptize an infant, and since baptism is a Spirit work in the truest sense of it, and since Christ blessed and treated the children as small believers, I see no reason to place sin on the outward act - to either the paedo, or the credo.

Further, if there is a link between baptism and circumcision, we also need to look at the OT to see if there were prohibitions against it. Were there any prohibitions as to who was to be circumcised? Were there any sanctions against priests who wrongfully circumcised? The only sanction was against the infant. Whoever was not circumcised was cut off from the people. The priest wasn't. The parents weren't. The child was.

I'm sorry, if this is such a grevious sin, I just don't see it in the Bible. The scriptures are clear on our worship and I completely uphold the regulative principle. But the baptism of infants is not outside the pale of this, as history has shown.

Another key for me in this debate is that we have people calling each other sinners by what they are doing or not doing. Simply put, we are sinners if we deny the great commission and the carrying out of it. Who receives the signs and when seems to me like an argument in futility. The bottom line is that I believe credos think that we err in the same error as the RCC. We do it to be superstitious and because we always have. Just because credos come up with more viable reasons against us, does not mean that the departure point isn't the same. So, I believe that the underlying element in the credo position is an argument against the RCC, not against Reformed Covenantals.

One more thing. I will not call a credo a sinner because they do not baptize their children. They may sin because of a lack of faith. They may sin because they do not look properly at the spiritual aspect of baptism, but they are not sinning in keeping their children from baptism. The WCF rightly states that it is sin to neglect baptism altogether, but I do not believe that it condemns those who do not baptize their children. As long as the child who grows into an adult believer is baptized, then the sign is not neglected. The WCF further states that true baptism is not in the water, minister, or the person. Therefore, I do not see how a trinitarian baptism can be a sin for anyone involved. The Holy Spirit will either bless it, or curse it because of rebellion. Either way, it is no different from circumcision in that regard. The minister of the gospel, nor the parents are guilty of any sin in that act.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey

> I fully agree - but Baptists do not,



I disagree; They are responsible to the same command.




> and so _if_ their position were in fact the correct one, and paedobaptism is a false doctrine, then we would have no more biblical warrant to baptize our infants than a pastor would an openly apostate person like Saddam.



Wrong. We are not baptising rejectors of the faith. We are baptising people who have a direct relationship to it, i.e. the family unit, confessors of the faith. Nowhere in scripture does it imply to do this is sin. However, to intentionally go out of one's way and baptise a demon is sin.



> But as it stands now, I believe ours is the correct position, and that they are thus the ones in sin, neglecting part of God's commanded baptism.



Their sin is not that they are baptising possible unregenerates, but that they are not placing the sign upon their children.

[Edited on 1-27-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Actually (to play the baptist's advocate), the issue is not over the sign and seal nature of the covenant. For almost all baptists, for centuries (and set forth in formal form in Hiscox's Manual) it is:
> 
> 1. Admission to the Lord's Supper is for _baptized_ Christians
> 2. Paedobaptism is not baptism (the same argument is used by many with reference to non-immersions)
> 3. Hence, those who were "baptized" as infants have not been truly or actually baptized; they are in need of "Christian baptism"
> 4. Therefore, as unbaptized professors, such persons cannot be admitted to the Table



Following Bunyan, my church would go this route:

1. Admission to the Lord's Supper is for _baptized_ Christians.

2. All believers who, according to the satisfaction of their own individual conscience, have been Scripturally baptized can be admitted to the Table.

We actually require 3 things and make all 3 clear every Lord's Day before we partake:

1) You must be trusting in Christ alone for your salvation.

2) You must not be under discipline from your local church.

3) You must be Scripturally baptized, according to your own conscience.

I know Phillip's Reformed Baptist church does something similar to Bunyan as well. You're right that we are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Kevin, I'll have to think over your reply some. I don't mean that as a dodge, but it is a new position I have not seen taken before, and will have to consider it further in light of the surrounding issues. I will get back to you on it in this thread.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree - but Baptists do not,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree; They are responsible to the same command.
Click to expand...


Indeed, which is why I maintain that they are in fact in sin for neglecting paedobaptism. But as paedobaptists, we're talking hypothetically here.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> and so _if_ their position were in fact the correct one, and paedobaptism is a false doctrine, then we would have no more biblical warrant to baptize our infants than a pastor would an openly apostate person like Saddam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. We are not baptising rejectors of the faith. We are baptising people who have a direct relationship to it, i.e. the family unit, confessors of the faith. Nowhere in scripture does it imply to do this is sin. However, to intentionally go out of one's way and baptise a demon is sin.
Click to expand...


And why do we hold that it is wrong to baptize rejectors of the faith? Because it is going beyond the bounds that Scripture sets for baptism, and we believe that only covenantal disciples are to be baptized. Likewise, why do Baptists hold that it is wrong to baptize infants? Because they see it as going beyond the bounds that Scripture sets for baptism, and they believe that only covenantal disciples are to be baptized, and that only professing Christians are covenantal disciples.

Again, I believe they are wrong, and thus in sin - but if their doctrine on baptism was true, we paedos could claim no more biblical warrant to baptize infants than we could rejectors of the faith. Thankfully, their doctrine is not true. 



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> But as it stands now, I believe ours is the correct position, and that they are thus the ones in sin, neglecting part of God's commanded baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their sin is not that they are baptising possible unregenerates, but that they are not placing the sign upon their children.
Click to expand...


Agreed - I never said their sin was baptizing possible unregenerates, for we all aknowledge that we do that. Indeed, from our perspective, their sin is neglecting the sign to commanded recipients; from their perspective, our sin is overstepping the bounds of commanded recipients.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Assertions, merely assertions. I can use the same argument against credo-baptism and given your set-up, you just have to accept it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is the STANDARD PRACTICE for "debating" baptism on the PuritanBoard, don't you know? What, didn't you get the memo?
> 
> [Edited on 27-1-2005 by Philip A]
Click to expand...


That is what I was trying to point out. You see, in a debate people give "reasons" for or against such a point. His were more like, "Ha, so there!" In other words, saying so doesn't make it so.


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> That is what I was trying to point out. You see, in a debate people give "reasons" for or against such a point. His were more like, "Ha, so there!" In other words, saying so doesn't make it so.



And this is what I was trying to point out: I rarely see anything more than "mere assertions" from either side; it is as common a practice for paedos as it is for credos, to such a widespread extent, that I labelled it as STANDARD PRACTICE, and even SHOUTED it!

In dC's defense, though, he was actually clarifying a question, in which there was some confusion as to what the baptist position is; he was not actually debating.

[Edited on 28-1-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 1. ASSERTION
> 2. ASSERTION
> 3. therefore they should receive the sign of covenant membership.
> 
> 1. ASSERTION
> 2. ASSERTION
> 3. therefore they should be baptized.
> 
> 1. ASSERTION
> 2. ASSERTION
> 3. ASSERTION
> 4. Therefore they should get the sign.
> 
> 1. ASSERTION
> 2. ASSERTION
> 3. Therefore, God views them as being in covenant with Him.
> 4. ASSERTION
> 5. Therefore God will send some covenant people to hell.
> 6. ASSERTION
> 7. ASSERTION
> 8. Therefore not all can be elect.
> 
> 
> (seriously, the last one was a joke but it was valid)



Seriously, this too is a joke, but it is still valid! 

(note: just because I labeled some of these as assertions, doesn't mean that I don't agree with at least some of them)


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Scott,
> 
> Have you been convinced of the peado error so recently and yet forgot what Reformed Baptists believe and why they believe it? I don't think I should need to explain these things to a former Baptist, but here are a few reasons, adapted from Robert Boyt C. Howell's work:
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because its practice is unsupported by the word of God.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of Scripture.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it engrafts Judaism upon the gospel of Christ.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because the doctrines upon which it is predicated contradict the great fundamental principle of justification by faith.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is in direct conflict with the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which are essential to the church of Christ.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because its practice perpetuates the superstitions that originally produced it.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it subverts the scripture doctrine of infant salvation.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it leads its advocates into rebellion against the authority of Christ.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because of the connection it assumes with the moral and religious training of children.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of church and state.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it leads to religious persecutions.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious freedom.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it enfeebles the power of the church to combat error.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it injures the credit of religion with reflecting men of the world.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it is the great barrier to Christian union.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it prevents the salutary impression which baptism was designed to make upon the minds both of those who receive it, and of those who witness its administration.
> 
> Infant baptism is a sin because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world.
> 
> The full argument can be read here:
> 
> http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismtoc.htm
> 
> See also:
> 
> http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article2_fr.html
> 
> http://www.shilohonline.org/articles/madison_avenue/lecture_7.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 27-1-2005 by doulosChristou]



Credobaptism is a sin because it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This is why I hate this argument. I know a lot of Presbyterians' who glorify God much more than some Baptist do. I also know some Reformed Baptist people who put the Presbyterians to shame. I am not willing to call peaedo baptism sin. 

I would definitely call any baptism sin that had the doctrine of regenereation attached to it as did the early Greek, and Latin fathers, or the adults who preach it for the remission of sin. I think the reformed camp starts shooting itself in the foot....No Bum... when we start to divide over our views with this kind of strong language. I am standing stongly as a Credo but fear that God would not be pleased with me for talking poorly against good brothers. 

Okay...Throw your rocks at me. I am not a compromiser. I am just very careful and a little fearful of God in this matter.
I do say that I think that paedo's are incorrect but not in sin.

[Edited on 1-31-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Ianterrell

Ryan if you are convinced that children should not be baptized then you would be right to call it a sin when one baptized those who are not proper recipeints of the sacrament.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rom 14:10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why also do you despise your brother? For all shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 
Rom 14:11 For it has been written, "As I live, says the Lord, that every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue confess to God." Isa. 45:23 

I know this isn't about baptism but it seems to apply here. 

Rom 14:22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Blessed is the one not condemning himself in what he approves. 
Rom 14:23 But the one doubting, if he eats, he has been condemned, because it is not of faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin. 

I don't take baptism lightly and don't think anyone should. But there are reasons by both sides for what they believe. I believe the Credo side. This issue is so complex that I hope it doesnt' destroy anothers faith in the Master of the Covenant. Just like Larry Hughes has had some issues about Baptism that have made him question what is the reality of the doctrine of Baptism. You can check out our discussion on the Welty question forum for Baptists. It is not as simple as some want it to be. The doctrine needs to have it's knots untied without so much friction between us who agree on so many issues. I need to understand it better. Well Paul doesn't. He knows everything. Just ask him. I do to. Just ask me. I was lying before.


----------



## Ianterrell

Randy,

These verses don't necessarily apply as we aren't talking about condemning one person or the other. Also the Rom 14 is talking tertiary issues of conscience. What if I thought that having pre-marital sex was okay? We can't take these verses out of context. If I am convinced that something my brother is doing is not right morally, then I should have no problem saying it is a sin. It's best we not confuse calling sin what sin is, with being mean or being insensitive to people's convictions.

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## pastorway

If the Bible teaches that baptism is only for those who profess their faith in Christ ( hence "credo" ), then for anyone to baptize anyone else but a professor of faith in Christ is to transgress the teaching of Scripture. And that is sin any way you cut it!

Likewise, if the Bible teaches that children of believers should receive the sign of the covenant (and if baptism is the sign of the covenant), and we withhold that sign from our children then we disobey the Scriptures and we sin.

Either way, either camp, baptism is ultimately about obedience to Christ, is it not? So to disobey Christ cannot be called anything less than sin!

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Randy,

I think you make a good sobering point. I openly admit that though I presently attend a SBC, that I am 99% convinced the other way. My wife would say 100% I just don't realize it yet. But strictly speaking only one view is truly in accordance with the Word of God. Both John Calvin and CH Spurgeon now know who was in error. We can state that much without any disagreement. 

But I think one needs to allow some grace for learning on the other side. Now I'm saying that from a neutral standpoint. Because at the end of the day doctrinal correctness is not the grounds for anyone's salvation, the work of Christ is. Having said that I realize that that itself is the doctrine that needs to be correct, but correctness alone is mere intellectual assent and not necessarily trust and resting upon Christ alone.

Is one a sin strictly speaking, well yes it would have to be but all manner of sin will be forgiven men through Christ. I guess the point is grace and mercy need to govern a debate. I say that being one who struggles himself with that very issue, not pointing fingers at all.

I relate this to the way I prayed for my wife when I was a burgeoning calvinistic Christian and she definitely was NOT. It was the worse fight/discussion we EVER had, and shortly after being married. It broke me to pray for both of us to have the truth be revealed to us because I was willing to understand that perhaps I'd been wrong and self-deceived. Early on in the learning process this is necessary because a teaching is not firm perhaps. Thus, my prayer was for the Lord to reveal to both of us what the truth was and my prayer was not, "Lord show her the error of her ways and that I am right." And He did, when it hit her, sovereign grace, she repented and apologized to me. I just sat there stunned. I contrast that with other armenians I've prayed for and my heart was not quite so gracious but rather seeking to "win the argument". 

All that to say that should be the mindset of either side. Or at least those seeking to find the truth out.

That being said I'm not advocating a neutral forever just to be safe position, not at all, just graciousness in the debates.

My $0.02. 

Larry


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.



Scott,

Kevin is wrong.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Randy,
> 
> I think you make a good sobering point. I openly admit that though I presently attend a SBC, that I am 99% convinced the other way. My wife would say 100% I just don't realize it yet. But strictly speaking only one view is truly in accordance with the Word of God. Both John Calvin and CH Spurgeon now know who was in error. We can state that much without any disagreement.
> 
> But I think one needs to allow some grace for learning on the other side. Now I'm saying that from a neutral standpoint. Because at the end of the day doctrinal correctness is not the grounds for anyone's salvation, the work of Christ is. Having said that I realize that that itself is the doctrine that needs to be correct, but correctness alone is mere intellectual assent and not necessarily trust and resting upon Christ alone.
> 
> Is one a sin strictly speaking, well yes it would have to be but all manner of sin will be forgiven men through Christ. I guess the point is grace and mercy need to govern a debate. I say that being one who struggles himself with that very issue, not pointing fingers at all.
> 
> I relate this to the way I prayed for my wife when I was a burgeoning calvinistic Christian and she definitely was NOT. It was the worse fight/discussion we EVER had, and shortly after being married. It broke me to pray for both of us to have the truth be revealed to us because I was willing to understand that perhaps I'd been wrong and self-deceived. Early on in the learning process this is necessary because a teaching is not firm perhaps. Thus, my prayer was for the Lord to reveal to both of us what the truth was and my prayer was not, "Lord show her the error of her ways and that I am right." And He did, when it hit her, sovereign grace, she repented and apologized to me. I just sat there stunned. I contrast that with other armenians I've prayed for and my heart was not quite so gracious but rather seeking to "win the argument".
> 
> All that to say that should be the mindset of either side. Or at least those seeking to find the truth out.
> 
> That being said I'm not advocating a neutral forever just to be safe position, not at all, just graciousness in the debates.
> 
> My $0.02.
> 
> Larry



Larry,

I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying. While I believe that one "side" has to be in sin (since both cannot be right and following God's command) I also firmly believe that this is a matter of fact, not something to be used in deprecating another. Acknowledging that baptism is important enough to not be a matter of indifference (adiaphora) is helpful to both sides - and honors both. To put it another way - if the paedo did not view it as a sin for the credo to take his position on baptism, and the credo vice versa, then both would be in sin for separating unduly.

At the same time, we must acknowledge where we agree and seek to unite around that. This is not a place in my view for rock throwing.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Fred,

I see what you are saying and that makes a lot sense.



> To put it another way - if the paedo did not view it as a sin for the credo to take his position on baptism, and the credo vice versa, then both would be in sin for separating unduly.



Very clear, I didn't consider it that way.

Thanks!

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes

Ahhhhhh, another light popped on in your statement, and calling baptism "indifferent" would be irreverant to something the Lord has commanded specifically by lowering its value.

I requalify what I said in this light.

Thanks again,

larry


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> A Baptist minister is no more sinning by baptizing a person who he believes to be a genuine disciple, than a paedobaptist is when he baptizes an infant. Both are going to be taught and discipled. However, both could be unregenerate 'til the day they die.



Agreed.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The point is that the minister who baptizes an adult cannot see the heart nor can he know whether or not that person is regenerate. The minister who baptizes the child does not know either, no matter how faithful the parents. The key is not the performance of the baptism, but the faithfulness of the Spirit who really does the baptizing.



Indeed, only God can know the heart for certain - and that is why all baptism is based on presumption. But the Bible still references a specific type of persom when commanding us who to baptize (i.e. disciples), from which it follows that it is our duty to determine who we can biblically presume to be such a person.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Now, the follow on question has to be this. I am assuming that John Calvin was baptized as an infant in the RCC. To my knowledge, he was never rebaptized. Did the Holy Spirit work in his life? Did he sin by not obeying the Lord and having himself baptized as an adult by a minister in the Reformed church?



No, since nearly all of Protestantism does not consider Rome to have been a false Church until Trent, but I'm not really seeing the relevance of that to the issue at hand.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Once again, Mr. Howell and most other baptists like him are placing too much emphasis on what happens externally in baptism. If we want to be technical and we want to continue to throw up the argument of the regulative principle - that the administration of baptism is in the confines of worship - then we must say that baptism is a spiritual action, not a physical one. Because God is spirit and we worship Him in Spirit and truth. Therefore, the physical act of baptism is not worship in and by itself. Only the spiritual aspect of baptism is worship and so the emphasis must be placed upon the Spirit in this act.



As you said, baptism is a physical sign that signifies a spiritual principle - thus, the act of emphasizing someone's covenant status is a spiritual act, and since that act is implicit is the physical act of baptizing someone with water, it can rightly be associated with worship.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> It is the same with praying. When we pray, does God physically hear the words we're saying like we do? No. The Spirit intercedes. When the Word is preached, do the hosts of heaven and our Lord physically hear the minister? No. Because worship is in spirit and truth. The Spirit does it all. For worship to take place, the Spirit must be the active party between God and man. If He isn't, then it isn't worship.



Agreed - and as I said above, physical acts such as baptizing with water, praying with words and preaching with sound waves also _contain_ spiritual acts, like the act of signifying covenant status, the act of interceding with one's heart, and the act of believing God's truth, which is why the entire Sabbath service, including all of those elements, has traditionally been considered worship in Reformed Christendom. Furthermore, if baptism, preaching and prayer are not worship simply because they contain physical elements, then singing is not worship, either. Also, we are given Scriptural guidelines for both preaching and prayer, and innovatively going beyond those principled guidelines has always been considered sin.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Since we are given no prohibition in the Scriptures to baptize an infant, and since baptism is a Spirit work in the truest sense of it, and since Christ blessed and treated the children as small believers, I see no reason to place sin on the outward act - to either the paedo, or the credo.



But again, if that is the case, then it also follows that to go beyond the biblical instructions for something such as prayer is not sinful either, and thus it is perfectly fine and biblically respectable to pray a mindless mantra like pop-culture's take on the prayer of Jabez, and it is likewise alright to include as much humor and sarcasm as one wants in preaching.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Further, if there is a link between baptism and circumcision, we also need to look at the OT to see if there were prohibitions against it. Were there any prohibitions as to who was to be circumcised? Were there any sanctions against priests who wrongfully circumcised? The only sanction was against the infant. Whoever was not circumcised was cut off from the people. The priest wasn't. The parents weren't. The child was.



So would you see it as having been perfectly legitimate and within the bounds of God's instructions for the Israelites to go into many other nations, giving everyone left and right and covenant sign?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Another key for me in this debate is that we have people calling each other sinners by what they are doing or not doing. Simply put, we are sinners if we deny the great commission and the carrying out of it. Who receives the signs and when seems to me like an argument in futility.



And who are we commanded to baptize in the Great Commission? Disciples. And the only reason we baptize our infants is because we see biblical warrant for presuming them to be disciples. Under the mindset you seem to be taking here, would you give any correction to a minister who simply went around the earth baptizing people with water and the name of the Trinity, with or without faith, telling them that they had been biblically baptized and were now members of God's external covenant community, the visible Church?



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> One more thing. I will not call a credo a sinner because they do not baptize their children. They may sin because of a lack of faith. They may sin because they do not look properly at the spiritual aspect of baptism, but they are not sinning in keeping their children from baptism. The WCF rightly states that it is sin to neglect baptism altogether, but I do not believe that it condemns those who do not baptize their children. As long as the child who grows into an adult believer is baptized, then the sign is not neglected.



But would you not agree that from the paedobaptist perspective, neglecting to give the sign to one's children as infants does in fact inevitably contain a lack of faith and an improper look at the spiritual aspect of baptism? Furthermore, would you not see it as sinful for a person who professes faith in Christ at an early age to purposefully put off their baptism for most of their lives, saying that they plan to be baptized at a very old age?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Quote from Fred

Larry,

I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying. While I believe that one "side" has to be in sin (since both cannot be right and following God's command) I also firmly believe that this is a matter of fact, not something to be used in deprecating another. Acknowledging that baptism is important enough to not be a matter of indifference (adiaphora) is helpful to both sides - and honors both. To put it another way - if the paedo did not view it as a sin for the credo to take his position on baptism, and the credo vice versa, then both would be in sin for separating unduly.

At the same time, we must acknowledge where we agree and seek to unite around that. This is not a place in my view for rock throwing. 

My question...

So Fred, am I in sin for refusing to acknowledge that I think your position is incorrect and not biblical in its approach. Or in other words, am I in sin for not considering your faith to be in sin in respect to your doctrine of paedo baptism? What if God accepts both of our beliefs as valid. Can he do that?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Kevin is wrong.
Click to expand...


Fred,
You know what Kevin meant. Going on his premise, prove it........


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Kevin is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You know what Kevin meant. Going on his premise, prove it........
Click to expand...


See my above response to Kevin.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse. 

Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Quote from Fred
> 
> Larry,
> 
> I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying. While I believe that one "side" has to be in sin (since both cannot be right and following God's command) I also firmly believe that this is a matter of fact, not something to be used in deprecating another. Acknowledging that baptism is important enough to not be a matter of indifference (adiaphora) is helpful to both sides - and honors both. To put it another way - if the paedo did not view it as a sin for the credo to take his position on baptism, and the credo vice versa, then both would be in sin for separating unduly.
> 
> At the same time, we must acknowledge where we agree and seek to unite around that. This is not a place in my view for rock throwing.
> 
> My question...
> 
> So Fred, am I in sin for refusing to acknowledge that I think your position is incorrect and not biblical in its approach. Or in other words, am I in sin for not considering your faith to be in sin in respect to your doctrine of paedo baptism? What if God accepts both of our beliefs as valid. Can he do that?



Randy,

I don't see your failure to acknowledge sin as sin, but more as the fact that you have some doubt of conviction about your position. Nothing wrong with that, nothing bad either.

I don't believe it is possible for God to accept both our beliefs as valid. That would mean that either baptism was unimportant, or that sincerety in falsehood was more important than truth. I don't see God countenancing that.

On the other hand, as I have said before, there are gradations of error. Error about baptism is sufficient to prevent full organic union (i.e. a church that is indifferent about the issue and allows both is a serious problem, one of the reasons that I think the C.R.E. is completely out to lunch) but not enough to prevent serious cooperation, like we have here on the board, and at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, etc.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Kevin is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You know what Kevin meant. Going on his premise, prove it........
Click to expand...


This is way too easy. A minister of the gospel baptizes a Jehovah's Witness. Has he baptized wrongly?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]



This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Kevin is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You know what Kevin meant. Going on his premise, prove it........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is way too easy. A minister of the gospel baptizes a Jehovah's Witness. Has he baptized wrongly?
Click to expand...


Fred,
You have played right into my hands here. You have ignored the rules that I set. I said, going on Kevin's premise, knowing what he meant (and you know he didn't mean what you are implying), how is what he said wrong? he isn't; admit it.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.



Actually, it is very relevant. We don't allow people to decide what words mean. So then because God said keep the Sabbath, it doesn't matter if I decide that the Sabbath is Tuesday? As long as I keep Tuesday, it is the same as if I kept Sunday?

Ridiculous. I'm sorry, Kevin's position has holes to drive a mack truck through.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.



Indeed - and I'm saying that the RPW applies in the sacraments just as much as in any other form of worship, and thus that to go _beyond_ God's commanded recipients of the sacrament (disciples) is sin. Kevin was replying to that by saying that the sacraments do not fall under the category of worship, and thus are not limited by the RPW, which was mainly what I was replying to.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Randy,

I suppose your question goes to 'how essential is our view' on baptism. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we do often hear that this issue is not essential. Not essential to justification, that I understand. But otherwise it seems very essential. It does seem in fact quite essential, I know the issue will not rest in my mind.

E.g., a very very close brother of mine and I were discussing this. He grew up in the SBC. I was relaying what I was learning and its growing me in the direction of infant baptism. He said to me, "I've just never really been that concerned with it...perhaps that's wrong for me to say." I asked him, "What does your baptism mean to you?" He started to answer, paused, looked at me and said, "I suppose I don't know how I would answer that." I replied, "Don't you find that odd that you hardly can answer for one of the two sacrament/ordinances given? Even from a purely baptistic perspective don't you find that troubling that one cannot answer for one of the denominations distincitives?"

lh


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
Click to expand...


But the sin is in not obeying Gods command to place the sign upon your child...........The credo would say, the sin is by applying the sign; I say, with Kevin, where do we see in scripture anything relative to applying the sign erroneously (of course, within the boundaries I have established).


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Phillip,
> Kevin earlier asked, "Where exactly are we told that a minister of the gospel can wrongfully baptize anyone?" So, this is NOT a sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> Kevin is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You know what Kevin meant. Going on his premise, prove it........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is way too easy. A minister of the gospel baptizes a Jehovah's Witness. Has he baptized wrongly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fred,
> You have played right into my hands here. You have ignored the rules that I set. I said, going on Kevin's premise, knowing what he meant (and you know he didn't mean what you are implying), how is what he said wrong? he isn't; admit it.
Click to expand...


Ok, I am at a complete loss here. It must be because the premise is totally useless.

If I had a rocketship inside my legs, I could fly to the moon. Uh... So what?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed - and I'm saying that the RPW applies in the sacraments just as much as in any other form of worship, and thus that to go _beyond_ God's commanded recipients of the sacrament (disciples) is sin. Kevin was replying to that by saying that the sacraments do not fall under the category of worship, and thus are not limited by the RPW, which was mainly what I was replying to.
Click to expand...


Chris, obviously God was aware of his RPW; is He not the one whom established it and who commanded the sign to be placed upon our children. Again, based upon this simple premise, I don't understand what you are arguing for?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the sin is in not obeying Gods command to place the sign upon your child...........The credo would say, the sin is by applying the sign; I say, with Kevin, where do we see in scripture anything relative to applying the sign erroneously (of course, within the boundaries I have established).
Click to expand...


First, a command implies the counter prohibition. That is commandment interpretation 101.

Second, where do we see in Scripture that man gets to define sin?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the sin is in not obeying Gods command to place the sign upon your child...........The credo would say, the sin is by applying the sign; I say, with Kevin, where do we see in scripture anything relative to applying the sign erroneously (of course, within the boundaries I have established).
Click to expand...


What "boundaries" do you mean? If the Baptists were correct, and our infants are _not_ part of the covenant, how is our baptism of them in their view any different from baptizing a JW in our view? You say that is "not what is meant," but how is it any different? Either it's wrong to baptize those one believes are not in the covenant of it is not - make your choice.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Fred,
Has this conversation degraded to the point of useless because of me? Let me clearify. Doulos initially stated that the paedo was sinning because he placed the sign. kevin said that there are no examples scripturally to support this idea, in fact, there ARE examples where disciples whom were baptised, were in fact unregenerates. We see no exhortations that warn against this as no one in their right mind would do such a thing intentionally. I say, the sin is not placing the sign..........


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the sin is in not obeying Gods command to place the sign upon your child...........The credo would say, the sin is by applying the sign; I say, with Kevin, where do we see in scripture anything relative to applying the sign erroneously (of course, within the boundaries I have established).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "boundaries" do you mean? If the Baptists were correct, and our infants are _not_ part of the covenant, how is our baptism of them in their view any different from baptizing a JW in our view? You say that is "not what is meant," but how is it any different? Either it's wrong to baptize those one believes are not in the covenant of it is not - make your choice.
Click to expand...


Key word here Chris, INTENT. The intention is not illicit. I do not know a man of the faith who would baptise a JW.......What boundaries? The boundaries established in Kevins statement. He does not advocate baptising Jehovah Witnesses!

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed - and I'm saying that the RPW applies in the sacraments just as much as in any other form of worship, and thus that to go _beyond_ God's commanded recipients of the sacrament (disciples) is sin. Kevin was replying to that by saying that the sacraments do not fall under the category of worship, and thus are not limited by the RPW, which was mainly what I was replying to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, obviously God was aware of his RPW; is He not the one whom established it and who commanded the sign to be placed upon our children. Again, based upon this simple premise, I don't understand what you are arguing for?
Click to expand...


I am simply arguing that _if_ the Baptist was correct that children are _not_ in fact part of the covenant, that it _then_ would be a sin to baptize our children. (But I wholly agree with you that it is not a sin, because the Baptist is wrong in that children are part of the covenant.)


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed - and I'm saying that the RPW applies in the sacraments just as much as in any other form of worship, and thus that to go _beyond_ God's commanded recipients of the sacrament (disciples) is sin. Kevin was replying to that by saying that the sacraments do not fall under the category of worship, and thus are not limited by the RPW, which was mainly what I was replying to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, obviously God was aware of his RPW; is He not the one whom established it and who commanded the sign to be placed upon our children. Again, based upon this simple premise, I don't understand what you are arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am simply arguing that _if_ the Baptist was correct that children are _not_ in fact part of the covenant, that it _then_ would be a sin to baptize our children. (But I wholly agree with you that it is not a sin, because the Baptist is wrong in that children are part of the covenant.)
Click to expand...


Chris, then whoever baptised Ananias and Saphira sinned? Or Demas. Were the Apostles baptised? I don't know. I would assume though; Then we have Judas...........John the baptist did not baptise one unregenerate??? This is the point; it is not a sin. From whatever view. But if the paedo is correct, neglecting placing the sign IS sin.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the sin is in not obeying Gods command to place the sign upon your child...........The credo would say, the sin is by applying the sign; I say, with Kevin, where do we see in scripture anything relative to applying the sign erroneously (of course, within the boundaries I have established).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "boundaries" do you mean? If the Baptists were correct, and our infants are _not_ part of the covenant, how is our baptism of them in their view any different from baptizing a JW in our view? You say that is "not what is meant," but how is it any different? Either it's wrong to baptize those one believes are not in the covenant of it is not - make your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Key word here Chris, INTENT. The intention is not illicit. I do not know a man of the faith who would baptise a JW.......What boundaries? The boundaries established in Kevins statement. He does not advocate baptising Jehovah Witnesses!
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


He said it is biblically impossible to wrongfully baptize anyone. So again, if our children were _hypothetically_ not validly-presumed covenant members, then it would be sin to baptize them just as much as it actually is a sin for us to baptize JWs. That is only _if_ it was actually not biblical to presume our children as covenant members - that is all Fred, myself and others are arguing for.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Fred,
> Has this conversation degraded to the point of useless because of me? Let me clearify. Doulos initially stated that the paedo was sinning because he placed the sign. kevin said that there are no examples scripturally to support this idea, in fact, there ARE examples where disciples whom were baptised, were in fact unregenerates. We see no exhortations that warn against this as no one in their right mind would do such a thing intentionally. I say, the sin is not placing the sign..........



Scott,

You are saying something different than Greg and I are saying. You are also saying something different than Kevin.

As I read you, you say that it is not the paedo who sins, but the credo. And to that I agree. That is the substantive discussion, which is not this thread - as I took it. This thread is not about who is right on baptism (the point I now hear you trying to prove) but whether baptism is a matter indifferent (i.e. adiaphora, not a matter of sin).

Greg also agrees, _from the perspective of the paedo_. I agree with Greg, _from the perspectve of the credo,_ that the paedo is sinning. These are non-substantive arguments.

Kevin is arguing (as I take it) something completely different. he is arguing (essentially) that neither is in sin because he is sincere in his actions: "I will not call a credo a sinner because they do not baptize their children."

That is what Chris and I (and actually Greg also) are concerned about.

I think this is a matter of you and I misunderstanding each other's points and words. I'm not sure we disagree.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> I don't really understand what you are arguing for??? Disciples are to be baptised- yes or no? Whether they are infants is irrelevent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed - and I'm saying that the RPW applies in the sacraments just as much as in any other form of worship, and thus that to go _beyond_ God's commanded recipients of the sacrament (disciples) is sin. Kevin was replying to that by saying that the sacraments do not fall under the category of worship, and thus are not limited by the RPW, which was mainly what I was replying to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, obviously God was aware of his RPW; is He not the one whom established it and who commanded the sign to be placed upon our children. Again, based upon this simple premise, I don't understand what you are arguing for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am simply arguing that _if_ the Baptist was correct that children are _not_ in fact part of the covenant, that it _then_ would be a sin to baptize our children. (But I wholly agree with you that it is not a sin, because the Baptist is wrong in that children are part of the covenant.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, then whoever baptised Ananias and Saphira sinned? Or Demas. Were the Apostles baptised? I don't know. I would assume though; Then we have Judas...........John the baptist did not baptise one unregenerate??? This is the point; it is not a sin. From whatever view. But if the paedo is correct, neglecting placing the sign IS sin.
Click to expand...


But in all those cases, there was an external, biblical _presumption_ that the baptized were covenant members. But if there wasn't any biblical reason to presume our children as being covenant members, would baptizing them not be on the same level as baptizing someone with no profession of faith?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Chris,
What type of minister of Christ would be guilty of such insanity? Maybe it is me, but the idea is just so far fetched that it is not hitting home.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Chris, then whoever baptised Ananias and Saphira sinned? Or Demas. Were the Apostles baptised? I don't know. I would assume though; Then we have Judas...........John the baptist did not baptise one unregenerate??? This is the point; it is not a sin. From whatever view. But if the paedo is correct, neglecting placing the sign IS sin.



It is not a sin to baptize someone who is entitled to the sign of the covenant, even a professor who turns out to be apostate and hence never one of us (1 John 2:19). But it is a sin to baptize one to whom the sign does not belong, i.e. a JW, and a sin to not baptize one to whom the sign belongs. From the credo perspective, there is _no difference_ between baptizing a JW and an infant. Both are sin. From a paedo perspective, there is _no difference_ between not baptizing an infant and not baptizing a professing believer.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
Click to expand...


What are the Benefits of being baptized as a child?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the Benefits of being baptized as a child?
Click to expand...


If you run a search in the baptism forum, I think there are a dozen or so threads on this. But the short answer is to have the covenant sign placed upon you, to be separated from the world and identified with the Church, and to obey the command of God.


----------



## Scott Bushey

The Westminster
Confession of Faith
Chapter 28 

Chapter XXVIII.
Of Baptism.

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(a) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(b) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(c) of his ingrafting into Christ,(d) of regeneration,(e) of remission of sins,(f) and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.(g) Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.(h)

(a) Matt. 28:19.
(b) I Cor. 12:13.
(c) Rom. 4:11 with Col. 2:11, 12.
(d) Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5.
(e) Tit. 3:5.
(f) Mark 1:4.
(g) Rom. 6:3, 4.
(h) Matt. 28:19, 20.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> What type of minister of Christ would be guilty of such insanity? Maybe it is me, but the idea is just so far fetched that it is not hitting home.



At least you agree that it is sinful to baptize an adult who does not have a profession of faith, such as a JW. (Kevin was not granting that.) Why would such be sin? Because we have no command to baptize adults without a profession of faith. Likewise, the Baptist believes that we have no command to treat infants of believers as covenant members, and thus such infants are not distinguished between infants of unbelieving parents, or the parents themselves.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Quote from Fred
> 
> Larry,
> 
> I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying. While I believe that one "side" has to be in sin (since both cannot be right and following God's command) I also firmly believe that this is a matter of fact, not something to be used in deprecating another. Acknowledging that baptism is important enough to not be a matter of indifference (adiaphora) is helpful to both sides - and honors both. To put it another way - if the paedo did not view it as a sin for the credo to take his position on baptism, and the credo vice versa, then both would be in sin for separating unduly.
> 
> At the same time, we must acknowledge where we agree and seek to unite around that. This is not a place in my view for rock throwing.
> 
> My question...
> 
> So Fred, am I in sin for refusing to acknowledge that I think your position is incorrect and not biblical in its approach. Or in other words, am I in sin for not considering your faith to be in sin in respect to your doctrine of paedo baptism? What if God accepts both of our beliefs as valid. Can he do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy,
> 
> I don't see your failure to acknowledge sin as sin, but more as the fact that you have some doubt of conviction about your position. Nothing wrong with that, nothing bad either.
> 
> I don't believe it is possible for God to accept both our beliefs as valid. That would mean that either baptism was unimportant, or that sincerety in falsehood was more important than truth. I don't see God countenancing that.
> 
> On the other hand, as I have said before, there are gradations of error. Error about baptism is sufficient to prevent full organic union (i.e. a church that is indifferent about the issue and allows both is a serious problem, one of the reasons that I think the C.R.E. is completely out to lunch) but not enough to prevent serious cooperation, like we have here on the board, and at the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, etc.
Click to expand...


My point is that our faith in Christ, as the object and preeminent one of all things, should either ratify what we do or not. 

As far as sitting on the fence. I am not a fence sitter. I am a credo and always have been.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.



Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.



So let's just baptize every baby in the world lest we miss some.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> What type of minister of Christ would be guilty of such insanity? Maybe it is me, but the idea is just so far fetched that it is not hitting home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you agree that it is sinful to baptize an adult who does not have a profession of faith, such as a JW. (Kevin was not granting that.) Why would such be sin? Because we have no command to baptize adults without a profession of faith. Likewise, the Baptist believes that we have no command to treat infants of believers as covenant members, and thus such infants are not distinguished between infants of unbelieving parents, or the parents themselves.
Click to expand...


I know Kevin and you are not giving him the credit he deserves. Listen to what you are saying; 'Kevin would have no problem w/ you placing the sign on a JW'. This is ridiculous and thats my point. That is why I have said, I do not know what you are arguing for as I know Kevin did not mean that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's just baptize every baby in the world lest we miss some.
Click to expand...


Thats not the coomand Randy......The command is to place the sign and baptise disciples. Discipleship does not equate w/ regenration.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> What type of minister of Christ would be guilty of such insanity? Maybe it is me, but the idea is just so far fetched that it is not hitting home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you agree that it is sinful to baptize an adult who does not have a profession of faith, such as a JW. (Kevin was not granting that.) Why would such be sin? Because we have no command to baptize adults without a profession of faith. Likewise, the Baptist believes that we have no command to treat infants of believers as covenant members, and thus such infants are not distinguished between infants of unbelieving parents, or the parents themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know Kevin and you are not giving him the credit he deserves. Listen to what you are saying; 'Kevin would have no problem w/ you placing the sign on a JW'. This is ridiculous and thats my point. That is why I have said, I do not know what you are arguing for as I know Kevin did not mean that.
Click to expand...


Re-read his posts - he repeatedly said that a minister cannot wrongfully baptize anyone.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's just baptize every baby in the world lest we miss some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the coomand Randy......The command is to place the sign and baptise disciples. Discipleship does not equate w/ regenration.
Click to expand...


So if it was unbiblical to presume believers' children as disciples, would it not be a sin in that case to baptize them?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?
Click to expand...


Chris,
Would it not fiollow then that if a minister baptises an unregenerate unconciously they are just as responsible for the same judgment; either way, they are applying the sign erroneously?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.



The question is how one views the word disciple as it is used in the Scriptures. For the credo, disciple does not include infant. Hence the charge of sin.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> My point is that our faith in Christ, as the object and preeminent one of all things, should either ratify what we do or not.
> 
> As far as sitting on the fence. I am not a fence sitter. I am a credo and always have been.



And our faith in Christ also requires that we obey him. Either the paedo obeys or the credo obeys. It cannot be both. And disobedience in respect of a sacrament is no idle thing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> What type of minister of Christ would be guilty of such insanity? Maybe it is me, but the idea is just so far fetched that it is not hitting home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least you agree that it is sinful to baptize an adult who does not have a profession of faith, such as a JW. (Kevin was not granting that.) Why would such be sin? Because we have no command to baptize adults without a profession of faith. Likewise, the Baptist believes that we have no command to treat infants of believers as covenant members, and thus such infants are not distinguished between infants of unbelieving parents, or the parents themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know Kevin and you are not giving him the credit he deserves. Listen to what you are saying; 'Kevin would have no problem w/ you placing the sign on a JW'. This is ridiculous and thats my point. That is why I have said, I do not know what you are arguing for as I know Kevin did not mean that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Re-read his posts - he repeatedly said that a minister cannot wrongfully baptize anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let's just baptize every baby in the world lest we miss some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the coomand Randy......The command is to place the sign and baptise disciples. Discipleship does not equate w/ regenration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if it was unbiblical to presume believers' children as disciples, would it not be a sin in that case to baptize them?
Click to expand...

No, because disipleship does not equal regeneration. It equals _student_. I do not presume my children disciples; they are! I am commanded that they be! I do however presume them regenerate unless otherwise noted.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Would it not fiollow then that if a minister baptises an unregenerate unconciously they are just as responsible for the same judgment; either way, they are applying the sign erroneously?
Click to expand...


All baptism is based on presumption - we do not know the heart, thus we baptize those we can biblically _presume_ to be disciples. For us, that is professors of faith and their children. But for Baptists, the latter of those is not included. So if a minister baptizes an unregenerate who has an external profession of faith, he would not be in sin, because he would have the external grounds of presumption. And for the credo, being a child of a professed believer is not sufficient external grounds for such presumption.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Would it not fiollow then that if a minister baptises an unregenerate unconciously they are just as responsible for the same judgment; either way, they are applying the sign erroneously?
Click to expand...


No. Because the sin is not in failing to see the heart; the sin is in disobeying the command of God. God commands us to act on the visible, not the invisible.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I do not presume my children disciples; they are!



And that is where the credo disagrees, which is why they can consistently view our baptizing of them as sin.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Would it not fiollow then that if a minister baptises an unregenerate unconciously they are just as responsible for the same judgment; either way, they are applying the sign erroneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All baptism is based on presumption - we do not know the heart, thus we baptize those we can biblically _presume_ to be disciples. For us, that is professors of faith and their children. But for Baptists, the latter of those is not included. So if a minister baptizes an unregenerate who has an external profession of faith, he would not be in sin, because he would have the external grounds of presumption. And for the credo, being a child of a professed believer is not sufficient external grounds for such presumption.
Click to expand...


Sins of ommission do not count? if I sin in my dreams am I responsible? If a misnister breaks Gods law outside of his knowledge is it any less sin?


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott,

With all due respect, you don't seem to be understanding the argument in the alternative, or the argument from a presumed position. You appear to be trying to discuss this in the context of the presumption of the correctness of the paedo position, which this thread is not about, and which Kevin explicitly did not do. He explicitly said that a credo does not sin when failing to baptize infants. You are trying to take your presumption of paedobaptism, add in Kevin's indifference/relativism to baptism, and make a point. 

Honestly, no one else in this thread is trying to do that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

OK. I have misunderstood............I'll pack it in. I guess I misunderstood Kevin (even). 

Forgive me.





[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. I have misunderstood............I'll pack it in.



That's fine. Understand that Chris and I were discussing this _as if_ the credo position were correct. Neither of us agrees it is.

But before you pack it in - you do agree that baptism is not a matter of indifference or adiaphora; that is, it is important whether one baptizes the persons (and ALL the persons) that God commands, don't you? Right?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Would it not fiollow then that if a minister baptises an unregenerate unconciously they are just as responsible for the same judgment; either way, they are applying the sign erroneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All baptism is based on presumption - we do not know the heart, thus we baptize those we can biblically _presume_ to be disciples. For us, that is professors of faith and their children. But for Baptists, the latter of those is not included. So if a minister baptizes an unregenerate who has an external profession of faith, he would not be in sin, because he would have the external grounds of presumption. And for the credo, being a child of a professed believer is not sufficient external grounds for such presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sins of ommission do not count? if I sin in my dreams am I responsible? If a misnister breaks Gods law outside of his knowledge is it any less sin?
Click to expand...


No, it is not. But God's command is not to baptize only the regenerate, it is to baptize only those whom we can externally _presume to be regenerate_, and it is only disciples that we can presume to be so. And that is where the paedo/credo disagreement comes in...on who are biblically to be considered disciples.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. I have misunderstood............I'll pack it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine. Understand that Chris and I were discussing this _as if_ the credo position were correct. Neither of us agrees it is.
> 
> But before you pack it in - you do agree that baptism is not a matter of indifference or adiaphora; that is, it is important whether one baptizes the persons (and ALL the persons) that God commands, don't you? Right?
Click to expand...


Of course; If God commands, it is done.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first sentence hits the nail on the head, correctly - and the point is that to the credo, the child of the believer is _not considered_ a disciple. So do you see how _if_ they are correct on that, and that children of believers are not biblically to be considered disciples, then and only then would the paedo be in sin by giving them the sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Would it not fiollow then that if a minister baptises an unregenerate unconciously they are just as responsible for the same judgment; either way, they are applying the sign erroneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All baptism is based on presumption - we do not know the heart, thus we baptize those we can biblically _presume_ to be disciples. For us, that is professors of faith and their children. But for Baptists, the latter of those is not included. So if a minister baptizes an unregenerate who has an external profession of faith, he would not be in sin, because he would have the external grounds of presumption. And for the credo, being a child of a professed believer is not sufficient external grounds for such presumption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sins of ommission do not count? if I sin in my dreams am I responsible? If a misnister breaks Gods law outside of his knowledge is it any less sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. But God's command is not to baptize only the regenerate, it is to baptize only those whom we can externally _presume to be regenerate_, and it is only disciples that we can presume to be so. And that is where the paedo/credo disagreement comes in...on who are biblically to be considered disciples.
Click to expand...


I hear ya.............


----------



## Me Died Blue

Scott, I'm glad it was apparently a misunderstanding rather than a disagreement, and that we both agree that infant baptism is not actually a sin, but only would be if we were wrong about our children having biblical covenant status. Now I'm curious to hear Kevin elaborate on what he was saying before, since it's a position I've never seen taken before.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the Benefits of being baptized as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you run a search in the baptism forum, I think there are a dozen or so threads on this. But the short answer is to have the covenant sign placed upon you, to be separated from the world and identified with the Church, and to obey the command of God.
Click to expand...


I believe my children are separated unto the Lord already just by their having a father who is converted and charged with raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They are commanded to be obedient whether or not they have a Christian parent though. I will look at the other threads.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Randy,
> 
> I suppose your question goes to 'how essential is our view' on baptism. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but we do often hear that this issue is not essential. Not essential to justification, that I understand. But otherwise it seems very essential. It does seem in fact quite essential, I know the issue will not rest in my mind.
> 
> E.g., a very very close brother of mine and I were discussing this. He grew up in the SBC. I was relaying what I was learning and its growing me in the direction of infant baptism. He said to me, "I've just never really been that concerned with it...perhaps that's wrong for me to say." I asked him, "What does your baptism mean to you?" He started to answer, paused, looked at me and said, "I suppose I don't know how I would answer that." I replied, "Don't you find that odd that you hardly can answer for one of the two sacrament/ordinances given? Even from a purely baptistic perspective don't you find that troubling that one cannot answer for one of the denominations distincitives?"
> 
> lh



Larry, You know by my other posts that this is not true of me. Go back and read them.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the Benefits of being baptized as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you run a search in the baptism forum, I think there are a dozen or so threads on this. But the short answer is to have the covenant sign placed upon you, to be separated from the world and identified with the Church, and to obey the command of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe my children are separated unto the Lord already just by their having a father who is converted and charged with raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They are commanded to be obedient whether or not they have a Christian parent though. I will look at the other threads.
Click to expand...


Randy,

I meant for the parent to obey the command of God to baptize, not the child to be generally obedient. All men are called to obey God, even the reprobate.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Side note. We both agree that baptism doesn't save. Baptism is a result of our faith. Even if we baptize our children it is based upon the faith of the parent. It truly doesn't hold any sanctifying power. God calls children sanctified or clean, just by the fact that one of it's parents are justified in 1 Corinthians 7. No mention of baptism in the verse.
> 
> Are we in agreement on these thoughts Fred?
> 
> [Edited on 2-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how I see it. Baptism is a sign of the covenant. The covenant is important. Baptism is important. Baptists see certain persons (professing persons) and Paedobaptists see certain persons (professing persons and their children) as being members of the covenant. The problem comes in either (from the credo view) giving some persons (children of professing persons) an inappropriate presumption, or in (from the paedo view) an inappropriate denial of covenant membership and benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are the Benefits of being baptized as a child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you run a search in the baptism forum, I think there are a dozen or so threads on this. But the short answer is to have the covenant sign placed upon you, to be separated from the world and identified with the Church, and to obey the command of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe my children are separated unto the Lord already just by their having a father who is converted and charged with raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. They are commanded to be obedient whether or not they have a Christian parent though. I will look at the other threads.
Click to expand...


I believe there to be an inconsistency in your first sentence, but I have started a new thread so as not to distract from the intent of this one.


----------



## pastorway

I am going to ban the following:

use of extended quotes from previous posts
use of the word illicit
use of the word presumed/presumption
use of the word baptism
use of the word sin
use of the word paedo
use of the word credo
use of the word covenant
use of the word sign
use of the WCF
use of the LBCF
use of the word Presbyterian
use of the word Baptist
use of the word sacrament
use of the letters R, P, and W
use of the word children
use of the word infant
use of the word disciple
use of the word regenerate/regenerated
use of the word church
use of the word denomination
use of the word word
and I reserve the right to revise this list as necessary to the discussion

then maybe we will all get along and understand each other.

(note this post is a joke to illustrate how dizzy reading it has made me!)

:bigsmile: 

long day...........


----------



## fredtgreco

I agree with you on the quote thing!


----------



## Me Died Blue

Yeah, that can get pretty annoying, even though I'm just as guilty of doing it as anyone!


----------



## pastorway

yeah, page long quotes are getting on my nerves lately. I hate to scroll throough a post I already read just to get a one line response.

Know what I mean, Vern?


----------



## Bladestunner316




----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Placing the sign upon someone whom is _considered_ a disciple is never sin. Not placing the sign upon them is. So, the paedo is free from this scenario. The credo is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let's just baptize every baby in the world lest we miss some.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the coomand Randy......The command is to place the sign and baptise disciples. Discipleship does not equate w/ regenration.
Click to expand...


You are correct Scott. I was just popping off carelessly. 

At the same time I agree with you that disciples are to be discipled. What constitutes a disciple? In history there have been disciples of men, disciples of John, and disciples of Jesus. Did all of Johns disciples become the disciples of Christt?

Jesus commanded the baptizing of disciples in Matthew 28:19. I agree that children may become disciples. But are they disciples of Jesus from birth?

I am following God's command to raise my children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. At least I am trying. My children are disciples in the school of Randy Martin Snyder. I am a follower of Jesus and his disciple. But my children are not necessarily followers of Jesus. They are following what I tell them. At some point they have to hear the call to follow Jesus. It is not going to be based upon me but upon Christ. It is going to have to be a summons that He makes. They are going to have to follow him based upon His claim upon their lives. I am guiding them towards that but it is their responsibility to respond to His will. Not because Dad says so but because God wants it. When a child is born they are born depraved and unregenerate. They are not disciples unless you want to quote the passage about John the Baptist which I find to be an exceptional situation. Not many babies leap in the womb at the Lords presence.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Randy,
How many examples in scripture can you provide me showing that not all disciples of Christ continued walking with Him? Discipleship, does not necessarily equal regeneration.

In regards to your children and your premise, there is another thread opened addressing that.


----------



## kceaster

*Wow! Am I behind or what?*

Sorry guys and gals, with the board being down, I haven't checked the responses lately.

Hopefully to clear a few things up, these are my presuppositions about baptism and the ministry.

A minister cannot sin by baptizing one who comes to him and professes faith in Christ. This can either be the one to be baptized or the infant of a parent who professes faith.

To be even more specific, if they can answer the affirmative in the following questions from the OPC BCO:

For a professing believer,

a. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?

b. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?

c. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life?

d. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline? 

For a believer's child,

a. Do you acknowledge that, although our children are conceived and born in sin and therefore are subject to condemnation, they are holy in Christ, and as members of his church ought to be baptized?

b. Do you promise to instruct your child in the principles of our holy religion as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and as summarized in the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church; and do you promise to pray with and for your child, to set an example of piety and godliness before him, and to endeavor by all the means of God's appointment to bring him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

A minister of the gospel cannot wrongfully baptize anyone of whom the above is true at the moment in which the baptism is performed. I would also agree with Fred that the converse is true: if a minister knowingly baptizes an unbeliever, or the child of unbelievers, he has transgressed in his actions, just as he would to substitute some other symbols than the bread and the wine in the Lord's Table. This assumes the validity of the regulative principle.

So based upon this, the Baptist cannot sin in whomever they baptize because they require the same knowledge of the ones whom they baptize.

The question arises, can they sin by not baptizing their infants.

I believe they sin in unbelief. However, faith is given by God to all in measure. If they do not have the faith to believe that God is the God of their children and that their precious ones are not, by virtue of their relationship in the family, disciples, then they sin the sin we all sin by our unbelief. Their sin is no more grievous than those who do not keep the Sabbath in the way it was intended, or those who do not see the wisdom and imperative in the tithe.

A follow up question to Fred and Chris: Is the sin of not baptizing greater than the sin of violating ones conscience in the matter? If the faith is not given for the person to consent to the baptizing of the infant, does he sin by doing it anyway, knowing that it is not faith in God?

For whatever reason, Pastor Phillip is not convinced. I would no more want him to baptize his child (I am hoping for you and your wife), than for him to do anything else against his conscience. Forgive me, Phillip, but I am in hope God will give you this faith. But until He does, what are we to say?

We sin, sin, and sin, some more. Should we keep on that grace may abound? May it never be. But in this issue, we have to consider the conscience and the faith that God gives. It is not a cop-out. It is of legitimate concern.

Secondly, I am presuming that the operative power in the Sacrament of baptism is the Holy Spirit.

Whatever happens in baptism is the result of the Holy Spirit. He has either regenerated and softened the heart towards God, or He has left the heart of stone to be even more hardened against God.

The sign, however, is merely for us. It signifes something that the Spirit will do, we know not when, nor how. We may apply the sign to infant or adult, but it is not in this that baptism happens. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit that one is placed in Christ.

Remember John's words, again. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. This is what took the Lord's baptism to a different level. The reason we are not sacerdotalists is because we know that the Spirit performs the real baptism, just as He really feeds us the body and blood of the Lord. I agree, Chris, this is in the confines of worship and it is to be done in spirit and truth. It is not as though the physical goes away, but rather, it is given more significance because of what the Spirit does. However, the Spirit does not need the physical action, as we know from the thief on the cross. He was not physically baptized, yet we know he was in Christ, that he was part of One Faith, One Lord, and One baptism. This tells me that the Spirit is what makes baptism effectual. If it is the Spirit and not us, which the WCF rightly states, then the minister, when operating in good faith, does not sin.

For the record, I do not advocate a loose ministry of baptism, sprinkling or dunking everyone in a flippant manner. This is a sacrament. I always advocated a strict subscription to the WCF and the RPW.

The difficulty I have with Gregory's original statement and with the converse from the paedo side, is that we're pointing fingers where finger pointing is not warranted. We must have faith. If I say Gregory or Phillip or Randy sins because they do not baptize, they can say the same thing of me. It gets us nowhere. There's plenty of sin to go around.

We should rather look at the command we're given. We are to be making disciples. It also helps us to look at baptism in its truest form. We administer it physically, but for it to be effectual, the Spirit must do his work. I do not see how we can hinder the Spirit one iota, if He has purposed to do it.

I guess the best way to explain this is God's Sovereignty and Man's responsibility. If we disobey, it is on us. If we obey, we are unprofitable servants performing that which God has worked within us.

If I can clarify anything further, please let me know. I will try not to allow so much water under the bridge before I blow it up.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## doulosChristou

*Original Context*



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The difficulty I have with Gregory's original statement and with the converse from the paedo side, is that we're pointing fingers where finger pointing is not warranted.



Just to clarify, my original statement was not made in the ungracious context of finger-pointing. It was made on the paedocommunion thread in a particular context that did not carry completely over when Scott invented this new thread. LadyFlynt thought I, a Baptist, was arguing in favor of paedocommunion.  She was shocked by this and said so. I reassured her with the words, "As a Baptist, I view paedocommunion as much a sin against God as I do paedobaptism." That's all. No fingerpointing. I am a greater sinner than of all of you.

Your affectionate brother in Christ,



[Edited on 1-2-2005 by doulosChristou]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> A minister cannot sin by baptizing one who comes to him and professes faith in Christ. This can either be the one to be baptized or the infant of a parent who professes faith.



I fully agree, regardless of whether the people are actually regenerate or not, since only God can read the heart, and the minister is doing His Scriptural duty. But the credobaptist would of course disagree with the latter half of your second sentence.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> A minister of the gospel cannot wrongfully baptize anyone of whom the above is true at the moment in which the baptism is performed. I would also agree with Fred that the converse is true: if a minister knowingly baptizes an unbeliever, or the child of unbelievers, he has transgressed in his actions, just as he would to substitute some other symbols than the bread and the wine in the Lord's Table. This assumes the validity of the regulative principle.



So you would agree that a minister can in fact baptize someone wrongfully? Again, I'm not saying he can baptize someone with a profession of faith or their children wrongfully, but simply _anyone_ wrongly, since you earlier seemed to be implying that _no one_ could be baptized wrongly.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> So based upon this, the Baptist cannot sin in whomever they baptize because they require the same knowledge of the ones whom they baptize.
> 
> The question arises, can they sin by not baptizing their infants.
> 
> I believe they sin in unbelief. However, faith is given by God to all in measure. If they do not have the faith to believe that God is the God of their children and that their precious ones are not, by virtue of their relationship in the family, disciples, then they sin the sin we all sin by our unbelief. Their sin is no more grievous than those who do not keep the Sabbath in the way it was intended, or those who do not see the wisdom and imperative in the tithe.



Agreed, those are all equally grievous sins - but they are still each sins individually.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> A follow up question to Fred and Chris: Is the sin of not baptizing greater than the sin of violating ones conscience in the matter? If the faith is not given for the person to consent to the baptizing of the infant, does he sin by doing it anyway, knowing that it is not faith in God?



I'm inclined to answer yes to your first question, simply because ignorance does not justify sin. And if the doctrine of paedobaptism is true, I don't see how ignorance of its truth can render the neglect of it as unsinful any more than a Dispensationalist's disbelief in the binding nature of the Sabbath today frees them from the charge of sin by neglecting it, one of the ten commandments.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> We sin, sin, and sin, some more. Should we keep on that grace may abound? May it never be. But in this issue, we have to consider the conscience and the faith that God gives. It is not a cop-out. It is of legitimate concern.



Understood.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Secondly, I am presuming that the operative power in the Sacrament of baptism is the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Whatever happens in baptism is the result of the Holy Spirit. He has either regenerated and softened the heart towards God, or He has left the heart of stone to be even more hardened against God.
> 
> The sign, however, is merely for us. It signifes something that the Spirit will do, we know not when, nor how. We may apply the sign to infant or adult, but it is not in this that baptism happens. It is in the power of the Holy Spirit that one is placed in Christ.
> 
> Remember John's words, again. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. This is what took the Lord's baptism to a different level. The reason we are not sacerdotalists is because we know that the Spirit performs the real baptism, just as He really feeds us the body and blood of the Lord. I agree, Chris, this is in the confines of worship and it is to be done in spirit and truth. It is not as though the physical goes away, but rather, it is given more significance because of what the Spirit does. However, the Spirit does not need the physical action, as we know from the thief on the cross. He was not physically baptized, yet we know he was in Christ, that he was part of One Faith, One Lord, and One baptism. This tells me that the Spirit is what makes baptism effectual. If it is the Spirit and not us, which the WCF rightly states, then the minister, when operating in good faith, does not sin.



Agreed, and the apparent disagreement that has existed in this discussion is not about the Spirit's grace, but our obedience to God's command. And since the Spirit does all the work in the spiritual realm, I fully agree with you that a recipient of baptism being unregenerate does not cause the minister to sin by any means. But as you also said, the sign is for us, and the only time I am claiming the minister does sin is when he oversteps the biblical grounds and instructions for placing the sign - namely, external discipleship. But again, I agree that the actual heart of the recipient has no effect on the rightfulness of the minister's action.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> For the record, I do not advocate a loose ministry of baptism, sprinkling or dunking everyone in a flippant manner. This is a sacrament. I always advocated a strict subscription to the WCF and the RPW.



I hear you - forgive me if I wrongly misunderstood you before as denying that _any_ baptism can be performed wrongfully, such as the JW example. It seems so often the heart of many issues is actually misunderstanding.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The difficulty I have with Gregory's original statement and with the converse from the paedo side, is that we're pointing fingers where finger pointing is not warranted. We must have faith. If I say Gregory or Phillip or Randy sins because they do not baptize, they can say the same thing of me. It gets us nowhere. There's plenty of sin to go around.



As Gregory said above, none of us intend to do anything in a finger-pointing spirit. But we nonetheless see biblical warrant for believing a practice of each other's to in fact be sinful. What Gregory, Fred and I have been saying is that indeed, the credobaptist _can_ (and in fact _should_) say the same thing about you and I, which is that _if_ the doctrine of believers' children having membership in the covenant and thus a command for baptism is actually a false doctrine, _then_ it would be a sin for us to baptize the children of believers, since it would be overstepping the biblical instruction for such in the same way that baptizing a JW would. Conversely, Gregory has fully agreed with Fred and I that _if_ the doctrine of believers' children having membership in the covenant and thus a command for baptism is actually a true doctrine, _then_ it would be a sin for credobaptists to withold that baptism from their children, just as it would be for any Christian to break God's Sabbath.

And we all agree that there's plenty of sin to go around. But to say that it gets us nowhere is a major claim. Those of us on each side believe that where it gets us is the biblical justification of adhering to and practicing our view, and fully acknowledge that we are sinning in the eyes of the other side. If either side on the baptism issue is not sinning from the perspective of the other side, then we have no reason to worship as separate churches, and all Baptist/Presbyterian division is actually a meaningless schism.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> We should rather look at the command we're given. We are to be making disciples. It also helps us to look at baptism in its truest form. We administer it physically, but for it to be effectual, the Spirit must do his work. I do not see how we can hinder the Spirit one iota, if He has purposed to do it.



Agreed, and again, the disagreement here is not over the Spirit's work, but our obedience to God's commands.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I guess the best way to explain this is God's Sovereignty and Man's responsibility. If we disobey, it is on us. If we obey, we are unprofitable servants performing that which God has worked within us.



Amen!


----------



## kceaster

*Chris...*

I am glad to see that some things I said are more clear to you now. I am really enjoying this discussion.

And Greg, I didn't mean it so pointedly as it came across about the finger pointing thing. I just meant, in practice, we should be able to speak into each other's lives about things we see. If I thought you were neglecting your family, for instance, I would ask you if you would like to pray about it and encourage you. But in the issue of your not baptizing your children, I would simply leave you alone, unless you brought it up. If you are not convinced by now, after having been a paedobaptist before, anything I say will not convince you, especially if I say that you are sinning in your stance. And, I did overreact to the thread, so I apologize for that. I didn't realize the context at first.

Back to the subject, Chris, I do see where you're coming from. Paul writes that he did not know what coveting was until the law told him. And to a certain extent that is true for every law of God. However, to our minds and the illumination of them, the Spirit does not always make clear some things that are well established. While the static fact is there, the Holy Spirit must also enlighten. Now, we can certainly hamper the process and we are sinning when we do so, but it is, nonetheless true, that until we are taught by the Holy Spirit, we may know in the head, but not in the heart.

This does not necessitate a mentality that it I am innocent until I've been made aware, because God has given us ample notification. But we must be able to square these two things: without faith it is impossible to please God and the just shall live by faith. Could Abraham have done what he did without the faith given by God? We would say no, would we not? Had he done it for any other reason than faith, would we still say he was righteous? I would say no. Even if it was a well established fact that he should move from Ur to Canaan, if he did it for the wrong reasons and not by faith, would God have still accounted it to him as righteousness?

That is why I say it would be sin for Phillip or Gregory or Randy to baptize their children right now given their state of belief. If they did so, they might be obeying the letter, but they're not obeying the spirit.

In God's eyes it may in fact be sin either way. But as men, I would have to counsel them to refrain unless they're in faith.

One thing that we haven't touched on yet is this: Does the child sin by not being baptized? In the old covenant we would say that being cut off must impute some sin in not being circumcised, but what about the new?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## bigheavyq

just got to this thread.

i have a question on the paedocommunion.
if children of believers are members of the visible church and given the sign of baptism, then why are they excluded from communion? Wouldn't that be exCOMMUNicating them?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> just got to this thread.
> 
> i have a question on the paedocommunion.
> if children of believers are members of the visible church and given the sign of baptism, then why are they excluded from communion? Wouldn't that be exCOMMUNicating them?



Because membership in the Church is not the requirement for communion. Being able to examine yourself as being in the faith is.


----------



## Roldan

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> just got to this thread.
> 
> i have a question on the paedocommunion.
> if children of believers are members of the visible church and given the sign of baptism, then why are they excluded from communion? Wouldn't that be exCOMMUNicating them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because membership in the Church is not the requirement for communion. Being able to examine yourself as being in the faith is.
Click to expand...


exactley


----------



## bigheavyq

fred, first of all i am not advocating paedocommunion, but they make some good arguments and i want to understand both sides. If children are holy because their parents are, then they are not just members they are part of the body. when we stop communion from someone are we not excommunicating them. excommunication at its base is to refuse communion. i understand what the scriptures say. if communion is what was the passover like baptism is what was circumcision. then there are babies who participated in the passover, why deny them the communion.
this is the same argument used for paedobaptism. On the surface, credo baptism seems to be more scriptual as does credo communion.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Don't confuse "birth" (baptism) with "growth" (communion).
One is initiatory, the other is consistently sanctifying.

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## fredtgreco

Yes, Matt.

Excommunion is when one is excluded from communion one had. Do we say that every professing atheist has been excommunicated?

Paedocommunion is unbiblical, unhistorical and dangerous. It makes children "holy" in the sense that they have no need of fruit.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

"Paedocommunion is unbiblical, unhistorical and dangerous."

Amen brother Fred. Can I get another Amen:


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot




----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Yes, Matt.
> 
> Excommunion is when one is excluded from communion one had. Do we say that every professing atheist has been excommunicated?



Good point, Fred.


----------



## bigheavyq

if an avowed atheist came to your church with his family an took communion when it was passed what would you do? if he did not take it he is excommunicating himself from fellowship in the body.
I want you to answer the arguments I keep getting from people who strongly belief in this.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> if an avowed atheist came to your church with his family an took communion when it was passed what would you do? if he did not take it he is excommunicating himself from fellowship in the body.
> I want you to answer the arguments I keep getting from people who strongly belief in this.



He is not excommunicated, because you have to be _communicated_ before you can be excommunicated.

That is a rhetorical device of the paedocommunion lobby. They want you to be shocked - so they say "why excommunicate your kids" - and they want you to think of horrible, nasty discipline. The point was that they were never communicated, because we are protecting them from judgment. I would advise the atheist (after he told me) that he was eating and drinking judgment upon himself, and that it was no light matter. It would even be possible for God to slay him for such a presumption. And the next time I saw him in the service, I would physically prevent him from taking.

The arguments for paedocommunion are convoluted, difficult and require a long chain of reasoning. There is no need to battle them on their turf. The fact of the matter is that the Bible is clear: one must be able to discern the Lord's body to partake. The Western Church in all its branches (Roman, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) are all clear that paedocommunion is a heresy. In fact, profession of faith before partaking is one of only a very few doctrines that we can say this about (the Trinity, the resurrection being a couple of others).

Dr. F.N. Lee has an excellent summary:



> Let me state why I, with John Calvin, oppose paidocommunion. But first, to note age thesholds, it would be helpful if the reader would study the following passages preferably in the original Hebrew or Greek: Gen. 2:17-24; 14:13-24; 17:23-27; 22:2-19; Ex. 12:3-4, 8-11, 26-27,37, 43-48; Num. 9:2-13; Prov. 22:6; Lam. 2:12; 4:4; Luke 2:40-52; 22:1-20; John 6:2-4,10,53; Acts 22:3; I Cor. 5:7-13f; 10:1-22; 11:1-10,20-34; 13:11; 14:20-37; Phil. 3:5; I Tim. 2:8-15; 6:12f; Heb. 5:12 to 6:2; I John 2:12f; and Rev. 2:20f.
> 
> I oppose all attempts to reconstruct the clearly antipaidocommunionistic teaching of our Westminster Confession 28:1 & 29:3,8 & 31:4 and our Westminster Larger Catechism QQ. 169-177. True Presbyterians and other men of like persuasion respect Calvin's views in his Commentaries on Ex. 12:24-43; Lam. 2:12; John 6:53 & Heb. 6:2; in his Sermons on Deuteronomy 16:1-8 cf. vv. 16f; and his Institutes IV:13:6 & IV:16:30 & IV:19:4f.
> 
> In summary:
> 1, infant baptism signifies regeneration (but not conversion);
> 2, one's first communion at teenage signifies conversion (not regeneration);
> 3, Eucharist replaces the Passover (but not circumcision);
> 4, the 1st-century B.C. Hebrew Essenes (and even the Pharisees), like the Karaites till today, restricted their Passovers to their (post-)adolescent males after prior catechization terminating in their Bar Mitzvah not before age 13 (cf. Prov. 22:6's chanoch with Luke 2:40-47 and 22:1-20);
> 5, no females nor any preteenagers ever partook of the Passover till it was thus deformed by Post-Christian Liberal Judaism (+/- 200 A.D.);
> 6, there is absolutely no trace whatsoever of paidocommunionism in patristic writings but only in pagan sources prior to 250 A.D.;
> 7, novel paidocommunionism is a ritualistic heterodoxy of the "Eastern Orthodox" and kindred denominations quite opposed to truly-orthodox Reformed Theology;
> 8, the practice of paidocommunionism abolishes the need first of catechization and then of profession of one´s faith before one´s own very first manducation at the sacrament;
> 9, paidocommunism ultimately leads to an uncatechized Church (which Calvin says cannot long continue without catechizing); and
> 10, Calvin in his Institutes (IV:16:30) accordingly concludes against the Anabaptists: "œThey object that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to Baptism than to the Lord´s Supper "“ to which, however, there are never admitted.... The Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed...infancy, are fit to bear solid food.... They cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord´s body. Why should we stretch out poison instead of vivifying food to our young children? ... Circumcision, which as is well known corresponds to our Baptism, was intended for infants. But the Passover for which the Supper is substituted...was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they thus be blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?"



He also has a large paper that treats the matter in much greater depth than I can here. Read it, it is VERY throrough:

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs4/pvp/pvp.pdf


----------



## puriteen18

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> No, it is not. But God's command is not to baptize only the regenerate, it is to baptize only those whom we can externally _presume to be regenerate_, and it is only disciples that we can presume to be so. And that is where the paedo/credo disagreement comes in...on who are biblically to be considered disciples.



I'm jumping in rather late in this one, so i hope you won't mind.

I would say that I have to disagree with the last sentence here.

I don't think the paedo/credo disagreement comes down to who are considered disciples, but what baptism primarily signifies.

Paedo emphasis is on the covenant. Credo emphasis is on regeneration. Now I know the two are greatly related, but so is all of divinity. So if I may seperate them for the moment.

I agree that baptism is to be given to those who show evidence of regeneration.

Yet I also would say, as another brother has, that I would consider my children (had I any) to be disciples. I would bring them up, not only on the Bible, but also on our Confession and our Catechism. My children would be theologically Christian, Protestant, and Baptist.

However, they may not all come to show the primary signs of regeration, that being repentance unto God and profession of faith in Christ.

Baptist (of the historical persuasion) would say that the sacraments must be received by faith, otherwise they are not means of grace. (1689 Catechism, question 98) Remembering that true faith is no work of man, but the work of Christ in man.

Now, all those who are examined and approved by the elders as to have these signs of repentance and faith will be admitted to recieve baptism. 
(1689 Catechism, question 101)

Now, of those that recieve the sacrament, not all may truly be elect. Therefore their baptism is of no effect, since it is only an effectual means of grace to the elect. (1689 Catechism, questions 95 & 98)

The following are meant to be from a Baptist view:

Who may recieve the sacraments?
Those who are found to have the signs of regeneration, those being repentance and faith.

So, are unregenerate persons to recieve communion?
No.

Are unregenerate persons to recieve baptism?
No.

Do unregenerate persons receive communion?
Yes.

Do unregenerate persons receive baptism?
Yes.
________________________

So, it's not about who is really a disciple, but who show the signs of regeneration.
__________________________

If this doesn't make sense, or is out of context with the rest of the tread, please forgive me. I just noticed it's three twenty in the morning. No wonder i'm so tired. Ah, the life of a college student. Sense of time is completely lost.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Yet I also would say, as another brother has, that I would consider my children (had I any) to be disciples. I would bring them up, not only on the Bible, but also on our Confession and our Catechism. My children would be theologically Christian, Protestant, and Baptist.



Tyler,
If you consider them disciples, should you not baptise them?

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." 

Question: How does God see your children?


----------



## puriteen18

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If you consider them disciples, should you not baptise them?
> 
> Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
> 
> Question: How does God see your children?



May not the Ethiopian eunuch be considered a disciple of the scriptures? Since we may deduce that he had been reading and studying them before Phillip came to him. And yet, it was not untill it seems, he was regenerate, and desirous of baptism, that Phillip questioned (examined) his faith. By the virtue of his faith he was given baptism, not that he was a disciple of scripture.

If a man came to you wanting to be catechised, would you baptise him just because he was a student, a disciple, or would you wait untill he showed evidence of faith?

To answer your question, "how does God see my children?" I can only say that God, if he does give me children, will see them either as elect or reprobate. 

From a historical Baptist veiw God's salvific covenant was made only with those he would redeem, so only the invisible church is included. The physical aspects during the old testament, were but shadows.

I guess I might say is that the difference is in, who is a disciple by the law, and who by grace. Though you may raise a child to behave as a Christian, unless he is regenerate, he is under the law, not under grace. Therefore, though he be a disciple, he should not recieve baptism.

Now, the covenant extended to the Gentile Church is not because we are of Abraham seed as physical Israel, but Christ is the seed of Abraham, and we are in Christ, therefore we are seed of Abraham by the faith bestowed to us from God's grace.

Galatians 3.16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

& 26-29

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew, nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if yee be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Now, I'm not arguing that "baptism" in 27 is the sacrament itself; I believe that this is the baptism of Christ. Yet, the sacrament, being a means of grace, is tied and bound to the reality.

My point, was to say that only those who are of faith are part of the salvific covenant in Christ. So, the elect children are in this covenant, while the reprobate are not.

Baptism into Christ, the circumcision of the heart, being cut off from the world and the carnal nature, is this not the work of regeneration? So, should not signs of that regeneration be the premise for the sacrament?
________________________

If all children of two professing believers are to be considered in the covenant and baptized, as circumcision was given to the children of Israel, why not are all the children of baptized parents? It would seem to me, with the paedo understanding of church membership, that all members of the visible church and all their children would be included. I would be in favor of the Half-way covenant, and probably even further. Their are "good", baptized, unsaved Presbyterians, who are in church every Lord's Day with their children. Yet their children are not baptized b/c their parents have not made a profession? It was not required of the Jews that the parents be particularly commited in faith for the child to be circumsized, only that they be Jews. And shall we not only baptize those, but also the whole of our household? including (for those of us rich enough) servents or "the help"?

[Edited on 6-11-2005 by puriteen18]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyler,
before we continue, can you please explain this?

"High Church" Particular Baptist Guy 
(we are out there!!!)


----------



## bigheavyq

thanks for your answers. dr. lee sure helped.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Tyler,



> I agree that baptism is to be given to those who show evidence of regeneration.



Could you provide me with a concrete list of this evidence of regeneration. On the positive side: how much, quality, degree, magnituded that ascends to the level of "evidence of regeneration"? And by necessity on the negative side: how much, degree, quality, magnitude of evidence would yield "evidence of non-regeneration"? What works or sins, quality, degree and magnitude? Finally, is this list ubiquotous and consistant among the church?

Ldh


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> thanks for your answers. dr. lee sure helped.



He does treat the subject very well. He has interacted with many of the most vociferous paedocommunion advocates on various internet fora.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Kevin, would you say ministers are biblically permitted to baptize adults who clearly reject and curse the faith, and are definitely _not_ part of the covenant community?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I ask one question please.
> 
> Is there anythign in Scripture that speaks of an "Age of accountability?"
> 
> I cant find it
> ...
> Joe
Click to expand...


I'm a Baptist like Spurgeon... I've heard some dumb Arminian grounds for believer's baptism but you need not create a straw man or a false dichotomy where Arminian "age of accountability" presuppositions are mutually exclusive with credo-baptism. It's about being logical and embracing good rhetorical manners.

It's funny how some brave baptist posts a thread and it lights up like a Iraqi city on CNN in the Gulf war... with the Presbyterian calvary on a full charge.
:bigsmile:

On the PB, Baptism debates are


----------



## Larry Hughes

Tyler,

If I could be permitted not to start a "œwar" but just discuss, and humbly and as one who formerly took and was in the "œbaptistic camp":



> I don't think the paedo/credo disagreement comes down to who are considered disciples, but what baptism primarily signifies.



It is ultimately both. 1. Those in covenant, and that is a whole other LARGE discussion. 2. Yes, whole heartedly the primary signification IS the other BIG issue. Is it "œmy" sign that is Significant (Baptistic) or God´s (Reformed)? Is it my act of obedience (Baptistic) or God´s promise of grace (Reformed)? Does it signify Law (Baptistic) or Gospel (Reformed)? Does it communicate "œearth to heaven" (God here is my sacrifice of obedience - Baptistic) or "œheaven to earth" (Here is My/God´s sign of promise/grace for your weakness - Reformed)? Is its validity ground in "œme" (Baptistic) and my promise keeping or God´s and His promise keeping (Reformed)?



> Paedo emphasis is on the covenant. Credo emphasis is on regeneration. Now I know the two are greatly related, but so is all of divinity. So if I may seperate them for the moment.



No doubts. Covenant leads to the promise and grace and Gospel to be my God and a God to my children. This significantly sets the tone as to how I pray to God for myself and children. Do I pray as if He is a tyrant to whom I beg grace never expecting it only in a hopeful wishing tone. Or as a loving Father in Christ for mercy expecting (biblical hope) it? Here we see a great differences in the two emphasis you have set forth. Covenant is revealed to us in time and space and is the ONLY way in which we function toward God/Christ, not infallibility nor in the secret eternal will of God. Seeking regeneration leads to the later and seeks that which we are not to seek as our basis for functioning as Christians in this life. We are not to seek our eternal election though it is a reality. Rather we are to LIVE by faith/trust and Covenant contains this inherently within and annexed to it. Regeneration, if it could be hypothetically known perfectly, would by necessity eliminate faith/trust in Christ alone. We live in time and space by faith or we will not live eternally.



> I agree that baptism is to be given to those who show evidence of regeneration.



See previous post on this statement.



> Baptist (of the historical persuasion) would say that the sacraments must be received by faith, otherwise they are not means of grace. (1689 Catechism, question 98) Remembering that true faith is no work of man, but the work of Christ in man.



What about the Word, Law and Gospel itself? For the sacraments nakedly considered apart from the Word have no meaning. There is nothing inherently meaningful in a dunking, sprinkling or otherwise bath unless the Word of God, specifically the Gospel is annexed to it. Yet, the Word is promiscuously broadcast to all the world independent of possession of faith at the time of distribution. Yet further, the Word is the chief means of grace, the means of grace that without - all other means of grace find no meaning what-so-ever.



> Now, all those who are examined and approved by the elders as to have these signs of repentance and faith will be admitted to recieve baptism.
> (1689 Catechism, question 101)



See other post concerning what these subjective infallible signs are?



> Now, of those that recieve the sacrament, not all may truly be elect. Therefore their baptism is of no effect, since it is only an effectual means of grace to the elect. (1689 Catechism, questions 95 & 98)



The Word, Baptism and the Lord´s Table ARE means of grace by their own standing and definition ordained by God and from the mouth of God. Man´s "œfaith" does not "œmake them" means of grace. You do see how this is ultimately arminian??? By requiring faith to "œmake them" means of grace you make them rest for the validity upon mere men and not God. Taking your "means of grace" definition to its extreme logical conclusion we should not evangelize the world for the world does not possess faith. Again, means of grace is grounded in God's promise and word not men. A means of grace communicates heaven to earth, not earth to heaven. We are just distributors of the means, not the effectual causing agent of regeneration of those receiving the means. ANYONE unregenerate may reject the means of grace, but that does not make ANY of the means of grace NOT a means of grace. 

The same word, baptism or even Lord's Table (at a later time) may be given to two men on the same day at the same church. One man is a true believer the other a hypocrit. The means of grace are effectual to one but not the other, yet they are the same means of grace, that is instrument of communication. The Holy Spirit makes them effectual, they are instruments/means to communicate grace, but the instruments will not communicate this grace effectually without the Holy Spirit's work.

Even closer to home. If one tells an unbeliever, "believe in Christ and be saved from the wrath to come", this is a means communicating real valid and true grace, yet if the unbeliever rejects this grace (without the Holy Spirit's work) it will become but high court evidence against him in essences in eternity for eternity saying, "you rejected the easiest and most infinite grace a lawbreaker could have". This he will gnash his teeth at forever. Why? Because it was REAL grace not a mere trick. OR as Paul replies in Romans 3:3-4, "For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." 

For they spurned God's real grace and the means there of!



> Who may recieve the sacraments?



It depends upon the function of the specific sacrament!



> So, it's not about who is really a disciple, but who show the signs of regeneration.



Again, delving into the secret will of God is a dangerous thing. This is where hyper-Calvinism finds healthy soil to germinate in.

ldh

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I don't see why there is such a big debate over this issue between our Baptist brothers and the rest of Christendom.

Just look at how the idea of circumcision/baptism flows throughout Scripture, in complete unity and harmony, without a hiccup or variation: The emphasis is always, from the beginning, on true repentance, regeneration, and a right heart before the Lord.

The sign just changed.

Why would the New Covenant be a less gracious covenant than the Old (that is, by excluding the children of believers and accounting them among the pagans as unregenerate heathens at enmity with the Lord), especially considering that it is a "better" covenant established on "better" promises?



> "œBut if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies"”if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (Leviticus 20:40-42)
> 
> Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (Deuteronomy 10:16)
> 
> And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)
> 
> Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." (Jeremiah 4:4)
> 
> Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart." (Jeremiah 9:26)
> 
> "œThus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. (Ezekiel 44:9)
> 
> "œYou stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (Acts 7:51)
> 
> But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:29)
> 
> In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism (Colossians 2:11-12a)
> 
> Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)




But, above all, let's be gracious to one another. This is obviously a topic of heated debate and discussion, and we must learn to make charity towards one another, despite our differences, our top priority - not winning arguments or sounding smarter than one another.


----------



## puriteen18

*You asked for it......*



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Tyler,
> before we continue, can you please explain this?
> 
> "High Church" Particular Baptist Guy
> (we are out there!!!)



Sure. It is probably not the best wording, for what I mean to convey. Just remember, you asked for it.

It does not have to do with Anglo-Catholicism, or a "high church" understanding of who are members.

Basically, it is a term I use because I feel that "Baptist" really means something completely different from what I am. Even "Reformed Baptist" seems to fall short. 

The term is meant to refer to what I really think "Baptist" should mean. Most "Reformed Baptists" I have saddly found are only Five-Point Fundamentalists, and not really in line with the historical Particular Baptist.

"High Church Particular Baptist" is just a title I use to assert that I hold the following views, which b/c of the trends of the church are no longer associated with Baptistic positions, and are many time thought to be in deviance of what is considered "Baptist".

1. Worship: I believe that the church ought to have a formal weekly liturgy. A liturgy which follows the RP, and is intelligently constructed to aid our meetings. Most Baptists, even most Reformed Baptists, would cringe at the idea of a formal liturgy, since they think it out of keeping with our tradition. However, it is evident that early Particular Baptist liturgy was probably no different as other sepratists, and would have been more similiar to the Presbyterians than one would think. This was not just an early thing either. 
Adoniram Judson (1788-1850), Baptist missionary to Burma made it a point to write out a liturgy for the Burmese Church, and emphasised the reading of creeds in it.

2. The Sacraments as means of grace are too down-played, if even believed at all by Baptists today.

3. Church polity, though it does seem to be getting better amoungst the Five-Pointers, is really departed from historic Congregationism. The three part system, Local Elders, Regional Associations, and General Association have really forgotten that they have more duty than the usual Baptist democracy which is so destructive.

4. The Confession and Catechism(s) are not emphasized as they were meant. Many churches have changed articles, which they disagree with and the Association has done nothing about it. In general, the people don't seem to even care what the 1689 says. They just know that it is the Classic Calvinistic Confession, and they claim it without really reading it. As for the Catechisms, although the 1689 Cat., commonly called "Keach's", is becoming more popular, the Orthodox Catechsim of 1680, a reconstruction of the Heidleburg is completely forgotten, and can not even be found in print.

5. The overall knowledge of our particular history and tradition is not even deemed important beyond the 19th century. We are not really trying to revive Particular Baptist theology, but the common Victorian Baptist theology. The main reason for this, I think, is because the farther you go back, the more you realize that Particular Baptists and modern Reformed Baptist resemble each other exceedingly less than Baptists would hope. I blame most of this on Baptists not fully letting go of the Fundamentalism which has plagued us for the last century. Another thing is, most of those who write on our history try to make the old Baptists into what they want. The values of "Religious Freedom", "the Bible and the Bible only" Fundamentalism, and a kind of "Congregational Democracy" is credited to our forefathers so much, not necessarily b/c of what they believed but b/c this is what is important today. Another thing is that we read too many history books (which are usually bias) and too little HISTORICAL books (which tell what really was going on).

Finally, alot of little things like clercial gowns and tabs, choir galleries, closed or atleast close communion, fencing the table, plurality of elders, public confession, preeminence of psalms, headcoverings, sabbath observance, and the list goes on and on.....

These things, though clearly part of Baptist tradition from atleast the greater part of the 1700's to the middle of the 1800s. Some even dating back to the beginings of the Particular trad. and further.

Though I don't think all of these things need to be enforced, I do think they need to be discussed, and stop being treated as, "Oh, that's not the Baptist way", because frankly, that is exactly the Baptist way, or atleast was.

Good keeping of doctrine will result in certain practices. It is inevitable. I will admit that I am envious of the Presbyterians in these matters. You are much more knowledgable of your doctrine and the practice that should follow, and why it is that way. But unfortunately, Baptists are still too attached to fundamentalism, and listen to too much Piper than to the three Ks of old.

So that is what I mean by "High Church" Baptist, just that if we are going to be "Reformed Baptists" then thats exactly what we need to be.

Now I'm guessing this is probably going to offend some people, and I am sorry that what I'm saying does that. I'm also sure that there are going to be some that raise the argument, "Shouldn't we be concerned more about being Christians instead of being so Baptist?" Well, yes, of course, but what is your definition of "Christian"? Is it Piper or is it Particulars? Which is the best in teaching and practicing Apostolic Christianity? To me, as Spurgeon said, it's just a nickname.

Sorry to go off on this tangent so long, but as you can probably tell I'm rather zealous about it. Living in the Bible Belt, I am tired of Baptists that reform their doctrine and let alone their practice. I'm tired of Mount Sion Baptist looking just like Freedom Assembly of God.

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by puriteen18]


----------



## puriteen18

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Could you provide me with a concrete list of this evidence of regeneration. On the positive side: how much, quality, degree, magnituded that ascends to the level of "evidence of regeneration"? And by necessity on the negative side: how much, degree, quality, magnitude of evidence would yield "evidence of non-regeneration"? What works or sins, quality, degree and magnitude? Finally, is this list ubiquotous and consistant among the church?
> 
> Ldh



I'm only a young guy, so I'm going to give a simple answer:

It is up to the elders. That's part of their job. _Whatever is bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven._

I'm not an elder and do not have the power or wisdom to judge for sure, or make a broad answer. It is probably not the same for every convert exactly. 

The basics would be, as I have stated: Repentance of dead works, and Faith in Christ alone. How these are discerned I could not exactly say, just that I believe an elder is ordained to do such things, and should have the wisdom to make prudent judgements.


----------



## puriteen18

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Tyler,
> 
> If I could be permitted not to start a "œwar" but just discuss, and humbly and as one who formerly took and was in the "œbaptistic camp":



Of course not. Neither do I, but I am glad that you all here are taking the time to discuss. I appreciate the fact that you are explaining what you believe and debating. I think it is healthy for Presbyterians and Baptists to do so, in a responsible Christian manner.



> It is ultimately both. 1. Those in covenant, and that is a whole other LARGE discussion. 2. Yes, whole heartedly the primary signification IS the other BIG issue. Is it "œmy" sign that is Significant (Baptistic) or God´s (Reformed)? Is it my act of obedience (Baptistic) or God´s promise of grace (Reformed)? Does it signify Law (Baptistic) or Gospel (Reformed)? Does it communicate "œearth to heaven" (God here is my sacrifice of obedience - Baptistic) or "œheaven to earth" (Here is My/God´s sign of promise/grace for your weakness - Reformed)? Is its validity ground in "œme" (Baptistic) and my promise keeping or God´s and His promise keeping (Reformed)?



I´ve heard this argument before. And while I think it does hold water with most Baptists, b/c that is how most Baptists are raised today, I don´t see how my theology teaches that.

Baptism is not a sign of man. Obviously, it is a sign of God to man. It is given to men as a sign and effectual means of engrafting into Christ and the washing away of sins.

Does not grace result in obedience? Does not the true convert desire baptism? 

As for the Law, it seems that baptism as basically "œChristian circumcision" resembles the law and the old shadow of Christ more than the confessional Baptist standing.

To a confessional Baptist it is not a sacrifice to God at all. It is a sign and means of God´s grace.

As to who it is ground in, man or God, Who was it that gave baptism to the church? Who promises the remissions of sins through the washing of baptism? Who grants us burial with Christ? Who by regeneration gives us faith and the desire for the sacrament?

No, it´s not about man´s sign to God. Neither has this been historically a position held by Baptists. 



> No doubts. Covenant leads to the promise and grace and Gospel to be my God and a God to my children. This significantly sets the tone as to how I pray to God for myself and children. Do I pray as if He is a tyrant to whom I beg grace never expecting it only in a hopeful wishing tone. Or as a loving Father in Christ for mercy expecting (biblical hope) it? Here we see a great differences in the two emphasis you have set forth. Covenant is revealed to us in time and space and is the ONLY way in which we function toward God/Christ, not infallibility nor in the secret eternal will of God. Seeking regeneration leads to the later and seeks that which we are not to seek as our basis for functioning as Christians in this life. We are not to seek our eternal election though it is a reality. Rather we are to LIVE by faith/trust and Covenant contains this inherently within and annexed to it. Regeneration, if it could be hypothetically known perfectly, would by necessity eliminate faith/trust in Christ alone. We live in time and space by faith or we will not live eternally.



1. Now, you can´t really put the God as a tyrant to Baptists. True, I do not believe that all of my children may be in the covenant, but indeed perhaps they are. If they are, they will at some point be regenerated and baptized.

I would pray that God have mercy on them, trusting in His mercy that He would indeed save them. Not because they are my children, but because He chose them in Christ in eternity past and are therefore the children of Abraham, heirs of the promise. Not by lineage, but by faith given of Sovereign Grace. Not a work of man. 

2. We are to make our calling and election sure. No, we cannot nor should try to pry into the secret will of God. But we have no command not to test our election. 

Do not Presbyterians believe that a man ought to be examined before he is admitted to the table? First, to see that he is indeed a true believer and then to see that he is not in gross sin?

No the elders can not perfectly know who is really regenerate and who is not, but I still believe they ought to be examined before the sacrament is given, lest we should cast pearls to swine.



> What about the Word, Law and Gospel itself? For the sacraments nakedly considered apart from the Word have no meaning. There is nothing inherently meaningful in a dunking, sprinkling or otherwise bath unless the Word of God, specifically the Gospel is annexed to it. Yet, the Word is promiscuously broadcast to all the world independent of possession of faith at the time of distribution. Yet further, the Word is the chief means of grace, the means of grace that without - all other means of grace find no meaning what-so-ever.



Of course, I agree. Without the preaching of the Word, there is no faith. It is by the foolishness of preaching that God´s Spirit makes His effectual call. Man is regenerated by the Spirit and can do nothing else but have faith, since the Lord has authored faith in his heart.



> The Word, Baptism and the Lord´s Table ARE means of grace by their own standing and definition ordained by God and from the mouth of God. Man´s "œfaith" does not "œmake them" means of grace. You do see how this is ultimately arminian??? By requiring faith to "œmake them" means of grace you make them rest for the validity upon mere men and not God. Taking your "means of grace" definition to its extreme logical conclusion we should not evangelize the world for the world does not possess faith. Again, means of grace is grounded in God's promise and word not men. A means of grace communicates heaven to earth, not earth to heaven. We are just distributors of the means, not the effectual causing agent of regeneration of those receiving the means. ANYONE unregenerate may reject the means of grace, but that does not make ANY of the means of grace NOT a means of grace.



First this is an Arminian view, then it is a path to hyper-calvinism?

Faith is not a work of man. Faith is a work of God in man. He who is regenerate will have faith, he can do nothing else. 

Question 98 of the Baptist Catechism, and question 91 of the Shorter Westminster are in agreement. 


91 Q: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?

A: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that BY FAITH receive them.

If a man take of the table out of faith he is drinking down condemnation, is he not. Therefore, the table is not a means of grace to him, it is a means of judgment.

Salvation is of faith, not works, lest any man should boast. Faith is not a work of man; is the work of God in man. The Arminian don´t mess up by saying that man must have faith, but by saying that unregenerate man is able to have faith. The Arminians make faith a work of man. Here is their fall.

Remember Christ said, thy faith made thee whole. But who may have faith unless it is given them by God? No, it is not part of the Arminian heresy to require faith. If we say that then we have to ignore a good chunk of the Scriptures. The Arminian heresy is just part of the Pelegian one, namely, that man has within himself the ability to have faith.



> The same word, baptism or even Lord's Table (at a later time) may be given to two men on the same day at the same church. One man is a true believer the other a hypocrit. The means of grace are effectual to one but not the other, yet they are the same means of grace, that is instrument of communication. The Holy Spirit makes them effectual, they are instruments/means to communicate grace, but the instruments will not communicate this grace effectually without the Holy Spirit's work.



Is faith not a work of the Holy Spirit? It is no work of a man dead in sin. No, indeed, Faith has God as her Divine Author.

If a man partakes without faith, he partakes without the work of the Spirit, seeing that faith is a work of the Spirit.



> Even closer to home. If one tells an unbeliever, "believe in Christ and be saved from the wrath to come", this is a means communicating real valid and true grace, yet if the unbeliever rejects this grace (without the Holy Spirit's work) it will become but high court evidence against him in essences in eternity for eternity saying, "you rejected the easiest and most infinite grace a lawbreaker could have". This he will gnash his teeth at forever. Why? Because it was REAL grace not a mere trick. OR as Paul replies in Romans 3:3-4, "For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
> 
> For they spurned God's real grace and the means there of!



I agree.



> It depends upon the function of the specific sacrament!



So, you would say I am wrong in saying there are requirements for baptism, while you would say there are requirements for the table?

Could not the previous arguments you put to credobaptism, be also put to fencing the table?




> Again, delving into the secret will of God is a dangerous thing. This is where hyper-Calvinism finds healthy soil to germinate in.
> 
> ldh


Again, we are commanded to make our calling and election sure. Not by any strange means, and not to the extent of the Hyper-Calvinist. But to the extent that we are commanded, to the extent the Apostles, Fathers, Reformers, Puritans and all faithful Christians did and continue to do it.

To not look for signs would indeed be a license of Antinomianism.

If and where I have spoken harshly forgive my over-zealousness. And where, out of ignorance, I have mistaken the Presbyterian stance correct me.

[Edited on 6-12-2005 by puriteen18]


----------



## puriteen18

*A Question*

Do most Presbyterians agree with Article 17 of the First Head of Doctrine of the Canons of Dort?

[Edited on 6-14-2005 by puriteen18]


----------



## youthevang

I am still studying all the arguments from the reformed and baptist side with regards to paedobaptism and whether or not it is scriptural. The one verse that convinces me at the moment to give paedobaptism some warrant is the one that speaks of Lydia and her household when it states, "After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, 'If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.' And she persuaded us." (Acts 16:15).

Verse 14 only mentions that Lydia's heart was opened to the Lord and not anyone else in her household, but the whole household was baptized.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> I am still studying all the arguments from the reformed and baptist side with regards to paedobaptism and whether or not it is scriptural. The one verse that convinces me at the moment to give paedobaptism some warrant is the one that speaks of Lydia and her household when it states, "After she and her household were baptized, she urged us, 'If you consider me a believer in the Lord, come and stay at my house.' And she persuaded us." (Acts 16:15).
> 
> Verse 14 only mentions that Lydia's heart was opened to the Lord and not anyone else in her household, but the whole household was baptized.



Excellent.

I'm glad you understand the point here! Many don't It really doesn't matter whether or not infants were members of this household. The point is that *households* were baptized, not merely *individuals*. So if any infants were present, they were certainly baptized.

I also like this from Luke 19:

"[8] And Zacchae'us stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any one of anything, I restore it fourfold." 
[9] And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. "

Notice that Zacchae'us *(singular)* repented, and confessed Christ as "Lord". Then Jesus said to him *(singular)* that salvation has come to his *HOUSE* because he *(singular)* is "a son" *(singular)* of Abraham.

Zacchae'us himself repented and confessed Christ as Lord, and because he himself was thus a son of Abraham, salvation came to his HOUSE.



Now look at what Luke wrote in Acts 16:

[30] and brought them out and said, "Men, what must I do to be saved?" 
[31] And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, *you and your household*." 
[32] And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. 
[33] And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and *he was baptized at once, with all his family*. 
[34] Then he brought them up into his house, and set food before them; and he rejoiced with all his household that* he *had believed in God. 

Notice that the Philippian jailer and his entire household rejoiced that HE (singular) had believed in God. The entire household was baptized in verse 33.

The New Testament unit is covenantal "households", just like in the Old Testament. Nowhere did God suddenly switch to an individualistic mindset.

[Edited on 7-13-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------

