# Gene Cook Vs. Paul Manata Baptism Debate



## tellville

Here's the promo:

http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/podcast/manatadebate.mp3


Should be good. I hope Gene reads some of the threads here at Puritanboard in his debate preparation.


----------



## JM

lol

As a UFC fan, I found this hilarious.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

tellville said:


> Here's the promo:
> 
> http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/podcast/manatadebate.mp3
> 
> 
> Should be good. I hope Gene reads some of the threads here at Puritanboard in his debate preparation.



I hope so - he might be carefull about using the "R" word there with all of those "Orthodox" Baptists! 

Grace,

-CH


----------



## tellville

Paul, if you're reading this, insist that Gene reads the Puritanboard threads on Baptism! It will probably make for a much better debate!


----------



## non dignus

Gene just revealed the Baptists' _crazy aunt in the basement: _...an overthetop rejection of all things Catholic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> Paul, if you're reading this, insist that Gene reads the Puritanboard threads on Baptism! It will probably make for a much better debate!



The man who used to go by the name of Paul Manata and now is Tom Bombadil mentioned that Gene has printed about 100 pages of Paul's interactions on the subject....


----------



## tellville

Excellent. It should be a good debate then.


----------



## non dignus

But will Gene renounce credo-only baptism after the debate?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Definitely


----------



## B.J.

> Gene just revealed the Baptists' crazy aunt in the basement: ...an overthetop rejection of all things Catholic.




Its a funny thing though. Baptist always say that but forget about us "hanging" on to that "Trinity" doctrine as well.




> Excellent. It should be a good debate then.





Perhaps. I dont know if anyone else caught "it" during the trash talking promo, but Gene let the cat out of the bag, so to speak. I wont reveal the weakness in Gene's comment because he might read this and prepare for it. I know Paul will pick up on "it" and apply a logical armbar so as to make Gene tap. My prediction:

A 1st round cross-examination submission unless Paul has not been training at Big Bear. However, if Gene can stay off his back he might last until a third round rubuttal LKO (logical knock-out).

GO Paedo Paul!


----------



## VaughanRSmith

B.J. said:


> Perhaps. I dont know if anyone else caught "it" during the trash talking promo, but Gene let the cat out of the bag, so to speak.


Big time. I almost headbutted the screen in astonishment!


----------



## KMK

I don't know what all the excitement is about. Everyone knows that a paedo has *never* lost a debate about baptism. 



Just ask any paedo!


----------



## B.J.

> I don't know what all the excitement is about. Everyone knows that a paedo has never lost a debate about baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just ask any paedo!




I suppose Baptist know they lose all of them then, or should I ask a Baptist?


----------



## Ruben100

where at in Murreitta is this debate going to take place
Location?
Time?
Free admission?


----------



## Pilgrim

The debate will be held at Murietta Valley Church on August 19th at 6 pm.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*Are You Ready...*

TO RUMMMMBBBBLLLE?!

5 minutes to go, baby.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Already streaming it, 24Kbps right this minute

Now don't all you people go diving in at once and crash the server!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it's at http://www.unchainedradio.com but my connection keeps re-buffering. Anyone else have any problems?

Incidentally, now that the debate is a go, I want to say that I fully expect Paul to do extremely well. I've been one of his sparring partners. The guy has some really solid stuff going in.


----------



## caddy

Paul "Cato" Manata...

I'm in...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

HAHAHA They've got the UCF promo playing now.

RUMBLE!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Click "On Air" icon in upper left of http://www.unchainedradio.com

I can't get it to stream without constantly re-buffering.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Josh, stream it using a mediaplayer.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Liiiiiive! 9:09 Est


----------



## BobVigneault

I was thinking the same thing Josh. I thought it was you for a split second.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Middle of the introductions... 9:17 EST


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Streaming now. I closed all other apps and am using a totally different internet connection for the PB right now.

Gene gets to open.


----------



## BobVigneault

I'm listening on iTunes and it's working great.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Point 1 - Argument from historical narrative. Poison the well by saying that all they're doing is accepting a Romish doctrine. Noticed this before in Gene. He actually didn't seem to understand the material difference between RC baptism and Reformed view as recently as a week ago.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

I cannae listen tae it... I don't have the power!


----------



## BobVigneault

Right Rich, he began with the premise that baptism is the doctrine that was left unreformed.


----------



## BobVigneault

Vaughan, do you have iTunes. The address is http://www.unchainedradio.com:8000/listen.mp3


----------



## Semper Fidelis

2 - New Covenant is an ideal. Only the elect are in the NC. When I interacted with him, the only reason this is relevant for Gene is not that he baptizes but the fact that we say that baptism joins a person to the Church which is a visible administration of the NC. Thus, the NC is immaterial to Baptism for Gene except to say that we Paedobaptists err in saying that the infant is joined to the NC. I wonder how he would interact if we simply said we joined them to the visible Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BobVigneault said:


> Vaughan, do you have iTunes. The address is http://www.unchainedradio.com:8000/listen.mp3



You can also use Windows Media Player. If iTunes is giving you fits then download the m3u file on unchained radio link and save it to your computer. Open that with Windows Media Player. I found it didn't have the buffering problems that iTunes did for me.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Streaming through WMP. Thanks guys!


----------



## BobVigneault

Woohoo! Glad it's working Vaughan, I forget that there are people using non-Apple computers out there.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

3 - NT interprets the OT? Wow, is that a new idea. This begs the question since Abraham and his promise are seen as examples to us in Romans 4. He hasn't, of course, established the didactic principle that children are excluded. I guess we need to see the fulfillment of things to understand whether or not God is still immutable in the New Covenant....

Gene's definitely arguing to his crowd here. He wouldn't last for a second with this one here.


----------



## Croghanite

Children are not a part of the NC... so sad


----------



## Semper Fidelis

4 - Baptism is discontinuous from Circumcision. Disciples aren't children (in Gene's mind) thus we don't baptize them. I'd love to ask Gene why Christ had unrenerate men and women baptized.


----------



## Croghanite

and Paul... (im eating popcorn)


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Woo! Go Paul!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

Paul is quite good.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul is on fire!


----------



## Croghanite

Awesome!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nuclear. 10:12 EST


----------



## Ivan

I'm sorry I can't listen to this. My little computer with dial-up just isn't capable.

So tell me, should I find a Presbyterian church to attend? Or maybe I'll move to England and become Anglican. Or perhaps with my surname I could pull off Dutch Reformed.

What to do, what to do.....


----------



## VaughanRSmith

*Stands up and applauds.*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To quote Chris Farley:

THAT WAS TOTALLY AWESOME!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Boom goes the dynamite. 10:20


----------



## Arch2k

Got in late. Listening now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gene just admitted that he doesn't know anybody is saved except himself but yet, argued earlier, that baptism is for the regenerate.


----------



## Ivan

B.J. said:


> I don't know what all the excitement is about. Everyone knows that a paedo has never lost a debate about baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just ask any paedo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose Baptist know they lose all of them then, or should I ask a Baptist?
Click to expand...


Hmmm...it seems the Presbyterians already know they won so I wouldn't bother asking.


----------



## Arch2k

SemperFideles said:


> Gene just admitted that he doesn't know anybody is saved except himself but yet, argued earlier, that baptism is for the regenerate.


 
I noticed that too. Seems odd for a baptist to admit such a thing as it would be pretty destructive to their theology.


----------



## Pilgrim

joshua said:


> I love Jason Robertson's (Moderator) accent. Reminds me of me...except mine's worse (but I mean worse in a good way).
> 
> "Babtize"
> 
> "Babtists"



He is from Louisiana.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Jeff_Bartel said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene just admitted that he doesn't know anybody is saved except himself but yet, argued earlier, that baptism is for the regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too. Seems odd for a baptist to admit such a thing as it would be pretty destructive to their theology.
Click to expand...


I'm neither listening nor a big baptism debater, but how is asserting "baptism is for the regenerate" a problem by admitting that I don't know for sure that everyone baptized is regenerate?


----------



## Arch2k

jdlongmire said:


> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gene just admitted that he doesn't know anybody is saved except himself but yet, argued earlier, that baptism is for the regenerate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too. Seems odd for a baptist to admit such a thing as it would be pretty destructive to their theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm neither listening nor a big baptism debater, but how is asserting "baptism is for the regenerate" a problem by admitting that I don't know for sure that everyone baptized is regenerate?
Click to expand...

 
If baptism is for the regenerate only, and you don't know who the regenerate are, how are you to know who to baptize?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul is controlling Gene's cross.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hebrews is not addressed to the Covenant Community? There is "2 covenant communities" _for 40 years_?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

He's actually getting Gene to waste time to re-state his position and Paul isn't being forced to defend. Gene is actually on the defensive. Remarkable.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

I've noticed in Gene's previous debates he doesn't mind turning his crosses into back-and-forths.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gene just allowed Paul to cross him at the very end.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Keeps bringing up that you have to be born again but then he flips back and forth about baptizing just professors. I've never figured out this internal incoherence.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

His point about Galatians and circumcision completely misses the point of Galatians. The circumcision of infants is not even in view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The Abrahamic administration? So why is Abraham a present example for us in Romans 4?


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Time to get some chicken.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Jeff_Bartel said:


> jdlongmire said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff_Bartel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed that too. Seems odd for a baptist to admit such a thing as it would be pretty destructive to their theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm neither listening nor a big baptism debater, but how is asserting "baptism is for the regenerate" a problem by admitting that I don't know for sure that everyone baptized is regenerate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If baptism is for the regenerate only, and you don't know who the regenerate are, how are you to know who to baptize?
Click to expand...


Romans 10:9
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Only God knows if the baptism is effectual...


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I don't quit liking Gene, as a person and as a debater, but I don't think he was effective at actually undermining Paul's appeal to Scripture. He is quite effective using the presupp method versus atheists handcuffed by their internal incoherence.

He stated that Paul couldn't make a Scriptural argument, then just ignored his tightly reasoned Scripture syllogism. Paul did a far better job in going after the specifics of Gene's support.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree Bruce.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

What kind of quasi-dispensational argument is it to argue that "Hebrews" is written to non-believers? to church members who are in one unique generation "fully in the Jewish *church *but not of Christ"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I will point out that it is not "improper" debate form for the one who "opens" to also close last. That is "scored debate" form.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think Paul did a good job but this argument is so easily obfuscated because the Reformed Baptist will always fall back on the NC and not realize he's not providing a basis for baptism. It all becomes an argument for the NC in the ideal. I wish Gene had been pressed to internally account for how he treats children in his Church and how his children are supposed to obey him in the Lord or how he is supposed to raise them as such.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I will point out that it is not "improper" debate form for the one who "opens" to also close last. That is "scored debate" form.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Done. 11:53 EST


----------



## tellville

I wish I could have heard the debate live. I guess I will just have to wait till the MP3 comes available. 

I like seeing the Padeo comments however  This unfortunately might just be a preaching to the choir debate. From your guys comments it also seems like Gene hasn't read the boards here. 

Still a Credo!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have not listened to the debate yet. This last week I was communicating on a email list with a group of guys who are Credo's, and I warned them that Paul would probably take Gene to task. Of course, I was met with some scoffing and jabs that Gene would win hands over because you guys have no biblical ground to stand upon. I also warned them that Paedo CT is not a take off of Roman Baptism. It is based upon a doctrine of Covenant theology and not Romish doctrine. Gene is on the list but he has not been active with us for a while. 

BTW, we discussed the Romans 4 and Galatians stuff and I thought I had some good responses for you Rich and you didn't do very well responding to my answers In my humble opinion. But that is how discussions go. The Romans 4 discussion actually got started on the last post on this thread.http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=23640&page=2

I mostly expected Paul to win the debate. I wonder if he did. But winning a debate doesn't always define the truth. It means the winner was capable of presenting his argument better.

Hope everyone had a great weekend. I had one. And I am recharged and ready for a great week. 

Be Encouraged guys.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I wanted to capture all my thoughts as they occured. Over time, I intend to challenge Gene on them. I actually called in and got into it a couple of Fridays ago. Helped uncover some of his views. As I suspected, he was a bit all over the map. On the one hand, the NC was immaterial to who he baptizes but on the other it makes all the difference in the world in the debate. 

This is the strange part about debating this issue. He admits that he doesn't know anybody is in the NC except for him but then keeps protecting baptism just for those who are in the NC.

It might be better to think of the debate as Gene debating the nature of the New Covenant as perfect and with the elect alone. We don't know anybody in it except us but it's important that we maintain this doctrinally.

On the other side Paul is actually arguing for the application of the sign for visible Church members and then Gene cries foul but spends hardly any time debating the practical theology of how recipients are to be determined. The only positive case he made for confession was that it was a more probably indication of regeneration. I find this strange because he outright denied this to me when I challenged him on this very point just two weeks ago.

It was a really good debate. Paul was a bit nervous with his last debate but here he was so solid that (and I know I'm biased) he blew Gene away.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Randy,

I thought I did but that's because you were trying to import different senses of the Abrahamic Promise that I simply disagree with exegetically. We all have our impressions I suppose.

Actually Paul dealt well with Gene on the different types of Abrahamic promise.

I think Paul made the strongest case in demonstrating continuity of _theme_ and _thought_. Gene, like most Baptists, has to argue from historical narrative (is to ought) and then infer from their view of an invisible Covenant to go back and draw sharp lines and re-cast all language as typological. In the end, it's a great construction and impressive but the _theme_ and _thought_ is left questionable. It begs the huge question about the silence of the people who now see their children cut off and they immediately are supposed to have constructed this entirely new Covenantal framework in the few hours it took them to be baptized. It's simply fantastic to assume that's the case.

I also reminded Paul that the Credo Baptist faces a much harder problem when he starts trying to defend what he does with his children and how he obeys Paul's admonitions to train them and how Paul enjoins children to obey on Promise. As Gene himself noted before the debate, our pre-suppositions will always cause us to see things clearly in a certain way. Internal critiques and our inability to handle them within our framework ought to indicate that the position fails. It is in practical theology (where the rubber meets the road) that Baptists are always most vulnerable.

But then again, I'm a padeo so my perspective is colored!

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> It was a really good debate. Paul was a bit nervous with his last debate but here he was so solid that (and I know I'm biased) he blew Gene away.




So, Paul




Gene away? 

There might be some bias in there


----------



## Kaalvenist

SemperFideles said:


> Point 1 - Argument from historical narrative. Poison the well by saying that all they're doing is accepting a Romish doctrine. Noticed this before in Gene. He actually didn't seem to understand the material difference between RC baptism and Reformed view as recently as a week ago.


I think Hughes Oliphant Old did the best job of refuting that argument, in the fifth chapter of his _The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century._ That chapter demonstrates two things, in my mind: (1.) The Reformed developed their understanding of and argument for infant baptism in a way entirely unlike that of the Papists before them, so that they cannot be accused of blindly accepting this principle from their Romish upbringing. (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

I don't think Gene does read much here. He's kind of busy and barely ever responds to the few e-mails I send encouraging him.

One thing that I did notice about Gene just 9 days ago was a profound ignorance of the difference between even Roman Catholic baptism and Reformed Baptism. He didn't even know, really, about how the RC sacerdotal system of infused merit worked based on a couple of comments. I found that kind of shocking because I figured he would have that down pat if he was going to so impiously charge Calvin, a man who he relies on for practically all his systematic theology with being unable to reform this one Sacrament.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.




The early Particular Baptists affirmed the CoW and CoG. It is biblical and they understood this. They were descendents from the Reformers and not from the Anabaptists. Covenant Theology rises above the doctrine of Baptism. It defines it. So your understanding of CT in Particluar or Reformed Baptist theology is lacking.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> Mark,
> 
> I don't think Gene does read much here. He's kind of busy and barely ever responds to the few e-mails I send encouraging him.
> 
> One thing that I did notice about Gene just 9 days ago was a profound ignorance of the difference between even Roman Catholic baptism and Reformed Baptism. He didn't even know, really, about how the RC sacerdotal system of infused merit worked based on a couple of comments. I found that kind of shocking because I figured he would have that down pat if he was going to so impiously charge Calvin, a man who he relies on for practically all his systematic theology with being unable to reform this one Sacrament.



Yeah, that's too bad. I was really hoping for some good interaction. Sounds like I will be disappointed. Has anybody heard Gene's other Padeobaptism debate? I just noticed he has a debate with a Pastor Roger Wagner of Bayview O.P.C. 

It will be interesting to hear/read both Gene and Paul's post-debate comments.


----------



## Kaalvenist

puritancovenanter said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The early Particular Baptists affirmed the CoW and CoG. It is biblical and they understood this. They were descendents from the Reformers and not from the Anabaptists. Covenant Theology rises above the doctrine of Baptism. It defines it. So your understanding of CT in Particluar or Reformed Baptist theology is lacking.
Click to expand...

Martin, you misunderstand me. I'm very aware of the doctrine of covenants in early Particular Baptist theology. But, as I was saying, Old places the origins of covenant theology with the Reformers' polemics against the Anabaptists, in the 1520s and '30s -- long before there was such a thing as a Particular Baptist.

A Baptist saying that they affirm "covenant theology," is like an Arminian saying that they affirm "election." What do they *mean* when they say that? In both cases, they mean something quite out of accord with the historic Reformed faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> [Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.





*BTW... I don't believe CT itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism... That is just a really bad argument. CT is not an invention of paedo baptism. If one needs the CoW and the CoG to be defined so as to justify paedo baptism than something is really out of place. *


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The early Particular Baptists affirmed the CoW and CoG. It is biblical and they understood this. They were descendents from the Reformers and not from the Anabaptists. Covenant Theology rises above the doctrine of Baptism. It defines it. So your understanding of CT in Particluar or Reformed Baptist theology is lacking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Martin, you misunderstand me. I'm very aware of the doctrine of covenants in early Particular Baptist theology. But, as I was saying, Old places the origins of covenant theology with the Reformers' polemics against the Anabaptists, in the 1520s and '30s -- long before there was such a thing as a Particular Baptist.
> 
> A Baptist saying that they affirm "covenant theology," is like an Arminian saying that they affirm "election." What do they *mean* when they say that? In both cases, they mean something quite out of accord with the historic Reformed faith.
Click to expand...


Your analogy is totally out of accord with truth. I affirm Covenant Theology. I believe in all of the Covenants.... Covenant of Redemption, Grace, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic. 

We disagree with the paedo's on who a New Covenant member is and on whom the sign should be placed upon. But we agree that the New Covenant Administers the Covenant of Grace just as the others have. Some of the Covenants administer both the Covenant of Works and Grace. The New Covenant Administers only the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Kaalvenist

puritancovenanter said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW... I don't believe CT itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism... That is just a really bad argument. CT is not an invention of paedo baptism. If one needs the CoW and the CoG to be defined so as to justify paedo baptism than something is really out of place. *
Click to expand...

Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. By "covenant theology," I am referring to a systematic explanation of God's covenants with men, with which we today ordinarily associate terms and concepts like "covenant of grace," "covenant of works," "covenant of redemption" (_pactum salutis_), etc. As an adherent of covenant theology, I believe that these are all real things, and really existed prior to the sixteenth century; but they were never explained in a clear, systematic fashion until the time of the Reformers. It is this systematizing which I refer to as "covenant theology," which was developed by the early Protestant Reformers (notably Zwingli and Bullinger) in prosecution of the polemic against the Anabaptistic rejection of paedobaptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era. White stated in his debate this very thing, a postulate I found independently in my own conversations with baptist brothers.

Consequently, baptists deny the necessity of a mixed administration. Paedo-covenantalists affirm it. We say it is a natural consequence of living in this world, it is a *necessary *condition. So, to our way of thinking, attempts to make the church function "as if" it is possible to baptize only the elect, and regenerate, is a hopeless attempt. It is impossible. Read my lips: NOT POSSIBLE. So, God has never required of the church what it is not possible for her to accomplish, NOT EVEN IN THEORY. Ergo, the basis for baptism must be something other than election/regeneration.

Paul made a strong, biblically based argument that the basis for baptism is "kingdom inclusion". And he showed how the Bible defined then who are those kingdom citizens. He did this by citing two forms of texts almost exclusively. OT citations from "New Covenant" texts, and NT citations. Gene's accusation of Paul relying on the OT to teach him how to interpret the NT did not materialize. Paul quoted far more of the OT than Gene did, but then agian, he also quoted FAR MORE OF THE NT AS WELL in support of his argument.

Seriously, if the debate went to the person who marshalled the most Scripture as "some defense or other" for his case, Paul would win on that point alone. He did not simply "shotgun" Scripture either. Each text was chosen for the purpose of defending a proposition he was using to build his case.

Gene's case rested on fewer Scriptures, texts he stated repeatedly had an "obvious meaning." Paul did challenge those "obvious" meanings, and offered how they could be made comportable with the view he defended. Mostly, Gene just ridiculed Paul's alternatives; I don't think he did well showing that Paul's suggestions actually failed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW... I don't believe CT itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism... That is just a really bad argument. CT is not an invention of paedo baptism. If one needs the CoW and the CoG to be defined so as to justify paedo baptism than something is really out of place. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. By "covenant theology," I am referring to a systematic explanation of God's covenants with men, with which we today ordinarily associate terms and concepts like "covenant of grace," "covenant of works," "covenant of redemption" (_pactum salutis_), etc. As an adherent of covenant theology, I believe that these are all real things, and really existed prior to the sixteenth century; but they were never explained in a clear, systematic fashion until the time of the Reformers. It is this systematizing which I refer to as "covenant theology," which was developed by the early Protestant Reformers (notably Zwingli and Bullinger) in prosecution of the polemic against the Anabaptistic rejection of paedobaptism.
Click to expand...


I agree with your assesment that CT was more defined by the Reformers. I also think that the Particular Baptists which are descendents of the Reformers came to understand the Covenants and the New Covenant more like John Owen and aligned themselves to their biblical understanding of baptism. As per your charge of anabaptist theology they have no part in it. And I think you are an honest man and would acknowledge that. They were covenant theologians. They were not anabaptists. The Particular Baptists did not share in the heritage of the anabaptist who were mostly anarchists and had other various weird beliefs depending on who and were they were. They may have shared in thought concerning antipaedobaptism but that is probably about all. That is why the first London Baptist Confession of Faith was written in 1644. It was written to answer some false charges against them and to affirm their beliefs as orthodox. They were Covenant Theologians and held to a bi-covenantal system also.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era. White stated in his debate this very thing, a postulate I found independently in my own conversations with baptist brothers.
> 
> Consequently, baptists deny the necessity of a mixed administration. Paedo-covenantalists affirm it. We say it is a natural consequence of living in this world, it is a *necessary *condition. So, to our way of thinking, attempts to make the church function "as if" it is possible to baptize only the elect, and regenerate, is a hopeless attempt. It is impossible. Read my lips: NOT POSSIBLE. So, God has never required of the church what it is not possible for her to accomplish, NOT EVEN IN THEORY. Ergo, the basis for baptism must be something other than election/regeneration.
> 
> Paul made a strong, biblically based argument that the basis for baptism is "kingdom inclusion". And he showed how the Bible defined then who are those kingdom citizens. He did this by citing two forms of texts almost exclusively. OT citations from "New Covenant" texts, and NT citations. Gene's accusation of Paul relying on the OT to teach him how to interpret the NT did not materialize. Paul quoted far more of the OT than Gene did, but then agian, he also quoted FAR MORE OF THE NT AS WELL in support of his argument.
> 
> Seriously, if the debate went to the person who marshalled the most Scripture as "some defense or other" for his case, Paul would win on that point alone. He did not simply "shotgun" Scripture either. Each text was chosen for the purpose of defending a proposition he was using to build his case.
> 
> Gene's case rested on fewer Scriptures, texts he stated repeatedly had an "obvious meaning." Paul did challenge those "obvious" meanings, and offered how they could be made comportable with the view he defended. Mostly, Gene just ridiculed Paul's alternatives; I don't think he did well showing that Paul's suggestions actually failed.



I am not one to argue the possibility of having unregenerate members in a congregation. It is a moot argument for me. There will always be some who crawl over the wall as Jesus noted or who aren't wearing the appropriate apparel. That is why I believe it is based upon a confession. It gets us one step closer so to speak. I also believe repentance is an important step. I can not discern true repentance but I can see and judge some fruit. 

We all assume our Elders are qualified men and regenerate. There is a reason for this. There are qualifications that are set up for this. I also believe there are qualifications for recepients of baptism and Church membership. Faith, Repentance, and Confession are a couple of good places to start. When I was in the RPCNA they examined me before I could partake of the Lord's table. It works on the same principle. 

Anyways. I am tired and will converse more on this after I actually listen to the debate. 

For Christ's Crown,
Randy


----------



## MW

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era.



I fully agree. I don't understand why non-paedobaptists continue to debate the nature of the new covenant, when it is clear that baptism is not related to covenant in their view.


----------



## Kaalvenist

puritancovenanter said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The early Particular Baptists affirmed the CoW and CoG. It is biblical and they understood this. They were descendents from the Reformers and not from the Anabaptists. Covenant Theology rises above the doctrine of Baptism. It defines it. So your understanding of CT in Particluar or Reformed Baptist theology is lacking.
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, you misunderstand me. I'm very aware of the doctrine of covenants in early Particular Baptist theology. But, as I was saying, Old places the origins of covenant theology with the Reformers' polemics against the Anabaptists, in the 1520s and '30s -- long before there was such a thing as a Particular Baptist.
> 
> A Baptist saying that they affirm "covenant theology," is like an Arminian saying that they affirm "election." What do they *mean* when they say that? In both cases, they mean something quite out of accord with the historic Reformed faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy is totally out of accord with truth. I affirm Covenant Theology. I believe in all of the Covenants.... Covenant of Redemption, Grace, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic.
> 
> We disagree with the paedo's on who a New Covenant member is and on whom the sign should be placed upon. But we agree that the New Covenant Administers the Covenant of Grace just as the others have. Some of the Covenants administer both the Covenant of Works and Grace. The New Covenant Administers only the Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...

If you really think that's all you disagree on, compare Chapter VII of the Westminster Confession of Faith with Chapter VII of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.


----------



## Kaalvenist

puritancovenanter said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BTW... I don't believe CT itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism... That is just a really bad argument. CT is not an invention of paedo baptism. If one needs the CoW and the CoG to be defined so as to justify paedo baptism than something is really out of place. *
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. By "covenant theology," I am referring to a systematic explanation of God's covenants with men, with which we today ordinarily associate terms and concepts like "covenant of grace," "covenant of works," "covenant of redemption" (_pactum salutis_), etc. As an adherent of covenant theology, I believe that these are all real things, and really existed prior to the sixteenth century; but they were never explained in a clear, systematic fashion until the time of the Reformers. It is this systematizing which I refer to as "covenant theology," which was developed by the early Protestant Reformers (notably Zwingli and Bullinger) in prosecution of the polemic against the Anabaptistic rejection of paedobaptism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with your assesment that CT was more defined by the Reformers. I also think that the Particular Baptists which are descendents of the Reformers came to understand the Covenants and the New Covenant more like John Owen and aligned themselves to their biblical understanding of baptism. As per your charge of anabaptist theology they have no part in it. And I think you are an honest man and would acknowledge that. They were covenant theologians. They were not anabaptists. The Particular Baptists did not share in the heritage of the anabaptist who were mostly anarchists and had other various weird beliefs depending on who and were they were. They may have shared in thought concerning antipaedobaptism but that is probably about all. That is why the first London Baptist Confession of Faith was written in 1644. It was written to answer some false charges against them and to affirm their beliefs as orthodox. They were Covenant Theologians and held to a bi-covenantal system also.
Click to expand...

I was trying to *distinguish* the English Particular Baptists from the Anabaptists, not *identify* the two with each other. Remember, I said that this was largely developed in the 1520s and '30s, against the Anabaptists; name for me just one Particular Baptist from that period, if you can.


----------



## Ruben100

I was there and sat in the front row with my friend J.D.
Paul Manata did great. Paul was last to say his closing statements and dropped the bomb on all of Genes arguments. After it was over the Pastor said next Sunday evening all the elders of Murrieta and Gene Cook only would be their to answer all the questions that didn't get asked because of time. There going to need more than 1 sunday evening to clean up Pauls bomb debri.
Gene had said that the Reformers didn't reform the doctrine of baptism from Roman Catholic just modified it. 
At the end during the questions from the audience there was a ? given to Gene about baby dedications and if that was biblical and Gene said no it was a tradition. 
So Paul using the same argument said that Baptist have not reformed baby dedications.
All I know is that Gene was no match for Paul Manata.


----------



## Kaalvenist

puritancovenanter said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era. White stated in his debate this very thing, a postulate I found independently in my own conversations with baptist brothers.
> 
> Consequently, baptists deny the necessity of a mixed administration. Paedo-covenantalists affirm it. We say it is a natural consequence of living in this world, it is a *necessary *condition. So, to our way of thinking, attempts to make the church function "as if" it is possible to baptize only the elect, and regenerate, is a hopeless attempt. It is impossible. Read my lips: NOT POSSIBLE. So, God has never required of the church what it is not possible for her to accomplish, NOT EVEN IN THEORY. Ergo, the basis for baptism must be something other than election/regeneration.
> 
> Paul made a strong, biblically based argument that the basis for baptism is "kingdom inclusion". And he showed how the Bible defined then who are those kingdom citizens. He did this by citing two forms of texts almost exclusively. OT citations from "New Covenant" texts, and NT citations. Gene's accusation of Paul relying on the OT to teach him how to interpret the NT did not materialize. Paul quoted far more of the OT than Gene did, but then agian, he also quoted FAR MORE OF THE NT AS WELL in support of his argument.
> 
> Seriously, if the debate went to the person who marshalled the most Scripture as "some defense or other" for his case, Paul would win on that point alone. He did not simply "shotgun" Scripture either. Each text was chosen for the purpose of defending a proposition he was using to build his case.
> 
> Gene's case rested on fewer Scriptures, texts he stated repeatedly had an "obvious meaning." Paul did challenge those "obvious" meanings, and offered how they could be made comportable with the view he defended. Mostly, Gene just ridiculed Paul's alternatives; I don't think he did well showing that Paul's suggestions actually failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not one to argue the possibility of having unregenerate members in a congregation. It is a mute argument for me. There will always be some who crawl over the wall as Jesus noted or who aren't wearing the appropriate apparel. That is why I believe it is based upon a confession. It gets us one step closer so to speak. I also believe repentance is an important step. I can not discern true repentance but I can see and judge some fruit.
> 
> We all assume our Elders are qualified men and regenerate. There is a reason for this. There are qualifications that are set up for this. I also believe there are qualifications for recepients of baptism and Church membership. Faith, Repentance, and Confession are a couple of good places to start. When I was in the RPCNA they examined me before I could partake of the Lord's table. It works on the same principle.
> 
> Anyways. I am tired and will converse more on this after I actually listen to the debate.
> 
> For Christ's Crown,
> Randy
Click to expand...

I made a blog post that touched a bit on this a while back. It didn't garner too much discussion on the PB; but interestingly enough, someone linked some of it to Gene Cook. He replied that Hebrews 8 had nothing to do with visible church membership. I had to chime in myself, after that. So yeah... these same inconsistencies were popping up back in March.

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/03/open-phones-friday-032307-show-773.html

"Regenerate church membership" is something very different than "church membership on the basis of a credible profession of faith." Please don't pretend that they're identical, or that the latter is how we execute the former, or something similar.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree. I don't understand why non-paedobaptists continue to debate the nature of the new covenant, when it is clear that baptism is not related to covenant in their view.
Click to expand...


I don't either. I sound like a broken record here in this forum on that point.

I have a theory, though, that without that issue then their theological discussions would be pretty short.

I mean, really, just how long an argument can you make if you rely on a few historical narratives to look at a handful of adult baptisms and argue from _is_ to _ought_? That's about all that is left when the curtain is pulled away. Paul actually did Gene a favor by sticking so close to the argument over the nature of the NC. That's where the comfort level is. It's the Center of Gravity for their position and it is hard to get them to see that they're defaulting back to it when they're challenged on the weakness of their case wrt historical narrative. I probably counted about three times where Gene asserted and then backed off the notion that he baptizes the regenerate.

I remember the very first time I encountered the Reformed Credo argument was when I asked James White about it. He pointed me to a few sermons he did on Hebrews about the perfection of the NC. I kept waiting for the shoe to drop - where was the argument for baptism. Being unfamiliar with their arguments, I simply could not draw a connection between the elect and the visible application of a sign. I thought for a moment and then connected the dots: "Oh, they're saying that they baptize the elect."

As you and I discussed, everywhere that they see a passage in the NT that deals with believers, we see a discussion of the benefits of those united to Christ. In fact, by keeping that distinction clear in our minds, we don't fall into the error of presumption. Every time a Baptist wants to point to a verse about Christ mediating the NC, I can heartily say "Amen!" to that verse and know His benefits extend to the elect.

But then a Baptist makes two fatal flaws. First, he presumes that profession gives a false assurance both to the believer and the Church as to the "election" of a man. Second, they undermine the very nature of discipleship that grows a man from immaturity to maturity.

I noted to Paul as I was helping him prepare some possible crosses how the Baptist has to be reminded that Paul (the Apostle) calls children of believers holy. It is very revealing how passages that Paul presents naturally to the Body in his Epistles have to be explained in a very complex fashion by those who do not naturally consider their children as holy. It is also very telling how they don't seem to instinctively know what to do with passages where Paul tells them to raise up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord or reminds the children of a promise from God by obeying the 5th Commandment.

I note these points because when a system doesn't have room for these ideas then it ought to cause people to re-consder their theological system.

I can honestly state that I have yet to find a passage that gives the paedobaptist Reformed view a difficulty. I know, externally, Baptists don't like the fact that we conceive of a visible administration of the NC that includes Covenant breakers but that is an abstract objection as Gene himself acknowledged since he cannot produce the body of the actual unregenerate person we're knowingly admitting to the COG.


----------



## CDM

SemperFideles said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fully agree. I don't understand why non-paedobaptists continue to debate the nature of the new covenant, when it is clear that baptism is not related to covenant in their view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't either. I sound like a broken record here in this forum on that point.
> 
> I have a theory, though, that without that issue then their theological discussions would be pretty short.
> 
> I mean, really, just how long an argument can you make if you rely on a few historical narratives to look at a handful of adult baptisms and argue from _is_ to _ought_? That's about all that is left when the curtain is pulled away. Paul actually did Gene a favor by sticking so close to the argument over the nature of the NC. That's where the comfort level is. It's the Center of Gravity for their position and it is hard to get them to see that they're defaulting back to it when they're challenged on the weakness of their case wrt historical narrative. I probably counted about three times where Gene asserted and then backed off the notion that he baptizes the regenerate.
> 
> I remember the very first time I encountered the Reformed Credo argument was when I asked James White about it. He pointed me to a few sermons he did on Hebrews about the perfection of the NC. I kept waiting for the shoe to drop - where was the argument for baptism. Being unfamiliar with their arguments, I simply could not draw a connection between the elect and the visible application of a sign. I thought for a moment and then connected the dots: "Oh, they're saying that they baptize the elect."
> 
> As you and I discussed, everywhere that they see a passage in the NT that deals with believers, we see a discussion of the benefits of those united to Christ. In fact, by keeping that distinction clear in our minds, we don't fall into the error of presumption. Every time a Baptist wants to point to a verse about Christ mediating the NC, I can heartily say "Amen!" to that verse and know His benefits extend to the elect.
> 
> But then a Baptist makes two fatal flaws. First, he presumes that profession gives a false assurance both to the believer and the Church as to the "election" of a man. Second, they undermine the very nature of discipleship that grows a man from immaturity to maturity.
> 
> I noted to Paul as I was helping him prepare some possible crosses how the Baptist has to be reminded that Paul (the Apostle) calls children of believers holy. It is very revealing how passages that Paul presents naturally to the Body in his Epistles have to be explained in a very complex fashion by those who do not naturally consider their children as holy. It is also very telling how they don't seem to instinctively know what to do with passages where Paul tells them to raise up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord or reminds the children of a promise from God by obeying the 5th Commandment.
> 
> I note these points because when a system doesn't have room for these ideas then it ought to cause people to re-consder their theological system.
> 
> I can honestly state that I have yet to find a passage that gives the paedobaptist Reformed view a difficulty. I know, externally, Baptists don't like the fact that we conceive of a visible administration of the NC that includes Covenant breakers but that is an abstract objection as Gene himself acknowledged since he cannot produce the body of the actual unregenerate person we're knowingly admitting to the COG.
Click to expand...


When is the podcast going to be available?


----------



## Greg

mangum said:


> When is the podcast going to be available?



Ditto that.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Arrgg ... I missed the debate live, hope that they are still going to put the mp3 online...

I would like to know what percentage of the audience change side after the debate...


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Mark,
> 
> I don't think Gene does read much here. He's kind of busy and barely ever responds to the few e-mails I send encouraging him.
> 
> One thing that I did notice about Gene just 9 days ago was a profound ignorance of the difference between even Roman Catholic baptism and Reformed Baptism. He didn't even know, really, about how the RC sacerdotal system of infused merit worked based on a couple of comments. I found that kind of shocking because I figured he would have that down pat if he was going to so impiously charge Calvin, a man who he relies on for practically all his systematic theology with being unable to reform this one Sacrament.



Gene understands the difference, and that was his point. Gene clearly said that the Reformers were baptizing infants on a different theological basis than the way they themselves were baptized. I don't know how he could have made it clearer that there was a difference between Roman and Reformed paedobaptism.

His point was that the Reformers kept the practice of infant baptism but had to reformulate the biblical justification for it. In other words, Gene believes that the Reformers were guilty of eisegesis by searching the Scriptures to find ground for their already existing practice of infant baptism and coming up with a non-salvific, covenantal argument that had never been formulated until that time.

This is why Gene called this the "un-Reformed doctrine" of the Reformation. He was not saying that the Reformers didn't reform that doctrine at all, but he was saying that they didn't reform it enough.

EDIT: Just realized that you were not referring to that portion of the debate. Oh well.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era. White stated in his debate this very thing, a postulate I found independently in my own conversations with baptist brothers.




I am not sure what you mean by this Bruce. I would agree that the CoG did not have a sign of its own before the Covenant with Abraham. But the NC has a sign called Baptism. In fact a new Book has been written called Believer's Baptism Sign of the New Covenant edited by Thomas R. Shreiner and Shawn D. Wright.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

B.J. said:


> I don't know what all the excitement is about. Everyone knows that a paedo has never lost a debate about baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Just ask any paedo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose Baptist know they lose all of them then, or should I ask a Baptist?
Click to expand...



You can ask me. I will not agree with you necessarily. Like I said, just because one wins a debate doesn't make him the professor of truth. It means his argument was better.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, you misunderstand me. I'm very aware of the doctrine of covenants in early Particular Baptist theology. But, as I was saying, Old places the origins of covenant theology with the Reformers' polemics against the Anabaptists, in the 1520s and '30s -- long before there was such a thing as a Particular Baptist.
> 
> A Baptist saying that they affirm "covenant theology," is like an Arminian saying that they affirm "election." What do they *mean* when they say that? In both cases, they mean something quite out of accord with the historic Reformed faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your analogy is totally out of accord with truth. I affirm Covenant Theology. I believe in all of the Covenants.... Covenant of Redemption, Grace, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic.
> 
> We disagree with the paedo's on who a New Covenant member is and on whom the sign should be placed upon. But we agree that the New Covenant Administers the Covenant of Grace just as the others have. Some of the Covenants administer both the Covenant of Works and Grace. The New Covenant Administers only the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you really think that's all you disagree on, compare Chapter VII of the Westminster Confession of Faith with Chapter VII of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Click to expand...


First off I never said that Baptism was the only thing we disagreed on. But moving on to your point.... Are you referring to the part on the covenant of works? I know that The LBCF is different in this chapter concerning the CoW but the LBCF does affirm the CoW in chapters 19 and 20. Where is the disagreement? I agree with the last sentence also. And that doesn't make either of us dispensationalists.

WCF 7. 6 There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kaalvenist said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. By "covenant theology," I am referring to a systematic explanation of God's covenants with men, with which we today ordinarily associate terms and concepts like "covenant of grace," "covenant of works," "covenant of redemption" (_pactum salutis_), etc. As an adherent of covenant theology, I believe that these are all real things, and really existed prior to the sixteenth century; but they were never explained in a clear, systematic fashion until the time of the Reformers. It is this systematizing which I refer to as "covenant theology," which was developed by the early Protestant Reformers (notably Zwingli and Bullinger) in prosecution of the polemic against the Anabaptistic rejection of paedobaptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with your assesment that CT was more defined by the Reformers. I also think that the Particular Baptists which are descendents of the Reformers came to understand the Covenants and the New Covenant more like John Owen and aligned themselves to their biblical understanding of baptism. As per your charge of anabaptist theology they have no part in it. And I think you are an honest man and would acknowledge that. They were covenant theologians. They were not anabaptists. The Particular Baptists did not share in the heritage of the anabaptist who were mostly anarchists and had other various weird beliefs depending on who and were they were. They may have shared in thought concerning antipaedobaptism but that is probably about all. That is why the first London Baptist Confession of Faith was written in 1644. It was written to answer some false charges against them and to affirm their beliefs as orthodox. They were Covenant Theologians and held to a bi-covenantal system also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was trying to *distinguish* the English Particular Baptists from the Anabaptists, not *identify* the two with each other. Remember, I said that this was largely developed in the 1520s and '30s, against the Anabaptists; name for me just one Particular Baptist from that period, if you can.
Click to expand...



You seem to be saying that Covenantal Baptists are an oxymoron earlier because CT was systemitized as a response to the Anabaptists. By this I assumed you were equating the two... 

Another thing... I didn't say there were any Particular Baptist from the early era of Reformers. I said we are descendents from the Reformers and not the anabaptists. You seem to be getting lost in the conversation. Or maybe I am not following your line of thought.


----------



## JonathanHunt

puritancovenanter said:


> I am not sure what you mean by this Bruce. I would agree that the CoG did not have a sign of its own before the Covenant with Abraham. But the NC has a sign called Baptism. In fact a new Book has been written called Believer's Baptism Sign of the New Covenant edited by Thomas R. Shreiner and Shawn D. Wright.




Wow. Why aren't they Paedobaptists then? Because if Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant and Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, what warrant is there for applying the sign in a different fashion? I would be interested to hear!

The 1689 confession does not state that Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. I don't believe that the scriptures state this either (which is of course more important). If I did, then frankly, I would be splashing babies.

JH

JH


----------



## elnwood

*Discontinuity in Church Discipline*

One of the disagreements between Gene and Paul Manata was the nature of church discipline. Paul sees NT church discipline as a covenantal removal whereas Gene sees this as a safeguard against false professors of faith.

There seems to be a discontinuity in how church discipline is conducted. It is true that the passages in the NT uses OT covenantal language (Deut 17:7) to describe the removal of people, but the application is much different.

For example, if there is a major sin, in the OT that person is taken outside the camp and stoned, regardless of whether they show repentance, but in the NT, no matter how great the sin, they are brought back if they show repentance.

If there is a minor sin, there is no proscription for "purging the evil" by putting to death, but in the NT, if there is no repentance, even a minor sin requires church discipline.

Physical Israel in the Old Covenant were disobedient, giving much evidence of not being regenerated, but God continually calls disobedient Israel his people up until the establishment of the New Covenant, where they are said to be cut off for their disobedience.

So I tend to think that the Old Covenant ideas of covenant inclusion and exclusion are not the same as New Covenant ideas, but as Gene says, are types of shadows. Old Covenant was a physical sign (circumcision) based on physical descent (children) to a physical people (Israel) with exclusion by physical, external disobedience (grave sins), whereas New Covenant is given a spiritual sign (water baptism, representing the spirit) based on spiritual descent (evidencing regeneration) to a spiritual people (the church) with exclusion based on unrepentant sin, which is evidence of not being spiritually regenerated.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JonathanHunt said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by this Bruce. I would agree that the CoG did not have a sign of its own before the Covenant with Abraham. But the NC has a sign called Baptism. In fact a new Book has been written called Believer's Baptism Sign of the New Covenant edited by Thomas R. Shreiner and Shawn D. Wright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Why aren't they Paedobaptists then? Because if Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant and Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, what warrant is there for applying the sign in a different fashion? I would be interested to hear!
> 
> The 1689 confession does not state that Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. I don't believe that the scriptures state this either (which is of course more important). If I did, then frankly, I would be splashing babies.
> 
> 
> 
> JH
> 
> JH
Click to expand...


Baptism does signify something. It is a sign of something. The argument of why we don't baptize infants is because the New Covenant member is one whose sins are forgiven and they are raised to new life in Christ. Jeremiah 31 and even Colossians 2:12 speak of this. That is what Baptism signifies. It is based upon the fact that one has responded in calling upon the Lord for salvation and has repented of sins. 

Why would you be splashing babies if Baptism is a sign. You need to read Nehemiah Coxe's book 'Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ' Jonathan. The Covenant of Circumcision is dealt with in detail and you would see the differences easily.

And just for you Presbyterian's....

I am not one to argue the possibility of having unregenerate members in a congregation. It is a moot argument for me. There will always be some who crawl over the wall as Jesus noted or who aren't wearing the appropriate apparel. That is why I believe it is based upon a confession. It gets us one step closer so to speak. I also believe repentance is an important step. I can not discern true repentance but I can see and judge some fruit. 

We all assume our Elders are qualified men and regenerate. There is a reason for this. There are qualifications that are set up for this. I also believe there are qualifications for recepients of baptism and Church membership. Faith, Repentance, and Confession are a couple of good places to start. When I was in the RPCNA they examined me before I could partake of the Lord's table. It works on the same principle.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

MOOT! MOOT! The term is MOOT! Not MUTE!

AAAArrrraararrraaghhhghngngnngngn ....  [lock me up put me ina loonybin]


----------



## Civbert

Contra_Mundum said:


> MOOT! MOOT! The term is MOOT! Not MUTE!
> 
> AAAArrrraararrraaghhhghngngnngngn ....  [lock me up put me ina loonybin]



quiet ... or do I mean quite?!?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> MOOT! MOOT! The term is MOOT! Not MUTE!
> 
> AAAArrrraararrraaghhhghngngnngngn ....  [lock me up put me ina loonybin]



I fixed it. Sorry for my ignorance. I was evidently deaf on that day in spelling class. MOOT.... Now you quit hitting your head Pastor.


----------



## VictorBravo

Contra_Mundum said:


> MOOT! MOOT! The term is MOOT! Not MUTE!
> 
> AAAArrrraararrraaghhhghngngnngngn ....  [lock me up put me ina loonybin]



 Don't get me started on the *MUT*ation of the use of "moot" from a point of serious debate to the present use meaning irrelevant discussion.


----------



## JonathanHunt

puritancovenanter said:


> Baptism does signify something. It is a sign of something.



I know, brother! But I do not accept that it is 'THE SIGN' of the New Covenant as Circumcision was 'THE SIGN' of the old.



> Why would you be splashing babies if Baptism is a sign.



If Baptism is THE sign of the New Covenant, not if it is A sign.



> You need to read Nehemiah Coxe's book 'Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ' Jonathan. The Covenant of Circumcision is dealt with in detail and you would see the differences easily.



Chalk another one up for the long 'to read' list. I'm not denying that there are 'differences' - what I'm saying is that when Baptists assert that Baptism is 'THE SIGN' of the NC it is very hard indeed to assert that there is no connection between that, and 'THE SIGN' of the OC, Circumcision.

JH


----------



## sotzo

This issue will forever come down to one's hermeneutic, specifically with regard to soteriology. One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people. To be sure, both the OT and NT demonstrate instances of God bringing salvation on those outside of familial ties to believers. But to say these instances lay aside the overall Biblical teaching of God's working through families, sacraments and all, is akin (no pun intended) to what antinomians say about the role of law in our lives this side of the cross. (BTW, I'm not equating our credo brethren with antinomians...only saying that I see strong similarities in the hermeneutic both use to arrive at their conclusions.)


----------



## elnwood

sotzo said:


> This issue will forever come down to one's hermeneutic, specifically with regard to soteriology. One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people. To be sure, both the OT and NT demonstrate instances of God bringing salvation on those outside of familial ties to believers. But to say these instances lay aside the overall Biblical teaching of God's working through families, sacraments and all, is akin (no pun intended) to what antinomians say about the role of law in our lives this side of the cross. (BTW, I'm not equating our credo brethren with antinomians...only saying that I see strong similarities in the hermeneutic both use to arrive at their conclusions.)



"Not one shred"? What about these verses?

[BIBLE]Jeremiah 31: 27-30[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-37[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Luke 12:51-53[/BIBLE]

[BIBLE]Luke 14:26[/BIBLE]

What Greek word is used for house? Why, oikos, as in the oikos "household" principle used for infant baptism. A "divided" household? Yes, indeed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> And just for you Presbyterian's....
> 
> I am not one to argue the possibility of having unregenerate members in a congregation. It is a moot argument for me. There will always be some who crawl over the wall as Jesus noted or who aren't wearing the appropriate apparel. That is why I believe it is based upon a confession. It gets us one step closer so to speak. I also believe repentance is an important step. I can not discern true repentance but I can see and judge some fruit.


This is an argument that the Scriptures themselves do not make. You are, in fact, allowing far too easily for the admission of the unregenerate but are presumptuous to assume confession is a bar that greatly ameliorates it. To state that an adult who then rejects the faith is to be put out is as obvious on the nose on one's face but the assumption that, to begin with, you're not permitting the unregenarate into your midst is ridiculous.

In fact, Baptists of all people, in their view of children as unregenerate admit them much too close to the people of God. They are brought into the most intimate aspects of body life. No conversations are spared their "unregenerate" ears. They're not merely invitees to Church service but everything you do. Were you to be consistent, it would be better you got somebody to watch your kids for you while you and your wife went into pray.

What precisely is the _formal_ difference, in fact, in how you treat your children from the way you treat a brother in the Lord? What activities, beside the Lord's Supper, which you view as a bare sign, are they actually barred from? 



> We all assume our Elders are qualified men and regenerate. There is a reason for this. There are qualifications that are set up for this. I also believe there are qualifications for recepients of baptism and Church membership. Faith, Repentance, and Confession are a couple of good places to start. When I was in the RPCNA they examined me before I could partake of the Lord's table. It works on the same principle.


No, not the same principle. In fact, you don't even live your life by the same principle. You train your children from the knee to mature to be able to participate in activiities that you and I could easily participate in as being of majority status. Baptists live their lives one way in the natural understanding of what their kids are and are not capable of but then forget the very created order when they start talking theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will forever come down to one's hermeneutic, specifically with regard to soteriology. One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people. To be sure, both the OT and NT demonstrate instances of God bringing salvation on those outside of familial ties to believers. But to say these instances lay aside the overall Biblical teaching of God's working through families, sacraments and all, is akin (no pun intended) to what antinomians say about the role of law in our lives this side of the cross. (BTW, I'm not equating our credo brethren with antinomians...only saying that I see strong similarities in the hermeneutic both use to arrive at their conclusions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not one shred"? What about these verses?
> 
> [BIBLE]Jeremiah 31: 27-30[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-37[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Luke 12:51-53[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Luke 14:26[/BIBLE]
> 
> What Greek word is used for house? Why, oikos, as in the oikos "household" principle used for infant baptism. A "divided" household? Yes, indeed.
Click to expand...


Like he said, Don, not a shred of evidence. These verses are typical eisegesis. In fact, by the way you infer them, you impiously and monstrously have Christ practically _commanding_ people to hate their own flesh. I do believe you will have to repent to your Savior for laying that at His feet some day. In the context of those verses, the issue is always when one family member has gone after Christ while the others have rejected them. Christ nowhere makes this _normative_ nor does He argue for individuality in these verses.

What application would you suggest we make of this for parents of young children, Don? That they hate them?

The household principle is not some ridiculous guarantee that all in the family will inexorably follow after Christ. An elementary understanding of the Covenant and what men of all ages have been commanded knows that there are those that reject it. The issue is the intent of the parents toward their children and whether they have the right, duty, and privilege to train up the child that has been placed in the home by Divine Providence. You would seem to think Christ undermines this principle where Paul reiterates as a _command_ to fathers to train his children. Nowhere in the Epistles (which shed light on the Gospels) are men taught to work toward the disunity of their homes. In fact, a man is disqualified from the Office of Elder if his children are not in subjection.

This line of argument is of the worst sort for Baptists and I do wish they could see that they lose the War in trying to win a single battle.

In fact, I never meet Baptists who actually live this way. The dissonance between argument and life is incredible.


----------



## Poimen

The irony about this division within household is that this was occurring in the old covenant as well:

Micah 7:5-6 "Do not trust in a friend; Do not put your confidence in a companion; Guard the doors of your mouth From her who lies in your bosom. For son dishonors father, Daughter rises against her mother, Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man's enemies are the men of his own household."

This, of course, is standard covenant theology. See Genesis 3:15ff; Galatians 4:29. It doesn't disprove paedobaptism but rather establishes it since it assumes that one can be a member of the covenant of grace and yet break covenant through rebellious unbelief. 

See here for a more detailed explanation: http://puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1


----------



## Wannabee

with what Jonathan said regarding baptism.


elnwood said:


> One of the disagreements between Gene and Paul Manata was the nature of church discipline. Paul sees NT church discipline as a covenantal removal whereas Gene sees this as a safeguard against false professors of faith.



There is a possibility that I don't fully understand the full implication because I didn't hear the statements in context. However, as stated here, I couldn't disagree more. The practice isn't even labeled correctly because so many lose sight of it's fundamental purpose. Matthew 18:15 makes it clear that the purpose, from beginning to end, is to restore a brother (Gal. 6). It is never to discipline. Discipline is a last resort as a result of an inability on the part of the church to bring a sinning brother to repentance, regardless of what his specific sin is. To sacrifice repentance and restoration on the altar of discipline (whether protection against apostacy or whatever) does a horrible injustice to all passages related to seeking repentance and restoration.
If, however, the final act must take place, it is obviously to seek the purity of the bride of Christ, regardless of the terminology we use. Perhaps this was the focus on the comments, in which case my above rant is moot (mute, muit, muet, myute).


----------



## elnwood

Wannabee said:


> with what Jonathan said regarding baptism.
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the disagreements between Gene and Paul Manata was the nature of church discipline. Paul sees NT church discipline as a covenantal removal whereas Gene sees this as a safeguard against false professors of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a possibility that I don't fully understand the full implication because I didn't hear the statements in context. However, as stated here, I couldn't disagree more. The practice isn't even labeled correctly because so many lose sight of it's fundamental purpose. Matthew 18:15 makes it clear that the purpose, from beginning to end, is to restore a brother (Gal. 6). It is never to discipline. Discipline is a last resort as a result of an inability on the part of the church to bring a sinning brother to repentance, regardless of what his specific sin is. To sacrifice repentance and restoration on the altar of discipline (whether protection against apostacy or whatever) does a horrible injustice to all passages related to seeking repentance and restoration.
> If, however, the final act must take place, it is obviously to seek the purity of the bride of Christ, regardless of the terminology we use. Perhaps this was the focus on the comments, in which case my above rant is moot (mute, muit, muet, myute).
Click to expand...


Wannabee, I couldn't agree with you more, and I trust Gene and Paul would also agree with you. In the NT, church discipline is to restore. Paul believes that, when it takes place, that it is "covenant removal" because he identifies the church membership, or visible church, with the new covenant. Gene (and I) believe that church discipline is a safeguard against false converts in that a true believer repents from sin whereas a false believer continues in sin.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will forever come down to one's hermeneutic, specifically with regard to soteriology. One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people. To be sure, both the OT and NT demonstrate instances of God bringing salvation on those outside of familial ties to believers. But to say these instances lay aside the overall Biblical teaching of God's working through families, sacraments and all, is akin (no pun intended) to what antinomians say about the role of law in our lives this side of the cross. (BTW, I'm not equating our credo brethren with antinomians...only saying that I see strong similarities in the hermeneutic both use to arrive at their conclusions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Not one shred"? What about these verses?
> 
> [BIBLE]Jeremiah 31: 27-30[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-37[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Luke 12:51-53[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Luke 14:26[/BIBLE]
> 
> What Greek word is used for house? Why, oikos, as in the oikos "household" principle used for infant baptism. A "divided" household? Yes, indeed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like he said, Don, not a shred of evidence. These verses are typical eisegesis. In fact, by the way you infer them, you impiously and monstrously have Christ practically _commanding_ people to hate their own flesh. I do believe you will have to repent to your Savior for laying that at His feet some day. In the context of those verses, the issue is always when one family member has gone after Christ while the others have rejected them. Christ nowhere makes this _normative_ nor does He argue for individuality in these verses.
> 
> What application would you suggest we make of this for parents of young children, Don? That they hate them?
> 
> The household principle is not some ridiculous guarantee that all in the family will inexorably follow after Christ. An elementary understanding of the Covenant and what men of all ages have been commanded knows that there are those that reject it. The issue is the intent of the parents toward their children and whether they have the right, duty, and privilege to train up the child that has been placed in the home by Divine Providence. You would seem to think Christ undermines this principle where Paul reiterates as a _command_ to fathers to train his children. Nowhere in the Epistles (which shed light on the Gospels) are men taught to work toward the disunity of their homes. In fact, a man is disqualified from the Office of Elder if his children are not in subjection.
> 
> This line of argument is of the worst sort for Baptists and I do wish they could see that they lose the War in trying to win a single battle.
> 
> In fact, I never meet Baptists who actually live this way. The dissonance between argument and life is incredible.
Click to expand...


Rich, you are assuming all sorts of arguments from these verses that I have not stated. The original post says that salvation is never separated from families: "One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people." I think this is a straight-forward refutation.

And did you even read the Jeremiah verse? What is Jeremiah saying is different in the New Covenant?


----------



## elnwood

Poimen said:


> The irony about this division within household is that this was occurring in the old covenant as well:
> 
> Micah 7:5-6 "Do not trust in a friend; Do not put your confidence in a companion; Guard the doors of your mouth From her who lies in your bosom. For son dishonors father, Daughter rises against her mother, Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man's enemies are the men of his own household."
> 
> This, of course, is standard covenant theology. See Genesis 3:15ff; Galatians 4:29. It doesn't disprove paedobaptism but rather establishes it since it assumes that one can be a member of the covenant of grace and yet break covenant through rebellious unbelief.
> 
> See here for a more detailed explanation: http://puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1



Please respond to my post on church discipline, then. So how come we don't see all those rebellious people cast off from the covenant and executed? Why are they still called God's people until the New Covenant?


----------



## Wannabee

elnwood said:


> Wannabee, I couldn't agree with you more, and I trust Gene and Paul would also agree with you. In the NT, church discipline is to restore. Paul believes that, when it takes place, that it is "covenant removal" because he identifies the church membership, or visible church, with the new covenant. Gene (and I) believe that church discipline is a safeguard against false converts in that a true believer repents from sin whereas a false believer continues in sin.


Thanks for the clarification Don. It's a hot button for me. I've actually heard of examples of pastors who thought that they weren't doing their job unless they were "practicing" church discipline every so often. Therefore they would seek out a reason to pursue it within their church, even if nothing seemed forthcoming. Now, that's an abomination.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Rich, you are assuming all sorts of arguments from these verses that I have not stated. The original post says that salvation is never separated from families: "One looks in vain in the OT to find God treating people individually without respect to their familial ties, whether by blood, adoption or otherwise (servants). There is not one shred of the NT that indicates a reversal of this means of God's working in the lives of his people." I think this is a straight-forward refutation.
> 
> And did you even read the Jeremiah verse? What is Jeremiah saying is different in the New Covenant?



No, sotzo never used the word salvation. He said you will never find instances where God is working on an individualistic basis apart from families. You responded by quoting verses from Jeremiah and from the Gospels that I presumed were meant to argue for individualism. Neither Jeremiah nor the Gospel passages cited argues for individualism.

When one's own relatives do not come after Christ then it is a sad thing. I've had to make my own choices in life to "hate" mother and brother for the sake of Christ and leave the Roman Catholic Church. That does not, in turn, imply that I am not commanded to raise my own children in the fear and admonition of the Lord as repeatedly commanded to Abraham's descendents and _reiterated by Paul_ so as to leave dispensationalist thinking without excuse.

Those who wish to critique Reformed Paedobaptism will have to do so on the basis of what it teaches and not on the basis of what they wish it taught. We do not see salvation in homes as some sort of gumball machine. A saved child is elect if he is saved. The means of a faithful household are an ordinary means but, by no means, the only one. The fact that a Godly home is a regular means to the salvation of God's elect not only super-abounds in the Word but it is an emperical fact even when you look at Baptist Churches who see the conversion of their children against all their stated expectations.


----------



## Pilgrim

Kaalvenist said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point 1 - Argument from historical narrative. Poison the well by saying that all they're doing is accepting a Romish doctrine. Noticed this before in Gene. He actually didn't seem to understand the material difference between RC baptism and Reformed view as recently as a week ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Hughes Oliphant Old did the best job of refuting that argument, in the fifth chapter of his _The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century._ That chapter demonstrates two things, in my mind: (1.) The Reformed developed their understanding of and argument for infant baptism in a way entirely unlike that of the Papists before them, so that they cannot be accused of blindly accepting this principle from their Romish upbringing. (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.
Click to expand...


What would the paedos here say to the charge that the Reformed justification for infant baptism sprang up in the 16th century and was novel in that it divorced faith from baptism? 

The Romanists as well as most Lutherans and many Anglicans teach baptismal regeneration (or more accurately, perhaps presumptive regeneration for many Lutherans and some Anglicans) and of course Baptists teach that the proper subject for baptism is one who has a credible profession of faith. While I do not think it is accurate to say that overall the Reformed completely divorce faith from baptism, it would seem that faith is less tied to baptism within the Reformed scheme as compared to the others. What say ye?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

It is the long-standing *Reformed* distinction between "the sign" and the "thing signified." It is actually incorrect to say that we divorce faith from baptism. How we differ is, we claim to have recovered what the sacerdotalists lost when they UN-did the sacramental union between the two parts by a fusion.

We consider it the accumulated error of the Roman and EO positions, and to a degree followed among the Anglican and Lutheran, that the sign often ends up conflated with the thing signified. We deny any efficacy of the sign _apart from faith,_ as well as noting that the *timing* of such placement of the sign is not tied to its efficacy.

We consider it the reactive error of the baptist and anabaptist (to distinguish as prudent) that they have abolished the sacramental connection between the "sign" and the "thing signified." Ask any baptist today, and he will probably tell you his prefered speech regarding baptism is "ordinance", not sacrament.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it needs also to be said that the Reformed view of baptism view discipleship as a growing and maturation process. It recognizes the responsiblities that parents have before God for their children as well as continuing to place them within the institution that God ordained toward that end.

It is a common error to try to see salvation as a distinct event (certainly Justification is but that is part of salvation). This does not do justice to the idea that we all grow in grace. Thus, I think it is improper to view Baptisms a sign of ourselves because then it fixes its significance on our relative immaturity at the time of the event.

After I was immersed in an Evangelical Church as an adult, I just remembered yesterday that I was once arguing with Sonya about the fact I believed salvation could still be lost. Ought I have been re-baptized after I came to a mature(rer) understanding of the nature of salvation? Some might even say I wasn't saved at all because I didn't understand, fully, the manner of Christ's death for me.

In point of fact, with regard to spiritual things, some adults are like toddlers with respect to their spiritual comprehension of things but I detect in much theology an equating of intellectual maturation with spiritual maturation.

So I asked a Baptist friend the other day, if he placed the significance of his baptism with his faith at the time of his baptism then why would he look back upon his baptism as a sign of the faith he had while still immature? Why would be enjoined to take comfort in our baptism if it was something in us and what we looked back on was a time of spiritual immaturity?

No, the only way Baptism can be meaningful is if it is a sign of something outside of us. It is a sign that initiates into maturation. We will never finish that maturing process, never be at a point where we can look back at a time of our _faith_ and draw strength from our faith. We look upon Christ and His promise in our baptism our whole life long.

Thus, truly, the Reformed view places Christ as central in Baptism and takes me completely out of the picture except as the beggar who clings to the promise He has made.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

joshua said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've actually heard of examples of pastors who thought that they weren't doing their job unless they were "practicing" church discipline every so often. Therefore they would seek out a reason to pursue it within their church, even if nothing seemed forthcoming.
> 
> 
> 
> Yikes!
Click to expand...


----------



## Dan....

JonathanHunt said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism does signify something. It is a sign of something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, brother! But I do not accept that it is 'THE SIGN' of the New Covenant as Circumcision was 'THE SIGN' of the old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you be splashing babies if Baptism is a sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Baptism is THE sign of the New Covenant, not if it is A sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read Nehemiah Coxe's book 'Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ' Jonathan. The Covenant of Circumcision is dealt with in detail and you would see the differences easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chalk another one up for the long 'to read' list. I'm not denying that there are 'differences' - what I'm saying is that when Baptists assert that Baptism is 'THE SIGN' of the NC it is very hard indeed to assert that there is no connection between that, and 'THE SIGN' of the OC, Circumcision.
> 
> JH
Click to expand...


Quick question for Jonathan,

What makes circumcision any more *the* sign of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant than was the Sabbath (Ex 31:13-17) ? How many *the* signs are there? Or, do we arbitrarily decide which sign is *the* sign and which sign (or signs) are *a* sign?

Also, just to clarify, are you refering to circumcision as *the* sign of the Old Covenant (i.e., Mosaic Covenant), the Abrahamic covenant, or both?

[EDITED TO SAY] -

One more thing, not that this is significant: I note that the WCF and WLC both refer to baptism as *a* sign and seal of the COG, not as *the* sign and seal; possibly there are Reformed writers who say *the* but the confession say *a*.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

> No, the only way Baptism can be meaningful is if it is a sign of something outside of us. It is a sign that initiates into maturation. We will never finish that maturing process, never be at a point where we can look back at a time of our faith and draw strength from our faith. We look upon Christ and His promise in our baptism our whole life long.



Ditto. And the irony is, with all due respect, although Baptist attempts to uphold and protect Baptism by excluding infant, they have turned a sign signifying the eternally unchanging promise of God into a sign signifying the faith and spiritual state of the recipient. In this view, Baptism can no longer function as a mean of grace to strengthen the faith of the recipient, but merely an ordinance showing how committed to God the recipient is. What initially was an commendable intention to uphold and protect Baptism has turned it into a mere sign of something... As I remembered the great Baptist moderator Bill Brown once said, he didn't look back to his Baptism to strengthen his faith...


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I think it needs also to be said that the Reformed view of baptism view discipleship as a growing and maturation process. It recognizes the responsiblities that parents have before God for their children as well as continuing to place them within the institution that God ordained toward that end.
> 
> It is a common error to try to see salvation as a distinct event (certainly Justification is but that is part of salvation). This does not do justice to the idea that we all grow in grace. Thus, I think it is improper to view Baptisms a sign of ourselves because then it fixes its significance on our relative immaturity at the time of the event.
> 
> After I was immersed in an Evangelical Church as an adult, I just remembered yesterday that I was once arguing with Sonya about the fact I believed salvation could still be lost. Ought I have been re-baptized after I came to a mature(rer) understanding of the nature of salvation? Some might even say I wasn't saved at all because I didn't understand, fully, the manner of Christ's death for me.
> 
> In point of fact, with regard to spiritual things, some adults are like toddlers with respect to their spiritual comprehension of things but I detect in much theology an equating of intellectual maturation with spiritual maturation.
> 
> So I asked a Baptist friend the other day, if he placed the significance of his baptism with his faith at the time of his baptism then why would he look back upon his baptism as a sign of the faith he had while still immature? Why would be enjoined to take comfort in our baptism if it was something in us and what we looked back on was a time of spiritual immaturity?
> 
> No, the only way Baptism can be meaningful is if it is a sign of something outside of us. It is a sign that initiates into maturation. We will never finish that maturing process, never be at a point where we can look back at a time of our _faith_ and draw strength from our faith. We look upon Christ and His promise in our baptism our whole life long.
> 
> Thus, truly, the Reformed view places Christ as central in Baptism and takes me completely out of the picture except as the beggar who clings to the promise He has made.



You and Polo both misunderstand the Baptist position. Of course baptism is an initiatory rite, and of course baptism is a sign of something outside of us comes from God and not of ourselves. You will not find any Baptist on this board disagreeing with those, and to make that accusation is equivalent to accusing of Arminianism.

Yes, the Christian walk is one of maturing. But as Baptists, we believe that the initiation that we should honor is when God gave us spiritual renewal through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That is when the process of spiritual maturation begins.

Regeneration is not something you mature into. We don't look back on baptism in terms of how mature we were, we look back on baptism as the beginning of our Christian walk.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it needs also to be said that the Reformed view of baptism view discipleship as a growing and maturation process. It recognizes the responsiblities that parents have before God for their children as well as continuing to place them within the institution that God ordained toward that end.
> 
> It is a common error to try to see salvation as a distinct event (certainly Justification is but that is part of salvation). This does not do justice to the idea that we all grow in grace. Thus, I think it is improper to view Baptisms a sign of ourselves because then it fixes its significance on our relative immaturity at the time of the event.
> 
> After I was immersed in an Evangelical Church as an adult, I just remembered yesterday that I was once arguing with Sonya about the fact I believed salvation could still be lost. Ought I have been re-baptized after I came to a mature(rer) understanding of the nature of salvation? Some might even say I wasn't saved at all because I didn't understand, fully, the manner of Christ's death for me.
> 
> In point of fact, with regard to spiritual things, some adults are like toddlers with respect to their spiritual comprehension of things but I detect in much theology an equating of intellectual maturation with spiritual maturation.
> 
> So I asked a Baptist friend the other day, if he placed the significance of his baptism with his faith at the time of his baptism then why would he look back upon his baptism as a sign of the faith he had while still immature? Why would be enjoined to take comfort in our baptism if it was something in us and what we looked back on was a time of spiritual immaturity?
> 
> No, the only way Baptism can be meaningful is if it is a sign of something outside of us. It is a sign that initiates into maturation. We will never finish that maturing process, never be at a point where we can look back at a time of our _faith_ and draw strength from our faith. We look upon Christ and His promise in our baptism our whole life long.
> 
> Thus, truly, the Reformed view places Christ as central in Baptism and takes me completely out of the picture except as the beggar who clings to the promise He has made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Polo both misunderstand the Baptist position. Of course baptism is an initiatory rite, and of course baptism is a sign of something outside of us comes from God and not of ourselves. You will not find any Baptist on this board disagreeing with those, and to make that accusation is equivalent to accusing of Arminianism.
> 
> Yes, the Christian walk is one of maturing. But as Baptists, we believe that the initiation that we should honor is when God gave us spiritual renewal through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That is when the process of spiritual maturation begins.
> 
> Regeneration is not something you mature into. We don't look back on baptism in terms of how mature we were, we look back on baptism as the beginning of our Christian walk.
Click to expand...

What does Baptism _signify_?


----------



## Wannabee

John's baptism was a baptism of repentance

Jesus' baptism signifies:
The remission of sins - Acts 2:38
Washing away sins - Acts 22:16
Death, burial and resurrection of Christ - Romans 6:3-4; Col 2:11-12
Putting on Christ - Gal 3:27


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> "Not one shred"? What about these verses?
> 
> [BIBLE]Matthew 10:34-37[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Luke 12:51-53[/BIBLE]
> 
> [BIBLE]Luke 14:26[/BIBLE]
> 
> What Greek word is used for house? Why, oikos, as in the oikos "household" principle used for infant baptism. A "divided" household? Yes, indeed.



Paul Manata responds:



> Rich,
> 
> I also just typed this up. It's a rough draft, but I'd appreciate if you could post it in response to Elnwood:


 
N. Jesus’ Divisive Sword:

Some Baptists have tried to argue that the children of believer’s have been removed from the visible people of God by citing Jesus words in Matthew 10:34-39

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

That the Baptist grasps at this text to somehow “prove” that the children of believer’s are no longer considered part of the covenant is strange for numerous reasons:

1) Notice the Baptist is making an argument from hyperbolic statements. Supposedly the Baptist doesn’t think Jesus was teaching that we should actually “hate” our children and wives (or, husbands). Surely he notes the point Jesus was drawing using hyperbole, right? Showing the level of devotion towards Jesus to be of the most important.

2) Notice that the text also refer to “fathers,” “mothers,” “daughters,” “daughter-in-law,” and “mother-in-law,” as well as all other “members of his own household.” Now, if the exegetical intent of this passage was that “infant children are no longer in the covenant,” then surely the Baptist, being consistent, believes that ““fathers,” “mothers,” “daughters,” “daughter-in-law,” and “mother-in-law,” as well as all other “members of his own household” are “no longer in the covenant!

3) Interestingly, the Baptist tells us on other occasions which mention household that “infants cannot have been there because all the household rejoiced (and infants can’t do that), and all the household believed (and infants can’t do that), and all the household had the word preached to them (and infants don’t have the cognitive ability to comprehend the preaching), and all the household served the saints (and infants can’t serve saints), thus there were no infants in these households. But, if so, then can infants “turn” against (actually, the translation is mild; the Greek implies violent revolt, or rejection of authority) their father or mother? Can they be “enemies?” Can they “love their father more than Jesus?” Thus we must turn the Baptist argument against infant inclusion in the household baptism passages against them, requiring strict consistency. That is, this passage couldn’t be referring to the infant children of professing believers! (On the credo Baptists own terms, that is.)

4) New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg (baptist) approvingly cites Schweizer’s comments on Matthew 10:34, “God’s Kingdom has never been the peace of the false prophets who cry, ‘Peace, peace!’ while avarice and meanness lay waste the earth and transform God’s good creation into its opposite” (Blomberg, 180, n.38, emphasis supplied). 

5) Blomberg notes that “In each case Jesus implies that an unbeliever is initiating the hostility against a believing family member” (Blomberg, 180, emphasis supplied) Since this isn’t something that infants are capable of, then the exegetical intent here isn’t the removal of the infant children of believer’s.

6) The broader context is Jesus’ sending out the twelve to preach the good news of the kingdom (v.7). Jesus is telling the disciples what to expect when their message is rejected. Thus the rejection of the messianic ministry is being spoken of. We read about this in Micah 7:6 for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house. So, there are those who accept Jesus teaching, and those who reject it. As Jesus told us earlier in ch. 10, if one leader of the town or household rejected the message, then the entire town was destroyed. This is the local (or, minor) commission in Matthew 10. Jesus tells his disciples to go out to all of Judea. To go and preach the good news to the “towns and households.” Jesus says that if anyone in that “town or household” rejects the word of the disciples, then the disciples are to leave that “town or household” and it would thus be more terrible for that “town or household” then it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament scholar (and baptist) Craig Blomberg notes that in “Treating an entire home or town on the basis of the actions of one person within it reflects the corporate solidarity common in much of antiquity and in many parts of the world today, in which the decisions of a key individual are owned by the entire community” (p.173). 

Now, unless we are going to say that there were no infants in all of Judea, then it appears that the infants of these towns which rejected Jesus were considered rejecters of the Gospel because of the decision of their federal head. They were thus numbered among the “Synagogue of Satan.” They did not personally reject Jesus, but they were counted among the rejecters and regarded as such. But how come this idea isn’t transferred to households which accepted Jesus? If it could be said that the “town or household” that included infants rejected the Gospel, then it’s not saying anything controversial to say that a household that included infants accepted the Gospel. It appears that when it comes to rejecting Jesus the parents decision is good enough to include the children among the rejecters, but when it comes to accepting Jesus the parents decision isn’t good enough to include the children among the accepters! 

So, the teaching of Jesus had effects on the Old Covenant families because not all accepted the messiah. This covenant unfaithfulness brought destruction on the family. In the last book of the Old Testament we read about John the Baptist and part of what his mission entailed: Mal 4:5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”

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

This is in contrast to what would happen to the breakdown between the fathers and children of the Old Covenant because of God’s covenantal curses brought upon them. Ezekiel 5:10 “Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers.”
The New Covenant restores the people of God. As Jeremiah had stated -- at that time I will be a God to the families of New Covenant Israel, and that they will be my people. And Zechariah told us, "I will whistle for them to gather them, they will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”

Thus the division was between those who chose to reject Christ and those who would move forward with the one church in accepting Him! Now, of course this principle can be applied today. When I accept the gospel my wife my reject it. We have division. But, this says nothing about my infant children. Why would they be counted as a rejecter? And so we see that the Baptist cannot offer any convincing exegetical reasons for the removal of our children from among the members of God’s visible people by citing this passage. Indeed, the overall context supports their inclusion.


----------



## elnwood

Paul does the shotgun approach and doesn't get to the main issues. Why does Jesus say "from now on"? What is going on differently with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant?

The major issue is the refusal of the paedobaptist to see any prophecy of Jeremiah signifying something new in the New Covenant that is established today.

He doesn't address it, and instead throws up a smokescreen of imposing strict literalism on the passage and saying that this is the Baptist view. He can pound on the strawman all he wants, but it still doesn't address the argument.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> John's baptism was a baptism of repentance
> 
> Jesus' baptism signifies:
> The remission of sins - Acts 2:38
> Washing away sins - Acts 22:16
> Death, burial and resurrection of Christ - Romans 6:3-4; Col 2:11-12
> Putting on Christ - Gal 3:27



That's not a bad list. I would obviously include that it is a sign of:
the covenant of grace - Rom 4:11, Col 2:11-12
ingrafting into Christ - Gal 3:27, Rom 6:5 (somewhat redundant to the above I realize)

But otherwise your list is identical to the Presbyterian one. 

The question pertinent to the sign is whether or not, _at the administration of the sign_, all must be true of the individual baptized for the sign to have significance. This is why Bruce noted the difference between sign and thing signified.

Baptists want to insist that you want to hold off on the administration of the Sacrament until the reality of the thing signified is present in the individual who is to receive the sign. The problem, of course, is that the _reality_ of the thing signified can only be participated in by the elect. Nobody knows who they are - as honestly admitted to by Gene in the debate.

But, there is a strange unwillingness to keep this fact in mind. You'll even see Gene slip up a few times in the debate and argue for the baptism of the regenerate.

When pinned down, however, the issue really becomes one of wanting to keep the whole sign as pure as possible. Well, we don't know who the elect are so we'll do the next best thing and determine the best way to ensure that we're not applying the sign to the unregenerate. A couple of problems:

1. By making this concession, Baptists ought to realize that the Scriptures don't command them to baptize the regenerate only as they have immediately failed to meet their own standard by this practical concession.

2. This practical concession finds no Scriptural basis. That is to say that the reasoning: "let's try to baptize only the regenerate but since we can't do that let's baptize the next best thing" finds no Scriptural basis. In fact, Christ Himself undermines this principle by baptizing Judas and the thousands of others that just up and left in John 6 who had been His disciples.

Not only is this reasoning then flawed and the solution for it flawed as well but then we run into the practical theological import of what Baptists actually think about their baptism. Because this argument psychologically conditions Baptists to think that they've "reached the acceptable bar" for baptism, it leads to a presumption about the thing signified necessarily being true of the person receiving the sign. That is, even though the person has merely professed, the Baptist convinces by the above logic that they met the bar and, in fact, the reason why the person was baptized was because the person, really, met the list of those requirements we listed above. Thus, baptism really _does_, practically speaking, become a matter of existential import. One person is baptized because what the sign signifies is true about them while another person is not baptized because what the sign signifies is not true about them.

This is why Baptist theology tends toward the idea that Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality in spite of the Biblical data that states that Baptism initiates one into the Church that provides the means of Grace for conversion and nurture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Paul does the shotgun approach and doesn't get to the main issues. Why does Jesus say "from now on"? What is going on differently with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant?
> 
> The major issue is the refusal of the paedobaptist to see any prophecy of Jeremiah signifying something new in the New Covenant that is established today.
> 
> He doesn't address it, and instead throws up a smokescreen of imposing strict literalism on the passage and saying that this is the Baptist view. He can pound on the strawman all he wants, but it still doesn't address the argument.



He provided a Grammatico-Historical backdrop as well as an exegesis that counters the claim. If you want to provide a competing exegesis rather than just asserting smokescreen then present your case.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> I think it needs also to be said that the Reformed view of baptism view discipleship as a growing and maturation process. It recognizes the responsiblities that parents have before God for their children as well as continuing to place them within the institution that God ordained toward that end.
> 
> It is a common error to try to see salvation as a distinct event (certainly Justification is but that is part of salvation). This does not do justice to the idea that we all grow in grace. Thus, I think it is improper to view Baptisms a sign of ourselves because then it fixes its significance on our relative immaturity at the time of the event.
> 
> After I was immersed in an Evangelical Church as an adult, I just remembered yesterday that I was once arguing with Sonya about the fact I believed salvation could still be lost. Ought I have been re-baptized after I came to a mature(rer) understanding of the nature of salvation? Some might even say I wasn't saved at all because I didn't understand, fully, the manner of Christ's death for me.
> 
> In point of fact, with regard to spiritual things, some adults are like toddlers with respect to their spiritual comprehension of things but I detect in much theology an equating of intellectual maturation with spiritual maturation.
> 
> So I asked a Baptist friend the other day, if he placed the significance of his baptism with his faith at the time of his baptism then why would he look back upon his baptism as a sign of the faith he had while still immature? Why would be enjoined to take comfort in our baptism if it was something in us and what we looked back on was a time of spiritual immaturity?
> 
> No, the only way Baptism can be meaningful is if it is a sign of something outside of us. It is a sign that initiates into maturation. We will never finish that maturing process, never be at a point where we can look back at a time of our _faith_ and draw strength from our faith. We look upon Christ and His promise in our baptism our whole life long.
> 
> Thus, truly, the Reformed view places Christ as central in Baptism and takes me completely out of the picture except as the beggar who clings to the promise He has made.



Very interesting statement. Something to think about.


----------



## Iconoclast

*a recap*

So,
No adult believer can ever recieve believer's baptism , because we never know who is elect?
That did not seem to be what happened in Acts. 
34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 

35Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 

36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 

37And Philip said, I cannot be sure you are elect,otherwise I would baptize you.

Is that the way it happens anywhere in the bible. With this false reasoning we can never form any church because we cannot know if anyone is elect.
Don made a good point about the necessity of the Spirits work in regeneration. It was virtually ignored as usual. 
We are constantly asked"are you saying everyone you baptize is elect?" We answer everyone we baptize professes to be. Then we are told "well you cannot know if maybe you are baptizing someone who is unregenerate"
Padeo's mostly baptize the unregenerate for sure! { for you also cannot tell who is elect,using your reasoning] If all died in Adam indeed , and you do not have direct revelation that your child is saved from the womb like John the baptist. Then you are ascribing to an unsaved child those things that the new testament ascribes to regenerate persons as in Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Your child is not regenerate until he has the Spirit. It is a supernatural work of the Spirit, not an intellectual maturation process .
There is not a seperate middle class for your child as if there were;
A] unregenerate children- without the Spirit
B] regenerate children - with the Spirit from conception
C] your child -promised that maybe he will mature into a christian, without us knowing that he is elect[ we can never tell,remember] , he is a member of the church? well not the invisible church necessarily,but the visble because he could fall away. He is sort of in some covenant,but he can fall away from that also, because it is not necessarily the Covenant of redemption? 
How God works in families is His good pleasure. God adds to the church daily such as should be saved,by being born again. Everyone God adds is elect. We are told to baptize those who believe, not who might some day believe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

Beside the obvious point in Acts that God is telling us things about people that He knows:

1. Where in that passage does it say the Eunuch was elect?
2. Where in that passage does it didactically apply an _ought_ for the nature of baptism? (from that passage)

The rest of the post was sort of confusing to me. I'm not sure I followed.

When you say we are baptizing the unregenerate "for sure":
1. How do you know this?
2. I say: So are you.
3. So what?

Can you give me the name of a person you know who is regenerate "for sure"?
How do you know they are regenerate? Christ told Nicodemus:


> 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.


Are you saying you know where the Spirit blows?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> Beside the obvious point in Acts that God is telling us things about people that He knows:
> 
> 1. Where in that passage does it say the Eunuch was elect?
> 2. Where in that passage does it didactically apply an _ought_ for the nature of baptism? (from that passage)
> 
> The rest of the post was sort of confusing to me. I'm not sure I followed.
> 
> When you say we are baptizing the unregenerate "for sure":
> 1. How do you know this?
> 2. I say: So are you.
> 3. So what?
> 
> Can you give me the name of a person you know who is regenerate "for sure"?
> How do you know they are regenerate? Christ told Nicodemus:
> 
> 
> 
> 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you know where the Spirit blows?
Click to expand...


I have a confidence that my Dad and you are saved because you both believe in Christ's Person and work. And based upon his word that would give me some insight. Don't you think? We are all born children of wrath dead in sin. But when conversion takes place in a persons life it is usually evident. 

Are you saying that we can't have assurance of better things as the writer of Hebrews had.

(Heb 6:9) But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

(Heb 6:10) For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

(Heb 6:11) And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:


Should we lack assurance or be confident as John is?

(1Jn 5:13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Or should we trust in Paul's words that God did begin a work in his fellow labourers and He would complete it. And God still does this today.

(Php 1:6) Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:


As I mentioned before we have been given some criteria to know some things by. We are not left hanging out being blown and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. And we have been given the Spirit so we may know the things that God has given us. Do we live in a vacuum of the unknowable? I don't think so. John did tell us to watch and test the spirits. There must be some level of knowing or for a reason of assurance based upon knowing Christ and the fellowship of his suffering. The Spirit does give us wisdom and knowledge. Maybe we can't see into the heart of man but we can see the promises of God and we can have assurance based upon what He says in His word. 

(1Co 2:9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

(1Co 2:10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

(1Co 2:11) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

(1Co 2:12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

(1Co 2:13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

(1Co 2:14) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(1Co 2:15) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

(1Co 2:16) For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.


I do think we have criteria to base and make a good assesment on or we couldn't fully share in solid fellowship. We have a commonality in faith, hope, and love that the world does not share. Some things can be evident.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Amen Brother. I treat every man Baptized into Christ as a fellow heir but not on the basis of God's Divine knowledge but on the basis of how He expects me to treat them.



> I do think we have criteria to base and make a good assesment on or we couldn't fully share in solid fellowship. We have a commonality in faith, hope, and love that the world does not share. Some things can be evident.


And I think we have good criteria in the baptism of an individual in which to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord and treat them with kindness, love, and nurture whether they be 1 week when baptized or 30 years old.

The difference between us is not that I treat people that are baptized coolly - I love all those in the visible Church. Conversely, you call some of my tiny little brothers and sisters unregenerate and don't have the same hope and confidence (albeit infallibly) that I have for them just like I have for everybody else whose heart only God knows and transforms.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul does the shotgun approach and doesn't get to the main issues. Why does Jesus say "from now on"? What is going on differently with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant?
> 
> The major issue is the refusal of the paedobaptist to see any prophecy of Jeremiah signifying something new in the New Covenant that is established today.
> 
> He doesn't address it, and instead throws up a smokescreen of imposing strict literalism on the passage and saying that this is the Baptist view. He can pound on the strawman all he wants, but it still doesn't address the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He provided a Grammatico-Historical backdrop as well as an exegesis that counters the claim. If you want to provide a competing exegesis rather than just asserting smokescreen then present your case.
Click to expand...


And his exegesis of "from now on" is ... ? My exegesis is that it refers to the New Covenant.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Dan.... said:


> Quick question for Jonathan,



That is a contradiction in terms.



Dan.... said:


> What makes circumcision any more *the* sign of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant than was the Sabbath (Ex 31:13-17) ? How many *the* signs are there? Or, do we arbitrarily decide which sign is *the* sign and which sign (or signs) are *a* sign?



I believe it is fairly abitrary - of course there are several signs for several covenants - the Rainbow, the cut, the Sabbath. I am interacting here on the basis of what is seemingly held by most paedobaptists, - that Circumcision = Baptism. It is always Circumcision which is singled out because of what it especially signifies. I deny that Circumcision = Baptism. What I cannot see is how I COULD deny it if IF Baptism IS 'THE' sign of the New Covenant.



Dan.... said:


> Also, just to clarify, are you refering to circumcision as *the* sign of the Old Covenant (i.e., Mosaic Covenant), the Abrahamic covenant, or both?



Clarify? Clarify? I thought this was theology we were discussing. Warm, fuzzy and ill-defined. Oh no, sorry, that is in the BCO for the Church of Bawb. 

But seriously... The Abrahamic Covenant. This is the point where I step lightly off this discussion and hop onto a passing tram labelled 'Church Flower Arranging 101'.


----------



## Wannabee

SemperFideles said:


> That's not a bad list. I would obviously include that it is a sign of:
> the covenant of grace - Rom 4:11, Col 2:11-12


This is interesting. Romans 4:11 is not dealing with baptism at all, but faith. But even more importantly is verse 9, which states that Abraham was considered righteous before he was circumcized, and apart from it. I don't know what the conclusion to that necessarily is in regard to this discussion, but it does nothing for baptism either way. In fact, if one were to press the point that circumcision = baptism (which is highly problematic) then one must admit that Abrahams "baptism" came after his salvation, and was, in fact, a sign of the pre-existence of his faith. Col 2, well, there's some theological wrangling going on here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you apparently see an inclusion between circumcision of the flesh and baptism, where I see Paul making a clear distinction. If this passage is referring to baptism into the CoG then this necessitates that baptism has some inherent "power" or "authority" of its own. "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses," (Col 2:13). Can baptism truly accomplish this? What does careful exegesis of the text tell us is the point here?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

There is a circumcision of flesh (a sign) corresponding to a spiritual reality (for believers!): circumcision of heart (Deut. 10:16)

There is a baptism of the flesh (a sign) corresponding to a spiritual reality (for believers!): baptism of heart (1 Pet. 3:21)

Please. How many times do we have to spell this parallel out?


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> And his exegesis of "from now on" is ... ? My exegesis is that it refers to the New Covenant.




Hi Don,

I actually answered that in number 6 above. It's what was prophesied about the effect the Messiah's ministry would bring to Jewish families. Some would follow Christ, others wouldn't. The text says nothing about federal heads who chose to follow Christ having their infant children counted amongst their Christ-hating 18 yr. old, say. So, you've not shouldered your burden, In my humble opinion.

Besides that, though, I proved that the exegetical intent of that passage was not the children of believers had been "removed." This was your positive assertion. You've not proven it. In fact, as it now stands, if we take your argument seriously then fathers, mothers, in-laws &c. cannot be in the NC.

~PM


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his exegesis of "from now on" is ... ? My exegesis is that it refers to the New Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> I actually answered that in number 6 above. It's what was prophesied about the effect the Messiah's ministry would bring to Jewish families. Some would follow Christ, others wouldn't. The text says nothing about federal heads who chose to follow Christ having their infant children counted amongst their Christ-hating 18 yr. old, say. So, you've not shouldered your burden, In my humble opinion.
> 
> Besides that, though, I proved that the exegetical intent of that passage was not the children of believers had been "removed." This was your positive assertion. You've not proven it. In fact, as it now stands, if we take your argument seriously then fathers, mothers, in-laws &c. cannot be in the NC.
> 
> ~PM
Click to expand...


Hey Paul,

I'll take your humble opinion for what it is. When I interpret "From now on," I interpret that there is change that happens "now" that is different than there is before. Thus, it is in a different, or stronger sense than the divisions we see in the Old Testament.

I see no reason to believe that my interpretation necessitates fathers and mothers, and in-laws removed from the covenant. That is an improper reductio ad absurdum. The point is the normal rule of oikos unity seen in the OT is broken, so we cannot assume that the oikos principle applies.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not a bad list. I would obviously include that it is a sign of:
> the covenant of grace - Rom 4:11, Col 2:11-12
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting. Romans 4:11 is not dealing with baptism at all, but faith. But even more importantly is verse 9, which states that Abraham was considered righteous before he was circumcized, and apart from it. I don't know what the conclusion to that necessarily is in regard to this discussion, but it does nothing for baptism either way. In fact, if one were to press the point that circumcision = baptism (which is highly problematic) then one must admit that Abrahams "baptism" came after his salvation, and was, in fact, a sign of the pre-existence of his faith. Col 2, well, there's some theological wrangling going on here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you apparently see an inclusion between circumcision of the flesh and baptism, where I see Paul making a clear distinction. If this passage is referring to baptism into the CoG then this necessitates that baptism has some inherent "power" or "authority" of its own. "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses," (Col 2:13). Can baptism truly accomplish this? What does careful exegesis of the text tell us is the point here?
Click to expand...


Bruce answered this in brief already. We obviously see a connection in the "signs" signifying the reality. Notice in Romans 4:11 that the text says that Abraham received the sign of circumciision - a sign and seal of his faith while still uncircumcised. It is our estimation that Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is revealing the penultimate signifcation of circumcision. Now, I realize that Baptists want to say that it was only a sign to Abraham but that is not what the text says and it would be quite inappropriate to include the detail of his circumcision in the text cited because, as you well note, Abraham is being introduced as a suitable example of one saved by faith in Christ. If some other significance was attached to all of Abraham's progeny then it would muddy the waters to Paul's example.

Thus, it is appropriate to say that all who received the sign in their flesh received a sign of the faith that Abraham had while still uncircumcised. Notice I didn't say that they received the reality by the mere cutting of the flesh but they received a sign of it. They had to lay hold of the thing signified in order to participate in the benefits - something only the elect did by regeneration.

In the Colossians passage, I agree that Paul is teaching of the spiritual significance of baptism. Spiritually, he's equating the reality that the elect receive to the regulare OT expression: circumcise your hearts. Yet to say that because there is a spiritual reality to a thing does not mean that the physical sign has no attachment to it. Circumcision of the flesh is to circumcision your hearts as the sign of baptism is to all it signifies - including the circumcision of the heart. We are not saying that one is inexorably circumcised of the heart or regenerated when they are baptized. What we are saying is that baptism signifies the same substantive reality as circumcision did: union with Christ. Only the elect lay hold of it and receive the reality of the sign but, yet, that does not mean that the sign itself changes for every individual as if God's Promise changes. For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? (Rom 3:3)


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Let all the Baptist believers begin to sing and chant...

"We will, we will, DUNK YOU." 

Again please, 

"We will, we will DUNK YOU."


PS. I debate some on a Baptist forum and I keep getting accused of beign Presbyterian. Ohhh.. the irony of it all!


----------



## JonathanHunt

We are the Baptists.

You will be dunked.

Resistance is futile.


----------



## tellville

Reformed Baptist said:


> Let all the Baptist believers begin to sing and chant...
> 
> "We will, we will, DUNK YOU."
> 
> Again please,
> 
> "We will, we will DUNK YOU."
> 
> 
> PS. I debate some on a Baptist forum and I keep getting accused of beign Presbyterian. Ohhh.. the irony of it all!



 Singing a little song, 
 Doing a little dance, 
 Let's dunk the Padeos, let's dunk the Padeos! 

I guess according to the simeley's I'm sprinkiling the Padeo's. Oh well. 

I can't wait to listen to the debate tonight. Word from the Credo side of the aisle seems to be quite different from the Padeo's here. But we will see.

BTW, I am loving the posts in this thread. Absolutely enthralling.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Is the mp3 available for download yet? I didn't notice...


----------



## tellville

aleksanderpolo said:


> Is the mp3 available for download yet? I didn't notice...



Yep. The low quality ones are anyway. I've got them queued up on my iPod right now  Just got to wait till work is done tonight


----------



## aleksanderpolo

I am listening to Gene's first part. Despite my prejudice, he is pretty good as a debater. I will have to listen to what Paul has to say about Gene's point.


----------



## Wannabee

Rich,

Thanks for the explanation. Obviously this has been battered around since the inception of this forum. We're not going to solve anything here. You handled my challenge well and graciously, even if I do disagree. And, you probably have a good idea what my disagreement would be. I would ask you to consider one thing: consider the precarious position you put yourself in when discussing theology and beginning a sentence with "It is our estimation." I really did resist jumping on that one. However, I bet we could post a thousand point and counterpoints and still not get the other to waver (or is that waiver ).
Agreeing to disagree and praising God that we share a love for Christ. May we be more like Him (who never baptized a baby  ).


Blessings
Joe


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'll take your humble opinion for what it is. When I interpret "From now on," I interpret that there is change that happens "now" that is different than there is before. Thus, it is in a different, or stronger sense than the divisions we see in the Old Testament.
> 
> I see no reason to believe that my interpretation necessitates fathers and mothers, and in-laws removed from the covenant. That is an improper reductio ad absurdum. The point is the normal rule of oikos unity seen in the OT is broken, so we cannot assume that the oikos principle applies.



Hi Don,

Do I sense a bit of hostility? Sarcasm, maybe?

Anyway,

1) If the "exegetical intent" of the passage isn't that *the people expressely mentioned* are not "out of the covenant," how much more then is the "exegetical intent" not teaching that "infants" (who are not mentioned, and who I proved couldn't be referred to, and who I showed that credo-baptist household apologetics demand that no infants were in the house) of believers are excluded.

2) You're missing my answer. Perhaps the fault is mine? I'll try and be more clear. I did not say that the family divisions were the same as the OT family divisions. I said that the OT propehesied about the family divisions that would be brought on by Messiah's ministry. Needless to say, you have not interacted with my point 6 above, and your response shows that you misunderstand the point I have made twice now. So, rather than "shotgunning" myriad responses I'll wait for you to interact with my argument and provide your own exegesis. And, no, saying "I said it's the NC" is not "exegesis." (In fact, as an aiside, the other baptists here have argued that the NC began after the death of Jesus! They said that no NC elements could arrive before the death of Jesus. But, Jesus said, "From NOW on.")


----------



## Barnpreacher

tellville said:


> aleksanderpolo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the mp3 available for download yet? I didn't notice...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The low quality ones are anyway. I've got them queued up on my iPod right now  Just got to wait till work is done tonight
Click to expand...


Where is the download available at?


----------



## Barnpreacher

joshua said:


> See here.



Thank you, sir.


----------



## unchainedradio

People have commented that I've yet to post on the puritanboard



elnwood said:


> Paul does the shotgun approach and doesn't get to the main issues. Why does Jesus say "from now on"? What is going on differently with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant?



So all I can say "Booh-yah!"


----------



## VanVos

Please click on the picture below:





VanVos


----------



## Jim Johnston

unchainedradio said:


> People have commented that I've yet to post on the puritanboard
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul does the shotgun approach and doesn't get to the main issues. Why does Jesus say "from now on"? What is going on differently with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all I can say "Booh-yah!"
Click to expand...



Hi Gene,

Did you come here to continue? I'm sure we can set up a one-on-one thread?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> Rich,
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. Obviously this has been battered around since the inception of this forum. We're not going to solve anything here. You handled my challenge well and graciously, even if I do disagree. And, you probably have a good idea what my disagreement would be. I would ask you to consider one thing: consider the precarious position you put yourself in when discussing theology and beginning a sentence with "It is our estimation." I really did resist jumping on that one. However, I bet we could post a thousand point and counterpoints and still not get the other to waver (or is that waiver ).
> Agreeing to disagree and praising God that we share a love for Christ. May we be more like Him (who never baptized a baby  ).
> 
> 
> Blessings
> Joe



Thank you Joe for being gracious in return. I sometimes type things out on my way out the door. I think I typed that at 0530 or so on my way to the gym. I might have said "conviction" vice "estimation". I was trying to be gracious and let you know that I acknowledge you're going to see things differently. By acknowledging that I think you're *WRONG*  but I wanted be gracious in that nevertheless.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## Semper Fidelis

unchainedradio said:


> People have commented that I've yet to post on the puritanboard
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paul does the shotgun approach and doesn't get to the main issues. Why does Jesus say "from now on"? What is going on differently with the coming of Jesus and the establishment of the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So all I can say "Booh-yah!"
Click to expand...


It's ALIVE!!!!!

Hey Guys, if you haven't heard the rest of the debate here's a video clip from it. Gene's a pretty big boy (used to be a body builder)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGN2aa3oQRM


----------



## Semper Fidelis

VanVos said:


> Please click on the picture below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VanVos



Interesting post Jonathan. I know Gene's your Pastor and everything but denial isn't just a river in Egypt.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'll take your humble opinion for what it is. When I interpret "From now on," I interpret that there is change that happens "now" that is different than there is before. Thus, it is in a different, or stronger sense than the divisions we see in the Old Testament.
> 
> I see no reason to believe that my interpretation necessitates fathers and mothers, and in-laws removed from the covenant. That is an improper reductio ad absurdum. The point is the normal rule of oikos unity seen in the OT is broken, so we cannot assume that the oikos principle applies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Don,
> 
> Do I sense a bit of hostility? Sarcasm, maybe?
Click to expand...


You mean the bit about "humble opinion"? No, that was a reference to your In my humble opinion acronym.



> Anyway,
> 
> 1) If the "exegetical intent" of the passage isn't that *the people expressely mentioned* are not "out of the covenant," how much more then is the "exegetical intent" not teaching that "infants" (who are not mentioned, and who I proved couldn't be referred to, and who I showed that credo-baptist household apologetics demand that no infants were in the house) of believers are excluded.
> 
> 2) You're missing my answer. Perhaps the fault is mine? I'll try and be more clear. I did not say that the family divisions were the same as the OT family divisions. I said that the OT propehesied about the family divisions that would be brought on by Messiah's ministry. Needless to say, you have not interacted with my point 6 above, and your response shows that you misunderstand the point I have made twice now. So, rather than "shotgunning" myriad responses I'll wait for you to interact with my argument and provide your own exegesis. And, no, saying "I said it's the NC" is not "exegesis." (In fact, as an aiside, the other baptists here have argued that the NC began after the death of Jesus! They said that no NC elements could arrive before the death of Jesus. But, Jesus said, "From NOW on.")



1) The people mentioned are irrelevant. I never construed it as a list of inclusion and exclusion, and even if I had, you wouldn't even know who would be the excluded and who would be the included one. This whole point is irrelevant. It's about division in the household in general (which, believe it or not, sometimes includes infants), not actual the individuals named. Just let this one die.

2) The New Covenant process was already beginning. They were baptizing, weren't they? "Now" refers to that transition period. "Now" is not necessarily instantaneous.

Your reply in point six, that it was prophesied that Christ would break up Jewish families, is agreed upon, but I think you err in thinking that this is all that it means. Keep on going. Wasn't there an assumption in the OT that the family would follow the head of the household? Isn't this assumption refuted?

You have posted earlier that you believe in presumptive election for covenant children. Maybe you don't believe this anymore, but it is perfectly consistent with your paedobaptistic views. You even hinted in the debate that you may believe in presumptive regeneration with your assertion "I don't know if my infant child is a Christian" even though the child has not heard the gospel.

I believe that this verse eliminates any presumption of regeneration or election. This verse in of itself does not disprove infant baptism, but it strongly suggests dicontinuity in the way the family functions in the New Covenant. I never claimed it disproved infant baptism, btw -- If you recall, I used it against sotzo who said the principle of God working in terms of families, not individuals, in the OT, has not a shred of evidence of being overturned in the NT. I think I made my point.


----------



## Poimen

elnwood said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony about this division within household is that this was occurring in the old covenant as well:
> 
> Micah 7:5-6 "Do not trust in a friend; Do not put your confidence in a companion; Guard the doors of your mouth From her who lies in your bosom. For son dishonors father, Daughter rises against her mother, Daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; A man's enemies are the men of his own household."
> 
> This, of course, is standard covenant theology. See Genesis 3:15ff; Galatians 4:29. It doesn't disprove paedobaptism but rather establishes it since it assumes that one can be a member of the covenant of grace and yet break covenant through rebellious unbelief.
> 
> See here for a more detailed explanation: http://puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=103997&postcount=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please respond to my post on church discipline, then. So how come we don't see all those rebellious people cast off from the covenant and executed? Why are they still called God's people until the New Covenant?
Click to expand...


Do you then admit you are in error in your understanding of this verse?

As far as the church discipline issue, the other brothers are handling your objections quite well. In short, there is basic continuity in every covenant and discontinuity in the externals. In addition, one might well ask the question why Joseph (arguably still under the old covenant dispensation) did not request that Mary be stoned. Thus the distinction between church and state is more relevant here than the (alleged or determined) distinctions between the covenants. That we no longer discipline people according to the old covenant sanctions is because those externals are no longer valid (at least _in toto_). But that is a discussion for another time. 

But AD 70 was the fulfillment of the prophecy which Christ Himself predicted for the Jews who rejected Him (see Matthew 21:43). Therein laid the discipline for covenant breakers at that time, much like had been performed in or through the old covenant sanctions. Thus the church no longer recognizes Jews as brothers unless they confess the Messiah who has come. 

In reference to your second question, they are still called God's people up until that time because of the promise: Genesis 17:7. And, according to Paul, Israel (or at least the elect within Israel) are still His people (Romans 11:1ff.)


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> 1) The people mentioned are irrelevant. I never construed it as a list of inclusion and exclusion, and even if I had, you wouldn't even know who would be the excluded and who would be the included one. This whole point is irrelevant. It's about division in the household in general (which, believe it or not, sometimes includes infants), not actual the individuals named. Just let this one die.
> 
> 2) The New Covenant process was already beginning. They were baptizing, weren't they? "Now" refers to that transition period. "Now" is not necessarily instantaneous.
> 
> Your reply in point six, that it was prophesied that Christ would break up Jewish families, is agreed upon, but I think you err in thinking that this is all that it means. Keep on going. Wasn't there an assumption in the OT that the family would follow the head of the household? Isn't this assumption refuted?
> 
> You have posted earlier that you believe in presumptive election for covenant children. Maybe you don't believe this anymore, but it is perfectly consistent with your paedobaptistic views. You even hinted in the debate that you may believe in presumptive regeneration with your assertion "I don't know if my infant child is a Christian" even though the child has not heard the gospel.
> 
> I believe that this verse eliminates any presumption of regeneration or election. This verse in of itself does not disprove infant baptism, but it strongly suggests dicontinuity in the way the family functions in the New Covenant. I never claimed it disproved infant baptism, btw -- If you recall, I used it against sotzo who said the principle of God working in terms of families, not individuals, in the OT, has not a shred of evidence of being overturned in the NT. I think I made my point.




1) The point, as I mentioned, is about those who REJECT Jesus. This does not include infants. As Blomberg notes, the Greek word suggests more than could be applied to infants. So, it is fully consistent with the paedo position that there are people who will reject Jesus. Indeed, look at Gen 17! Jehovah showed right there that his covenant brought division in the house. Look at Genesis 25 and Jacob and Esau!! Families were being divided even at that time, yet they still included the infant children in the covenant. Therefore, it is exegetically impossible that your argument demonstrates the removal of infants from the covenant. If your point was valid, then they would have been removed thousands of years before Jesus said what he did. This in and of itself shows that your exegsis is off and that mine should be preferred. Mine fits the overall context better. So, division in the "household in general" is not sufficient to undermine the covenant case since we've had "division in the household in general" back at the beginning.

2) The New Covenant process had been beginning since Jeremiah uttered the words, "New Covenant."

They were baptizing, and had been for hundreds of years before.

The assumption in the OT was that the family SHOULD follow the federal head, and this assumption was not refuted. Furthermore, as I established in my debate and above, there were covenantal curses for the unfaithful way Old Covenant members lived in the covenant. In fact, Don, it was a well known fact that the judgment on unfaithful Old Covenant Jews would bring a break down in the family. Ezekiel 5

7Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: *Because you are more turbulent than the nations that are all around you, and have not walked in my statutes or obeyed my rules*, and have not even acted according to the rules of the nations that are all around you, *8therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I, even I, am against you. And I will execute judgments* in your midst in the sight of the nations. *9And because of all your abominations I will do with you what I have never yet done, and the like of which I will never do again. 10Therefore fathers shall eat their sons in your midst, and sons shall eat their fathers*. And I will execute judgments on you, and any of you who survive I will scatter to all the winds. 

Note that this breakdown in the family was applied to the Jews. God didn't do it before, and would do it AGAIN!

In the NT we don't fail where OT Israel failed! That nation failed in its responsibility to bring up their children. God will empower us to succeed where they failed. The New Covenant is about restoration. Indeed, the disproof of your argument, and the continued support of mine, was that John the Baptist was turning the hearts of the fathers back to the children to make ready a PEOPLE prepared for the Lord. 

The verse does not eliminate presumptive election. Indeed, I marshalled many texts which said our children would be in heaven. And, not saying that I know my child is or isn;t regenerate isn't presumptive regeneration, Don. I simply don't know? Do you?

What I do know is that I balance the two positons. I know my child is born in Adam. That he needs to trust in Jesus. But, this doesn't mean that God isn't his God. _David, a man after God's own heart, was able to balance the two_:

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me


Psalm 22:9-10 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast.From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.

*Wow!!!* From birth he was sinful, under Adam, and yet from birth he trusted in Jehovah. From the womb he was under God's just judgment, and from the wom Jehovah was his God.

And, yes, Don, I do recall the context that you used the verse. Recall that I'm not arguing that you said it "disproves infant baptism," but I'm rather arguing that "the exegetical intent is that children have been removed from the covenant" is not even within 100 miles of the purpose of this text.

Thanks for your interaction, though. Presbyterian paedobaptists should be made aware that if they are unfaithful God will bring these types of judgments on his people. Thankfully God puts his law in our hearts.

And, thankfully things are not as you say. Inspired Scripture keeps in tact the principle of covenant succession:

Luke 1:46And Mary said: 
"My soul glorifies the Lord 
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, 
48for he has been mindful 
of the humble state of his servant. 
From now on all generations will call me blessed, 
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me— 
holy is his name. 
*50His mercy extends to those who fear him, 
from generation to generation*. 

See, Don. My view fits the overall context of the Bible. Here in your "transition period" we have the doctrine of covenant succession repeated, not anulled. Mary applied this teaching to the days after her own. Even after she new she was pregnant with the true Seed of Abraham, she went on applying an organic element to the covenant people! This is precisely what the baptist says has been done away with. If this orghanic principle was simply typological until the advent of the Messiah, then why apply it post-Messiah. In the days of the anti-type?

I am not simply contradicting your verses. I have supplied the exegesis showing that your view is severely flawed, and that it seems to be the paedobaptist position which can accirately represent the entirelty of Scripture on this issue.

I mean, look at the Jews in Pentecost. They were told the promise of the holy Spirit was for them, their children, and their children's children ( note well that "far off" didn;t mean Gentiles since Peter had to be given an object lesson in Acts 10 in order to even accept the idea that the Spirit was for the Gentiles. And this isn't the Disapora, since they were represented in Jerusalem). Why would these faithful Jews have been told what you said was specifically abrogated.

Lastly, all presbyterians agree that the tie to God transcends the tie to family. At any time in redemptive history, if it came down to Jehovah or family, family lost. In the OC if household members rejected the living God, they would be rejected. And, in fact, God's law was divisive. Indeed, it was such that children who chose not to follow in their father's faith, and act unruely, ould be stoned to death. Talk about division!

Anyway, that's how I see the passage. I assume you'll still disagree. I at least hope I gave some "good arguments" and not just "good debate tactic" yet "weak argument." So, take my exegesis for what it's worth. Hopefully I at least said a couple of things to make someone think a bit differently about the modern American evangelical understanding of the passages Elnwood brought for us to look at.


----------



## Iconoclast

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> Beside the obvious point in Acts that God is telling us things about people that He knows:
> 
> 1. Where in that passage does it say the Eunuch was elect?
> 2. Where in that passage does it didactically apply an _ought_ for the nature of baptism? (from that passage)
> 
> The rest of the post was sort of confusing to me. I'm not sure I followed.
> 
> When you say we are baptizing the unregenerate "for sure":
> 1. How do you know this?
> 2. I say: So are you.
> 3. So what?
> 
> Can you give me the name of a person you know who is regenerate "for sure"?
> How do you know they are regenerate? Christ told Nicodemus:
> 
> 
> 
> 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you know where the Spirit blows?
Click to expand...

 
Rich, congratulations on your promotion on the board.

The first set of questions;1. Where in that passage does it say the Eunuch was elect?
2. Where in that passage does it didactically apply an _ought_ for the nature of baptism? (from that passage

Philip baptized him upon his believing confession in verse 37. All of God's elect have this confession of Christ.[excepting elect infants dying in infancy,or mentally defective persons who are elect]
No where are we told to baptize those who have an "elect label"
We are however told; 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
16he who hath believed, and hath been baptized, shall be saved; and he who hath not believed, shall be condemned

or again; 24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life

Only the elect sheep can do this jn 10:27, goats cannot Jn.10:26

The eunuch requested baptism after the Spirit enabled him to be passed from death unto life. vs 37[And Philip said, `If thou dost believe out of all the heart, it is lawful;' and he answering said, `I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God;'] 
When I quoted romans 8:9 this is one point that I never see clarified;

9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;

Rich,when you would baptize an infant, can you say that the Spirit indeed dwells in the child? 
and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;
All throughout these threads people quote the immutability of the promise. But is has no bearing on this discussion unless the person is united to Christ .1 cor12:13

once again,and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His 


When a believer is baptized he confesses that indeed he is indwelt by the Spirit of God and walking in newness of life, not perfectly but progressively. he is confessing that he is one of God's elect. This is a proper subject of baptism.

If his profession is false as simon in acts 8:13-24, it will many times be found out in this life.If not now, it will be found out at the last day. The Lord knows them who are his.

Let me give you a quote from Prof. Englesma. that I offered to Bruce the other day. I think maybe Bruce did not read it though as many times I post late at night. 
Commenting on Gal 3;16 in the booklet keeping God's covenant,much of with I agreed with like this quote from chapter 1
This implies that God makes His covenant with those whom He has elected in Christ unto salvation. God does not establish His covenant with all men without exception. He does not establish it with all the natural children of Abraham. He does not establish it with all the physical children of believers. Galatians 3:29 makes this application of the truth of Christ’s headship in the covenant. Galatians 3:16 has stated that God established the covenant with Christ, as the “seed” of Abraham. Verse 29 teaches, “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” The promise, the covenant, and the inheritance are for those who are Christ’s.

then this quote;

God establishes the covenant in the hearts of elect believers and the genuine children of believers—the “children of the promise” ( Rom. 9:8 ) —by the regenerating Spirit, out of grace alone. God maintains the covenant and perfects it with all those who are Christ’s, preserving His covenant friends, out of grace alone.


If the covenant is not established with all the physical children of believers,why would you suggest giving a "sign " to all?
Why not only give the sign to those who confess to be regenerated? 

In the same booklet Prof. Hanko writes this in chapter 2;
One does not bring his child to baptism to have that child inducted into the church. Or, if I may put it differently, a child of believers does not become a member of the church through baptism. An elect child of believers does not become a member of the church when that child comes of age and makes confession of his or her faith. We may not say, “Oh, so-and-so has now made confession of faith and has joined the church.” That is unbiblical language. When our Heidelberg Catechism discusses the reason why we must baptize infants, it says, “Of course they have to be baptized, because they, as well as adults, are members of God’s covenant and of the church of Jesus Christ” (cf. Q & A 74). We baptize them not to make them members of the church. We baptize them because they are members of the church, because God establishes His covenant, saves His church, in the line of generations.


Do you agree with these statements? 
Even though Prof. Hanko slips in the phrase "an elect child of believer's" in the middle of this section, he suggests that making confession of faith is unbiblical language. Using the padeo arguments in this thread,[since we do not know who is elect,we cannot baptize anyone of them.]

No one is a member of God's church until God adds them. 1Cor 12:18 They want it both ways. 

the booklet is called Keeping God's covenant. It is online. read the first two chapters in full as time permits. I was in much agreement with what was in it them it seemed to contradict itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> Beside the obvious point in Acts that God is telling us things about people that He knows:
> 
> 1. Where in that passage does it say the Eunuch was elect?
> 2. Where in that passage does it didactically apply an _ought_ for the nature of baptism? (from that passage)
> 
> The rest of the post was sort of confusing to me. I'm not sure I followed.
> 
> When you say we are baptizing the unregenerate "for sure":
> 1. How do you know this?
> 2. I say: So are you.
> 3. So what?
> 
> Can you give me the name of a person you know who is regenerate "for sure"?
> How do you know they are regenerate? Christ told Nicodemus:
> 
> 
> 
> 8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you know where the Spirit blows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, congratulations on your promotion on the board.
Click to expand...

Thank you.


> The first set of questions;1. Where in that passage does it say the Eunuch was elect?
> 2. Where in that passage does it didactically apply an _ought_ for the nature of baptism? (from that passage
> 
> Philip baptized him upon his believing confession in verse 37. All of God's elect have this confession of Christ.[excepting elect infants dying in infancy,or mentally defective persons who are elect]
> No where are we told to baptize those who have an "elect label"
> We are however told; 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
> 16he who hath believed, and hath been baptized, shall be saved; and he who hath not believed, shall be condemned
> 
> or again; 24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life
> 
> Only the elect sheep can do this jn 10:27, goats cannot Jn.10:26
> 
> The eunuch requested baptism after the Spirit enabled him to be passed from death unto life. vs 37[And Philip said, `If thou dost believe out of all the heart, it is lawful;' and he answering said, `I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God;']
> When I quoted romans 8:9 this is one point that I never see clarified;
> 
> 9And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;


You seem to think that a person actually saying: "I believe and want to be baptized..." is something that can only be stated by somebody who is enabled by the Spirit to say so.

You are mixing and conflating all sorts of verses together and, I think, actually confusing yourself.

I don't doubt the Eunuch was actually elect but, in the passage itself, Philip baptizes because the Eunuch professes Christ. Profession<>Election. It is true to say that _some_ professors are elect but to say that all professors are elect is so easily demonstrable that I'm going to assume you understand that.



> Rich,when you would baptize an infant, can you say that the Spirit indeed dwells in the child?
> and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;
> All throughout these threads people quote the immutability of the promise. But is has no bearing on this discussion unless the person is united to Christ .1 cor12:13
> 
> once again,and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His


Again, you keep conflating verses regarding the elect and assume that, by profession, you are saying of the person _you_ baptize that "I can say of this person that the Spirit indeed dwells in them." See my initial response. This is so easily refuted.

I don't _have_ to say that the child, indeed, is united to Christ in order to have him baptized. Did Peter say that of Simon the Magician when he baptized him? Was Simon then _un_-elect later? 



> When a believer is baptized he confesses that indeed he is indwelt by the Spirit of God and walking in newness of life, not perfectly but progressively. he is confessing that he is one of God's elect. This is a proper subject of baptism.


Are you actually saying that every baptized member in your Church was elect before the foundation of the world and you are basing that fact on their profession? This simply baffles me.



> If his profession is false as simon in acts 8:13-24, it will many times be found out in this life.If not now, it will be found out at the last day. The Lord knows them who are his.


Oh, but wait, he's not elect now? Maybe. Which is it? I am truly confused. I'm not trying to be mean here or pick a fight but I am completely lost now.



> Let me give you a quote from Prof. Englesma. that I offered to Bruce the other day. I think maybe Bruce did not read it though as many times I post late at night.
> Commenting on Gal 3;16 in the booklet keeping God's covenant,much of with I agreed with like this quote from chapter 1
> This implies that God makes His covenant with those whom He has elected in Christ unto salvation. God does not establish His covenant with all men without exception. He does not establish it with all the natural children of Abraham. He does not establish it with all the physical children of believers. Galatians 3:29 makes this application of the truth of Christ’s headship in the covenant. Galatians 3:16 has stated that God established the covenant with Christ, as the “seed” of Abraham. Verse 29 teaches, “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.” The promise, the covenant, and the inheritance are for those who are Christ’s.
> 
> then this quote;
> 
> God establishes the covenant in the hearts of elect believers and the genuine children of believers—the “children of the promise” ( Rom. 9:8 ) —by the regenerating Spirit, out of grace alone. God maintains the covenant and perfects it with all those who are Christ’s, preserving His covenant friends, out of grace alone.
> 
> If the covenant is not established with all the physical children of believers,why would you suggest giving a "sign " to all?
> 
> Why not only give the sign to those who confess to be regenerated?


Because the qualification you just stated is a made up qualifier. Nobody "confesses to be regenerate". They confess to believe in Jesus Christ. Incidentally, I agree with the Scriptures that not all who descend physically are elect. Of course, the specific application of Galatians 3 has a very different view in mind. I can agree with you, in principle, that physical generation is no guarantee of election. I would urge you to read my very thoughts on that point in the Jeremiah 31 thread. The point of Galatians 3, however, has to do with a misapprehension of the Law.

As for the issue of applying the sign to "all". The reason is very simple - because God has always commanded His sign be placed on all but He has always elected those who will actually believe.

I gave this analogy to my wife earlier. Some children are elect and some children are not elect. By both Scripture and also by actual emperical observation - most people that end up professing are actually in Christian homes. What the Baptist says is this: I know some of you are probably elect but for the sake of the reprobate in the crowd, I'm going to treat _all_ of you as if you're under the eternal displeasure of God. I am going to withhold from you all every means of Grace for your conversion because you are all reprobate as far as I'm concerned. It's rather like the idea that we can't figure out who to punish so we'll punish the whole lot of you.

The fact is, Anthony, that you don't have any clue whether you're baptizing the reprobate when you baptize them. Your confusion above demonstrates my point to everyone reading this. Yet, you ascribe to yourself (arrogantly in my thinking) not only the pronouncement of _who_ is regenerate (those _I_ see profess) but who is unregenate (those _I_ see who do not profess). Thus, Anthony and the Elders of his Church, not only see where the wind blows and where it comes from but they say who God, from all eternity has and has not elected _based on the willing_ of the men you examine. Remarkable!



> In the same booklet Prof. Hanko writes this in chapter 2;
> One does not bring his child to baptism to have that child inducted into the church. Or, if I may put it differently, a child of believers does not become a member of the church through baptism. An elect child of believers does not become a member of the church when that child comes of age and makes confession of his or her faith. We may not say, “Oh, so-and-so has now made confession of faith and has joined the church.” That is unbiblical language. When our Heidelberg Catechism discusses the reason why we must baptize infants, it says, “Of course they have to be baptized, because they, as well as adults, are members of God’s covenant and of the church of Jesus Christ” (cf. Q & A 74). We baptize them not to make them members of the church. We baptize them because they are members of the church, because God establishes His covenant, saves His church, in the line of generations.
> 
> 
> Do you agree with these statements?


Yes I do.



> Even though Prof. Hanko slips in the phrase "an elect child of believer's" in the middle of this section, he suggests that making confession of faith is unbiblical language. Using the padeo arguments in this thread,[since we do not know who is elect,we cannot baptize anyone of them.]


I really think you need to read more carefully. He doesn't state that making a confession of faith is unbiblical. He states that you saying "..._because_ the person has made a confession of faith as an adulte he is now in the Church and he wasn't before..." is un-Biblical. What you state is incredibly presumptuous above. I hope you can see how your pronouncement of regneration and reprobation is incredibly presumptuous. It borders on cosmic arrogance how willing you are to declare: this man is surely regenerate and this child is surely not!



> No one is a member of God's church until God adds them. 1Cor 12:18 They want it both ways.


Who wants it both ways? No Anthony, no one is a member of God's Church until _YOU_ add them in your schema. God may have elected that child from eternity past and has placed a child, in His divine Providence, in the household of one of your Church members. He has commanded them in the OT and NT to raise them in the fear and admoninition of the Lord. You see that child, unable to speak, only able to cry, not even able to lift his hand above his head so as to give a hint that he will ever deny Christ and you say of him: REPROBATE!

Why? For the sake of the theoretical child that is not elect in your midst.

Why? Because you've convinced yourself that when you hear a profession you are able to assuredly say: "This man is Elect from the foundation of the world because I, Anthony, have heard that man confess that Jesus Christ is Lord."



> the booklet is called Keeping God's covenant. It is online. read the first two chapters in full as time permits. I was in much agreement with what was in it them it seemed to contradict itself.



I'm sorry to be so shocking in my indictments but I need to be plain in what I see as an extremely shocking confidence in your ability to actually know who the elect of God are.

I do want to interact with you but you really need to think carefully about what you are writing and assuming. Simply because Paul writes in a confident manner in Romans 5-8 about the benefits we particpate in as part of our union with Christ, does not mean that we can assume that every soul that professes Christ with their mouth will be saved. The believing in the heart bit is seen by God alone.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Paul, I have only listened to the first two parts of the debate. To me, the best argument Gene offered was that the Abrahamic covenant being typological (because I have never heard of this argument.). Are you going to offer a fuller response to this (or maybe you already have). To me, Gene's position is not doing justice to Romans 4, where circumcision is treated as a sign not of God's physical blessing but salvation, and he has completely ignored that the Abrahamic covenant as covenant of Grace. What other arguments am I missing? Thanks.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Polo,

I showed that the exegetical intent of typology could not be used to prove that infants are out of the covenant.

Ethnic Jews were also typological, does that imply ethnic Jews cannot be in the New Covenant?

I therefore used the exact same form of his argument, just switching ONE term, and drew an absurd conclusion. This is known as testing an argument for validity by counter example. Any time you can use the same structure of the argument, the same amout of true premises, but draw an obviously false conclusion; then you have proved the original argument invalid.


----------



## tellville

I finally just listened to the debate. I was actually quite surprised. I thought for sure Paul would be the "winner" but I didn't finish the debate with that conclusion. I thought Gene did surprisingly well. And in the end the credo side sounded more convincing to me. Maybe that's because I am a credo, but regardless, that's what I thought. 

However, Paul brought up some absolutely brilliant points. Very thought provoking. 

I found Gene's point that the padeo position is a "looking for biblical justification" argument strike a chord with me. No Reformer would have advocated the credo position unless they felt absolutely convinced that credobaptism was the Biblical position. However, the Reformers had every reason to seek biblical justification for the padeo position. It's like with the Doctrines of Grace. Nobody is going to embrace Calvinism unless they feel it is the absolute clear teaching of scripture, however sinful man has every natural reason to seek biblical justification for Arminian/Pelagian type theology. This isn't an argument against the padeo position, but it does send up some red flags of warning.

Anyway, those are my immediate thoughts after hearing the debate. Now Paul should go against James White and Gene should go against Bill Shishko.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

I don't follow. Why would the Reformers be seeking a "justification" for infant baptism. You assume that entire Systematic Theologies were created from this premise. Calvin doesn't start his Institutes saying: "I'm now going to begin by trying to justify paedo-baptism".

Of all the arguments against paedobaptism, I find this argument to be the MOST lame.

If it was not for the systematic theologies of paedobaptists, there were be a dearth of Reformed theology coming from the credo side.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> Mark,
> 
> I don't follow. Why would the Reformers be seeking a "justification" for infant baptism. You assume that entire Systematic Theologies were created from this premise. Calvin doesn't start his Institutes saying: "I'm now going to begin by trying to justify paedo-baptism".
> 
> Of all the arguments against paedobaptism, I find this argument to be the MOST lame.
> 
> If it was not for the systematic theologies of paedobaptists, there were be a dearth of Reformed theology coming from the credo side.




Rich,

I think James White makes a clear case for why the Reformers were seeking justification for Infant Baptism. I would refer you to Dr. White's RM's and MP3's for a better explanation. But basically, the Reformers would have felt pressure from the state (maybe not directly, again, this is from Dr. White's comments in his lectures/sermons) to keep the practice of Infant Baptism. It wasn't until this debate that it hit me that this is a point that should be taken seriously. 

I don't think entire systematic theologies were created from this premise. But I think they may have been influenced by such a premise. The Reformer's weren't infallible, just incredibly godly men. 

I'm not saying this is an argument against padeobaptism. I stated that in my post. I'm saying that it brought up some red flags after I heard the debate.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Mark, I did feel that Paul sounded more nervous than Gene, so I suspect if there were audience not familiar with the issue present, Gene might appear to have the upper hand. However, argument wise, I think Paul is much more convincing.

I think the absence of scripture excluding children from NT more convincing than absence of scripture calling for infant baptism. The "un-reformed" doctrine is basically as cheap-shot as calling baptist "anabaptist". The New Testament intrepret Old Testament is completely backward, his example actually demonstrated the opposite: For example, without understanding what atonement meant in the OT, it is impossible to understand Christ's atonement. The apostles learnt the concept of covenant from the Old Testament, not the other way round. 

The only argument that caught me by surprise was the typological one, but I think Paul has answered that adequately. On this argument, I do believe that most Baptist have the tendency to not only "physcialize" OT covenant sign (for example, importing alien ideas in explaining away Romans 4), but also "physicalize" OT covenant (for example, seeing the Abrahamic covenant as primarily typological, but not as covenant of grace).


----------



## Jim Johnston

Mark,



> But basically, the Reformers would have felt pressure from the state (maybe not directly, again, this is from Dr. White's comments in his lectures/sermons) to keep the practice of Infant Baptism. It wasn't until this debate that it hit me that this is a point that should be taken seriously.



You'll note that I never even responded to it, that's how seriously I took it. 

Anyway, since the RC church ENDED paedocommunion, then would it be "reforming" that doctrine to re-instate it? Perhaps the reformers were scared of the state and so that's why they didn't reform the doctrine of non-paedocommunion.

Thus your argument suffers a reductio or at least is shown to be arbitrary.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry I have been absent guys. I don't even know where to start.... LOL

We are into football season right now and I am going 100 mph everynight with three boys. I am already wore out and this is just the first week. I still have two game nights left this week. 

So is there a place to download this thing yet? I clicked on Gene's site but it wasn't working to good for me. My computer just sat there looking at me like I was stupid.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

The links can be found here: I tried it again just now and it work.

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/08/cook-vs-manata-baptism-debate-081907.html


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> Mark,
> 
> I don't follow. Why would the Reformers be seeking a "justification" for infant baptism. You assume that entire Systematic Theologies were created from this premise. Calvin doesn't start his Institutes saying: "I'm now going to begin by trying to justify paedo-baptism".
> 
> Of all the arguments against paedobaptism, I find this argument to be the MOST lame.
> 
> If it was not for the systematic theologies of paedobaptists, there were be a dearth of Reformed theology coming from the credo side.



That was kinda hinted at here I believe. I don't believe it is truth but it was said....




Kaalvenist said:


> (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.




Then I responded with this...

BTW... I don't believe CT itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism... That is just a really bad argument. CT is not an invention of paedo baptism. If one needs the CoW and the CoG to be defined so as to justify paedo baptism than something is really out of place. 


Of course the converasation went on a little longer and you can read it on page 3 of this thread...


----------



## VaughanRSmith

tellville said:


> But basically, the Reformers would have felt pressure from the state (maybe not directly, again, this is from Dr. White's comments in his lectures/sermons) to keep the practice of Infant Baptism. It wasn't until this debate that it hit me that this is a point that should be taken seriously.


They just chose to ignore that pressure when writing about Sola Fide then?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I will comment as I listen to the debate. I will not listen to it all at once so I will be doing installments.



Well, I have listened to the first few things Gene said and He starts off on a bad foot in my estimation. He stated that Baptism is one of the doctrines that wasn't reformed. And that in itself is a major misunderstanding on the Baptist side I believe. I use to think this also. They reformed the doctrine and not the application of the practice in my estimation. IN fact many Reformed guys still accept RC baptism as authentic. CT paedo Baptism is not pagan Roman Baptism though. It is based upon a Covenant Family understanding and not as a sacrament that merits anything.. 



Another misgiving of Gene's is that Paedo baptism is just a Roman teaching. It was mentioned a few centuries after the Resurrection of Christ. And it was done because there was so close of a tie between it and the forgiveness of sin that one dare not leave earth or allow their children to die without it. So it started based upon the necessity of the individual who might die in infancy at first. This is discussed in a book called Baptism in the Early Church. And it is done by Paedo Baptists. The doctrine was not started based upon Covenant Theology if my understanding is correct. 
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315"]http://www.amazon.com/Baptism-Early-Church-H-Stander/dp/0952791315[/ame]

Infant Baptism is not the unreformed Doctrine of the Reformation. It is reformed from the Catholic understanding. Gene starts off with a few Bad Premises in my opinion. And I would have taken him to task just for that. 



I do agree with Gene that our differences are based upon the nature of the New Covenant. And he seems to do a pretty good job of explaning its nature.



I wouldn't have used the nature of the covenants only to explain the differences between Baptism and circumcision.. I believe the new does explain the old as progressive revelation but the natures of circumcision and baptism are different in more than one way. It isn't just in types and shadows. Circumcision is a sign and seal unto the Messiah. But it also includes a sign and seal that is bound up in promises that are national and not spiritual also. Rich Lieno and I discuss this here. http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=23640&page=3 I believe that Baptism is a sign but that the Holy Spirit is the seal in the New Covenant. Baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sin which only applies to those who are New Covenant members. 

I am going to stop here. Paul is up next. And I will listen to him tomorrow. I will need my whole alert mind to follow him. LOL


----------



## tellville

Tom Bombadil said:


> Mark,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But basically, the Reformers would have felt pressure from the state (maybe not directly, again, this is from Dr. White's comments in his lectures/sermons) to keep the practice of Infant Baptism. It wasn't until this debate that it hit me that this is a point that should be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note that I never even responded to it, that's how seriously I took it.
> 
> Anyway, since the RC church ENDED paedocommunion, then would it be "reforming" that doctrine to re-instate it? Perhaps the reformers were scared of the state and so that's why they didn't reform the doctrine of non-paedocommunion.
> 
> Thus your argument suffers a reductio or at least is shown to be arbitrary.
Click to expand...


I think you have now misread me Paul 

Given that the theology behind the Reformed reason for baptising infants can first be found in church history in the writings of John Calvin, and given the Reformers would have been under pressure to keep infant baptism going, all I am saying is that raises some red flags. *It's not an argument*, I've said this from the beginning, it doesn't need to be responded too unless the facts are wrong, for if the facts are right it does nothing to undermine the validity of infant baptism and even if it was an argument it would be an _ad hominen_ argument.


----------



## Jim Johnston

tellville said:


> I think you have now misread me Paul



That remains to be seen. 



> Given that the theology behind the Reformed reason for baptising infants can first be found in church history in the writings of John Calvin,



That's flat out false. 

We can easily see underdeveloped elements of CT very early on.



> and given the Reformers would have been under pressure to keep infant baptism going,



And under pressure to keep anti-paedocommunion going?



> all I am saying is that raises some red flags.



It raises red flags that the reformers didn't "reform" Rome's denial of communion to infants. Rome ended this in the 1200s. Should the reformers have reinstituted it if they weren't under "pressure" from the state to not have infants and toddlers possibly drop "Christ" on the ground? 



> *It's not an argument*,



On that, I think we're agreed. ;-)



> I've said this from the beginning, it doesn't need to be responded too unless the facts are wrong,



The "whatever it is" has been shown to be arbitrary. To be consistent, shouldn't you say that the reformers should have "reformed" the denial of the eucharist to infants, and that they didn;t do so because they were "afraid" of the state?



> for if the facts are right it does nothing to undermine the validity of infant baptism and even if it was an argument it would be an _ad hominen_ argument.



Well, at any rate, I attempted show show that my position was not lacking in biblical justification and I attempted to show that not one of Gene's argument had the exegetical intent of removing children from the covenant. In fact, if you re-listen, you'll note that the only place in Scripture where Gene said he had a prescriptive to baptize professers alone was totally undermined by my counter-argument.

Thus the resolution, "should believers alone be baptized" on Gene's end was not proven since he could not cite one text other than the one I undermined to support his position.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I don't follow. Why would the Reformers be seeking a "justification" for infant baptism. You assume that entire Systematic Theologies were created from this premise. Calvin doesn't start his Institutes saying: "I'm now going to begin by trying to justify paedo-baptism".
> 
> Of all the arguments against paedobaptism, I find this argument to be the MOST lame.
> 
> If it was not for the systematic theologies of paedobaptists, there were be a dearth of Reformed theology coming from the credo side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> 
> I think James White makes a clear case for why the Reformers were seeking justification for Infant Baptism. I would refer you to Dr. White's RM's and MP3's for a better explanation. But basically, the Reformers would have felt pressure from the state (maybe not directly, again, this is from Dr. White's comments in his lectures/sermons) to keep the practice of Infant Baptism. It wasn't until this debate that it hit me that this is a point that should be taken seriously.
> 
> I don't think entire systematic theologies were created from this premise. But I think they may have been influenced by such a premise. The Reformer's weren't infallible, just incredibly godly men.
> 
> I'm not saying this is an argument against padeobaptism. I stated that in my post. I'm saying that it brought up some red flags after I heard the debate.
Click to expand...


People can make up any stories they want about "feeling pressure". Try having the entire Roman See breating down your neck for pressure and then tell me this idea is not laughable. I think it's uncharitable to men of great character and courage to accuse them of being "men pleasers" in their Theology. Disagree with a man's theological conclusions all you want but I find it very small of people to make this charge against Calvin, Knox, and a host of others who were absolutely fearless in their theology.

Further, it does not do justice to the care Calvin himself took to directly repudiate baptistic reasoning.

Again, Calvin's entire system of theology either coheres or it does not. It is an _ad populum_ argument to say "...we're the real Reformers." It's also a real "comfortable" thing to claim that for yourself in a 21st Century society that allows you to believe it without persecution and thumb your nose at men who were in the midst of great persecution and accuse them of cowardice.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Exagorazo said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> But basically, the Reformers would have felt pressure from the state (maybe not directly, again, this is from Dr. White's comments in his lectures/sermons) to keep the practice of Infant Baptism. It wasn't until this debate that it hit me that this is a point that should be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> They just chose to ignore that pressure when writing about Sola Fide then?
Click to expand...



No, because it was a place to stand and die. Both sides chose things to stand and die for. And the Anabaptist or baptists stood up and died upon another ground. Baptism was something that would bring persecution just as the Lord's supper did.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

So the Reformers were cowards on Baptism Randy?


----------



## Jim Johnston

If the argument for not reforming the sacrament of infant baptist is to be taken seriously, then I'd like a credo to tell me why he doesn't think the reformers should have "reformed" Rome's doctrine of anti-paedcommunion.

Why should the one have been reformed by the reformers, but not the other?


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> So the Reformers were cowards on Baptism Randy?



Rich, I don't buy the argument that the Reformers were afraid to address _any_ thing that they thought needed addressing. I don't think Randy's arguing that either. I took it to be an observation that people focus on certain things and dig in. It's not a sign of cowardice to be focused on one thing and ignore another.

Now, to be clear, I certainly don't buy the argument that the Reformers ignored baptism, either. Just trying to diffuse the cowardice issue, because I don't think anybody seriously propounds that.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Tom Bombadil said:


> If the argument for not reforming the sacrament of infant baptist is to be taken seriously, then I'd like a credo to tell me why he doesn't think the reformers should have "reformed" Rome's doctrine of anti-paedcommunion.
> 
> Why should the one have been reformed by the reformers, but not the other?



Let me draw this out:

1) You could say: "Well, they did reformed the doctrine of the eucharist. Look at all the theological changes." -- Okay, but they kept the *subjects* the same. So, in this answer you're assuming that the *subjects* are inconsequential to "reforming" something.

2) You could say: "Oh, we're just talking about Baptism; why didn't they reform that?" -- Okay, how is this not special pleading and arbitrary?

3) What's another option the credo has?


----------



## tellville

1. I think the accusations against my character are uncalled for. 

2. I'm basing my reflection on lectures done by James White (Gene just triggered this information in a way that it had not been triggered before). I believe the particular information can be found in his Hebrews sermons, possibly the sermon on Heb 8. I think a shortened version is on his padeobaptist sermons which follow the Hebrew lectures. He has also said similar things in other sermons he has given on Baptism. I believe he qualifies his statement with "the view of padeobaptism as viewed by John Calvin had its first full fruitation in him" or something along those lines. 

3. To take the position that the majority of Christians at the time, if not almost all of them, had an invalid baptism would have been a hard thing to swallow. Thus, there would have been pressures to reform the doctrine as currently practiced as opposed to reforming it full scale. Plus, there was the state pressure to keep infant baptism. The state didn't care why it happened, just that it did. Unless James White and others who have made this statement are completely out to lunch (or maybe my interpreting of him is wrong though I don't think so) I don't think that this is a stretch or ahistorical. 

4. I'm not thumbing my nose at anybody. If saying "the Reformers are not infallible, but incredibly godly men" is thumbing my nose at them then I will be the first to repent of such a statement. But I don't see it as thumbing my nose at them.

5.


Tom Bombadil said:


> Anyway, since the RC church ENDED paedocommunion, then would it be "reforming" that doctrine to re-instate it? Perhaps the reformers were scared of the state and so that's why they didn't reform the doctrine of non-paedocommunion.





Tom Bombadil said:


> The "whatever it is" has been shown to be arbitrary. To be consistent, shouldn't you say that the reformers should have "reformed" the denial of the eucharist to infants, and that they didn;t do so because they were "afraid" of the state?



I'm not exactly sure what your getting at with your insistence on anti-padeocommunion. I'm not saying that reforming=whole scale change. I also never said that the Reformers didn't reform the doctrine of Baptism, though my words I guess could have conveyed that, though I don't see necessarily how. Also, I don't think I've been arbitrary. I've trusted the information given to me.

Again, these were the thoughts that came to my mind right after I heard the debate. Not that they shouldn't be challenged but they were reflections. They were * not * meant as arguments against padeobaptism which I made very clear in my first post.


----------



## elnwood

tellville said:


> Given that the theology behind the Reformed reason for baptising infants can first be found in church history in the writings of John Calvin, and given the Reformers would have been under pressure to keep infant baptism going, all I am saying is that raises some red flags. *It's not an argument*, I've said this from the beginning, it doesn't need to be responded too unless the facts are wrong, for if the facts are right it does nothing to undermine the validity of infant baptism and even if it was an argument it would be an _ad hominen_ argument.



Actually, I'm pretty sure the first Reformed articulation for infant baptism was Zwingli, not Calvin. This is not really in debate. For example, Baptist Mark Dever and Presbyterian (PCA) David Coffin agree on this.

http://www.reformation21.org/Reformation_21_Blog/Reformation_21_Blog/58/vobId__6336/

Paul Manata asks that if the Reformers should have reformed baptism, should not they reform every other doctrine?

No one here has argued that the doctrine should be reformed simply because it was Catholic.

The point is that baptism went unreformed because it had dire ramifications than the other doctrines that were reformed. If they reformed the recipients of baptism, then they would have to face the fact that they were all unbaptized, and for them, this was unacceptable.

The problem was that they had no Scriptural argument for infant baptism at the time of the Reformation, so they had to either come up with one or change.

Paedobaptists often argue that since infant baptism was an older practice than believer's baptism, it has historical precedence. From a historical theology stand-point, though, Reformed infant baptism is more recent. The Anabaptists were only practicing credobaptism before Zwingli, and Zwingli actually seriously considered credobaptism before rejecting it and presented a covenantal argument for infant baptism.

It should be noted that we're not trying to prove credobaptism from history. History can point to why certain believers may have been biased towards a particular doctrine, but history can't prove doctrines are true. Only Scriptural exegesis can. Therefore, to say that our historical analysis necessitates, say, paedocommunion, is to miss the point completely.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Again, this is such special pleading. "Dire consequences?" Please.

I'm sorry but I cannot view this as anything but desparate when these kinds of arguments are made.

Why specifically infant baptism? What was so dire about it? Why would this be unacceptable to them?

Please, Don or somebody, show me a thread of writing in Calving or Luther in which they reason this way.

Do you know what this reminds me of? Higher criticism. You can't actually believe the story that is told so you have to actually create a psychological reason for why Luke is different than Mark - because Luke wanted to be more convincing he added details that weren't true.

Wasn't sure I'd find somebody here using such special pleading.

No matter how you slice it, I think this is the worst kind of character assassination.

If you cannot _document_ this thinking other than placing them in a historical context and reasoning that _you_ might have insufficient character to personally wither the criticism then admit that you would probably be unable to face certain facts. But don't come on here, without proof, and mere special pleading to claim that any of the Reformers did this unless you can document the evidence.

And saying "James White said so" isn't evidence.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

If the argument is that the reformers had motivation to keep the practice of infant baptism, and because this is the case, this somehow taints their position, then I think this is a clear case of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.

Whether or not it is the case that the reformers had motivation or pressure (or whatever) to keep the practice of infant baptism, the theological arguments need to be dealt with. So making such an argument gets us nowhere.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, this brand of lame argumentation is precisely what Gene did in this debate and I realized this earlier.

Did anybody else notice that Gene had a 4 point argument and one of his points was that this was a doctrine that the Reformers left un-reformed?

He simply asserted it in his opening argument. He didn't provide any documentation, didn't provide any proof, didn't substantiate it in the least. He just said it.

But, apparently, for some such assertions are enough to be considered trustworthy.

Finally, it is quaint to say that a Scriptural argument didn't exist for infant baptism at the time of the Reformation.

NEWSFLASH: A Scriptural warrant didn't exist for credo-baptism at the time of the Reformation. (Wow, crowd is overawed with such profundidity. Golly, that must _mean_ something.)

I wasn't aware there was such a thing as "Reformed paedobaptism". Silly me, I thought there was one baptism.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> NEWSFLASH: A Scriptural warrant didn't exist for credo-baptism at the time of the Reformation. (Wow, crowd is overawed with such profundidity. Golly, that must _mean_ something.)



Simply not true. Anabaptists were practicing it based on Scripture before the Reformers picked up on a non-salvific covenantal view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I said at the time of the Reformation Don.

Also, if you read my post, infants were being baptized before the Reformation and before the Anabaptists. If you wish to simply argue that the Anabaptists were baptizing like you guys do but that the doctrinal reasons are immaterial then two can make that facile argument.

Are you an Anabaptist Don? Do you agree with them on the nature of Baptism?


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> Again, this is such special pleading. "Dire consequences?" Please.
> 
> I'm sorry but I cannot view this as anything but desparate when these kinds of arguments are made.
> 
> Why specifically infant baptism? What was so dire about it? Why would this be unacceptable to them?
> 
> Please, Don or somebody, show me a thread of writing in Calving or Luther in which they reason this way.



You want Luther? You don't even want to go there. Luther was scared of being unbaptized because for him, being unbaptized is to be unsaved! Being unsaved is a dire consequence, is it not?

http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/large_cat/large_catechism25.htm
"It is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved."



> No matter how you slice it, I think this is the worst kind of character assassination.



Character assassination? No, it's the truth.



> If you cannot _document_ this thinking other than placing them in a historical context and reasoning that _you_ might have insufficient character to personally wither the criticism then admit that you would probably be unable to face certain facts. But don't come on here, without proof, and mere special pleading to claim that any of the Reformers did this unless you can document the evidence.



It's documented.



> And saying "James White said so" isn't evidence.



Oh, please.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> I said at the time of the Reformation Don.
> 
> Also, if you read my post, infants were being baptized before the Reformation and before the Anabaptists. If you wish to simply argue that the Anabaptists were baptizing like you guys do but that the doctrinal reasons are immaterial then two can make that facile argument.
> 
> Are you an Anabaptist Don? Do you agree with them on the nature of Baptism?



No, the argument is doctrinal. Infants baptized before the Reformation is not germane to the argument. My point was simply that a Reformed view of infant baptism did not precede a theology and practice of credobaptism. If you have a problem with this, why don't you take it up with Mark Dever or David Coffman, who both agree despite different positions on baptism?


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> Again, this is such special pleading. "Dire consequences?" Please.
> 
> I'm sorry but I cannot view this as anything but desparate when these kinds of arguments are made.



Never made an argument. I said a point Gene made sent up some red flags. Not enough to change my opnion on anything, just flagged for future notice and consideration.



SemperFideles said:


> Why specifically infant baptism? What was so dire about it? Why would this be unacceptable to them?



One, because we are in a Baptism thread talking about a Baptism debate where this particular point was brought up. Two, I think it is fair to say that to admit that everybody wasn't baptised properly at that point of time would have been kind of dire. Obviously not the only dire issue, but dire none the less. 



SemperFideles said:


> Do you know what this reminds me of? Higher criticism. You can't actually believe the story that is told so you have to actually create a psychological reason for why Luke is different than Mark - because Luke wanted to be more convincing he added details that weren't true.



What story am I denying? I never denied any story. Also, I don't think "padeobaptism just can't be true". Just because I have not embraced padeobaptism doesn't mean I think there is no possible way it is true. 



SemperFideles said:


> Wasn't sure I'd find somebody here using such special pleading.



Special pleading? I'm not special pleading. I was stating my reflections right after hearing the debate. And I made sure to say that I didn't view it as an argument, just something that sent a red flag up in my mind. 



SemperFideles said:


> No matter how you slice it, I think this is the worst kind of character assassination.



Character assassination? I said the Reformers could *possibly* have been affected by outside influences (just like anybody else in the entire history of humankind). How is this character assassination? Was my added "the Reformers weren't infallible, even though they were incredibly Godly men" the straw that broke the camel's back? 



SemperFideles said:


> If you cannot _document_ this thinking other than placing them in a historical context and reasoning that _you_ might have insufficient character to personally wither the criticism then admit that you would probably be unable to face certain facts. But don't come on here, without proof, and mere special pleading to claim that any of the Reformers did this unless you can document the evidence.
> 
> And saying "James White said so" isn't evidence.



I cited my source as James White and told you where you could find the information. I must admit, that is all I can do. How he came to that conclusion I do not know. I find Dr. White to be pretty trustworthy and very careful about not stating things that can be shown to be completely false. However, if you are demanding I find a Reformer admitting they were under pressure to keep infant baptism in a personal diary or something I think you are asking too much. I think at most one would be able to find is historical data that suggested that the State had much vested interest in keeping infant baptism, and therefore the state church, the norm. 

Just because someone was influenced by something doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong or even how they got to those conclusions are wrong. I never said the Reformers were wrong or that Padeobaptism was wrong because of my reflection. All I said was that a red flag went up in my head. Watch out. There might be a tradition overriding some exegesis. I've readily admitted that my credo background could be adversely affecting how I am reading scripture. Why couldn't the padeo background of the Reformers have done the same thing? 

Again, at the end of the day, the merits of the padeo or credo position must be decided by the text of scripture, not by analyzing the sociological reasons of why people believe certain things.

Well, I need to finish packing. I am going to be on a bus all day (16 hours, YAY!) tomorrow to Vancouver (Langley, to be particular). I have a job interview to be a youth pastor at a Korean church. So, try not to character assassinate me too much while I'm gone .

God bless you Rich, you are a true treasure on this board.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said at the time of the Reformation Don.
> 
> Also, if you read my post, infants were being baptized before the Reformation and before the Anabaptists. If you wish to simply argue that the Anabaptists were baptizing like you guys do but that the doctrinal reasons are immaterial then two can make that facile argument.
> 
> Are you an Anabaptist Don? Do you agree with them on the nature of Baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument is doctrinal. Infants baptized before the Reformation is not germane to the argument. My point was simply that a Reformed view of infant baptism did not precede a theology and practice of credobaptism. If you have a problem with this, why don't you take it up with Mark Dever or David Coffman, who both agree despite different positions on baptism?
Click to expand...


I asked you if you were an Anabaptist Don. What are the Anabaptists to you?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is such special pleading. "Dire consequences?" Please.
> 
> I'm sorry but I cannot view this as anything but desparate when these kinds of arguments are made.
> 
> Why specifically infant baptism? What was so dire about it? Why would this be unacceptable to them?
> 
> Please, Don or somebody, show me a thread of writing in Calving or Luther in which they reason this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want Luther? You don't even want to go there. Luther was scared of being unbaptized because for him, being unbaptized is to be unsaved! Being unsaved is a dire consequence, is it not?
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/large_cat/large_catechism25.htm
> "It is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how you slice it, I think this is the worst kind of character assassination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Character assassination? No, it's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot _document_ this thinking other than placing them in a historical context and reasoning that _you_ might have insufficient character to personally wither the criticism then admit that you would probably be unable to face certain facts. But don't come on here, without proof, and mere special pleading to claim that any of the Reformers did this unless you can document the evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's documented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And saying "James White said so" isn't evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.
Click to expand...


Saying "It is documented" is not documentation. This is no longer a _request_. I do not allow something that maligns the character of men to be simply asserted. I am taking it up with _you_. If you want to present the actual place where Calvin or Luther state that they form the doctrine because of their fear of not being baptized then do so. You're treading on thin ice here.

This has to do with basic levels of decency on this board. I don't mind disagreement over doctrine but psychologizing is beneath this board unless it can be demonstrated from their writing itself as the basis.

I would demand the same out of any scholar that came on this board. You are not permitted to hide behind another man's words and simply report that "experts" say Calvin had ulterior motives. Hearsay is inadmissable here.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Paul Manata asks that if the Reformers should have reformed baptism, should not they reform every other doctrine?



No I didn't ask that Don. If you read above you'll note that I've only asked about *one* doctrine.



> The point is that baptism went unreformed because it had dire ramifications than the other doctrines that were reformed. If they reformed the recipients of baptism, then they would have to face the fact that they were all unbaptized, and for them, this was unacceptable.



My question still applies. By teaching what they did about the Lord's supper they implied that they had not really been taking it on Roman Catholic assumptions.

You can say, "yes, they had been because of their *reformed* views on the Lord's supper." If you respond that they did believe that they had never reeally been taking it, then you prove that they had no problem with the belief that they had been wrongly partaking in the sacraments! But then you're guilty of specual pleading. 

And, I guess one could say that if the Ananbaptists had "reformed" the subjects of baptism for the proper reasons, they'd have to admit that they had been sinning and keeping their children from the sign. Thus I see your argument and raise you two. 




> It should be noted that we're not trying to prove credobaptism from history. History can point to why certain believers may have been biased towards a particular doctrine, but history can't prove doctrines are true. Only Scriptural exegesis can. Therefore, to say that our historical analysis necessitates, say, paedocommunion, is to miss the point completely.



I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you're gonna make the argument for the one, why not the other. What can you bring against me that I couldn't counter with a paedocommunion argument?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> Just because someone was influenced by something doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong or even how they got to those conclusions are wrong. I never said the Reformers were wrong or that Padeobaptism was wrong because of my reflection. All I said was that a red flag went up in my head. Watch out. There might be a tradition overriding some exegesis. I've readily admitted that my credo background could be adversely affecting how I am reading scripture. Why couldn't the padeo background of the Reformers have done the same thing?
> 
> Again, at the end of the day, the merits of the padeo or credo position must be decided by the text of scripture, not by analyzing the sociological reasons of why people believe certain things.
> 
> Well, I need to finish packing. I am going to be on a bus all day (16 hours, YAY!) tomorrow to Vancouver (Langley, to be particular). I have a job interview to be a youth pastor at a Korean church. So, try not to character assassinate me too much while I'm gone .
> 
> God bless you Rich, you are a true treasure on this board.



Mark,

It is one thing to note with interest the history surrounding Calvin. Don is where my ire is specifically aimed right now. There is a consistent habit with some to throw anybody under the bus as long as the argument is served. It might be interesting to note what might have affected Calvin and others at the time but then it becomes a matter of impugning the character of a man to state that because something would appear catastrophic to them they they would twist the Scriptures to fit the mold of their times and be men pleasers. Why would Baptists even want to read the writings of Calvin if his care for the Word was so poor? What else might have happened to him in his childhood that we don't know about lest we all fear there's something else that he's imported and pulled the wool over all our eyes!

This goes completely against the grain of how Calvin was willing to challenge even Luther on the Lord's Supper or Augustine at certain points. It doesn't do justice to the man. I've heard Baptists outright charge Zwigli with temerity on this point. Some must have been brought up with a different standard of what acceptable conduct is if you can't see how uncharitable it is to ascribe motive to people when they haven't given you a hint of that motivation in their writing. I just chided CalvinandHodges the other day for saying things about the motivation of James White and he's actually interacted personally with him. Why sould I allow you guys to do that to Calvin five centuries removed?

I simply recoil when someone blithely states: Well, he was just invested in trying to find that from the Word. If he was really Reformed _like me_ then he'd see how conditioned and fearful he was.

Unbelievable. I simply cannot stomach that kind of dialogue here.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said at the time of the Reformation Don.
> 
> Also, if you read my post, infants were being baptized before the Reformation and before the Anabaptists. If you wish to simply argue that the Anabaptists were baptizing like you guys do but that the doctrinal reasons are immaterial then two can make that facile argument.
> 
> Are you an Anabaptist Don? Do you agree with them on the nature of Baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument is doctrinal. Infants baptized before the Reformation is not germane to the argument. My point was simply that a Reformed view of infant baptism did not precede a theology and practice of credobaptism. If you have a problem with this, why don't you take it up with Mark Dever or David Coffman, who both agree despite different positions on baptism?
Click to expand...


Don, 

Did a "reformed and covenantal" view of believers baptism proceed the reformation? The kind of "reformed credo-argument" that a Malone, a White, or a Cook would make?

You know, the whole "seed of faith" and "elect only because of the progression of the covenants" and the "typological nature of the OC?"

Without this all the credo is left with are *descriptions* and from these he cannot derive the practice of "believers baptism alone."

Now, maybe you disagree, but many reformed baptist have went the CT argument route because the case from mere example is flimsy at best.

So, you you have examples of this kind of argument before the reformation?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said at the time of the Reformation Don.
> 
> Also, if you read my post, infants were being baptized before the Reformation and before the Anabaptists. If you wish to simply argue that the Anabaptists were baptizing like you guys do but that the doctrinal reasons are immaterial then two can make that facile argument.
> 
> Are you an Anabaptist Don? Do you agree with them on the nature of Baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument is doctrinal. Infants baptized before the Reformation is not germane to the argument. My point was simply that a Reformed view of infant baptism did not precede a theology and practice of credobaptism. If you have a problem with this, why don't you take it up with Mark Dever or David Coffman, who both agree despite different positions on baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> Did a "reformed and covenantal" view of believers baptism proceed the reformation? The kind of "reformed credo-argument" that a Malone, a White, or a Cook would make?
> 
> You know, the whole "seed of faith" and "elect only because of the progression of the covenants" and the "typological nature of the OC?"
> 
> Without this all the credo is left with are *descriptions* and from these he cannot derive the practice of "believers baptism alone."
> 
> Now, maybe you disagree, but many reformed baptist have went the CT argument route because the case from mere example is flimsy at best.
> 
> So, you you have examples of this kind of argument before the reformation?
Click to expand...

Precisely. I'm still waiting to hear how the Anabaptists are his theological forbears on this. 

As I noted: equating Anabaptists baptism to modern versions simply because of mode and recipient is about as thoughtful as saying that everybody who baptizes like me believes like me.


----------



## satz

Rich,

What exactly about anabaptist baptism makes it so offensive?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Rich,
> 
> What exactly about anabaptist baptism makes it so offensive?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists


----------



## Jim Johnston

Two can play this psychological game.

The Anabaptists took the reformation too far. In their hatred of the protestant reformers, and the RC church, they took the reformation too far by "reforming" some things that shouldn't have been reformed. To say that the RC church, and the reformers were right about the subjects of baptism, was something they couldn't stomach. In their power hungry lust to be individualists who said that alomst everyone was wrong about everything, they just had to "reformd" infant baptism.


----------



## elnwood

Tom Bombadil said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said at the time of the Reformation Don.
> 
> Also, if you read my post, infants were being baptized before the Reformation and before the Anabaptists. If you wish to simply argue that the Anabaptists were baptizing like you guys do but that the doctrinal reasons are immaterial then two can make that facile argument.
> 
> Are you an Anabaptist Don? Do you agree with them on the nature of Baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument is doctrinal. Infants baptized before the Reformation is not germane to the argument. My point was simply that a Reformed view of infant baptism did not precede a theology and practice of credobaptism. If you have a problem with this, why don't you take it up with Mark Dever or David Coffman, who both agree despite different positions on baptism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> Did a "reformed and covenantal" view of believers baptism proceed the reformation? The kind of "reformed credo-argument" that a Malone, a White, or a Cook would make?
> 
> You know, the whole "seed of faith" and "elect only because of the progression of the covenants" and the "typological nature of the OC?"
> 
> Without this all the credo is left with are *descriptions* and from these he cannot derive the practice of "believers baptism alone."
> 
> Now, maybe you disagree, but many reformed baptist have went the CT argument route because the case from mere example is flimsy at best.
> 
> So, you you have examples of this kind of argument before the reformation?
Click to expand...


There is a difference between rejecting a previous doctrine of infant baptism and forming a new one, as the Reformers did, and elaborating on a doctrine using greater understanding of the covenants.

Reformed baptists still use argument from example (Gene used it in his debate, in fact), and there was never a point where Reformed credobaptists rejected the anabaptist doctrine of baptism and then had to come up with a new justification for it. These are completely different.

Though Reformed credobaptists did not descend directly from the Anabaptists, it's not really in dispute that their credobaptism was, among other sources, derived by the Anabaptists.


----------



## elnwood

SemperFideles said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, this is such special pleading. "Dire consequences?" Please.
> 
> I'm sorry but I cannot view this as anything but desparate when these kinds of arguments are made.
> 
> Why specifically infant baptism? What was so dire about it? Why would this be unacceptable to them?
> 
> Please, Don or somebody, show me a thread of writing in Calving or Luther in which they reason this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want Luther? You don't even want to go there. Luther was scared of being unbaptized because for him, being unbaptized is to be unsaved! Being unsaved is a dire consequence, is it not?
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/l/luther/large_cat/large_catechism25.htm
> "It is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved."
> 
> 
> 
> Character assassination? No, it's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> It's documented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And saying "James White said so" isn't evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying "It is documented" is not documentation. This is no longer a _request_. I do not allow something that maligns the character of men to be simply asserted. I am taking it up with _you_. If you want to present the actual place where Calvin or Luther state that they form the doctrine because of their fear of not being baptized then do so. You're treading on thin ice here.
> 
> This has to do with basic levels of decency on this board. I don't mind disagreement over doctrine but psychologizing is beneath this board unless it can be demonstrated from their writing itself as the basis.
> 
> I would demand the same out of any scholar that came on this board. You are not permitted to hide behind another man's words and simply report that "experts" say Calvin had ulterior motives. Hearsay is inadmissable here.
Click to expand...


Look Rich, I am not out to slander Luther or anyone else. I think you are overreacting.

All I'm making is a few short and not really disputable points.

1. For Luther and Calvin to deny infant baptism as true baptism had dire consequences.
Proof: For them to deny infant baptism would mean that they are unbaptized. Luther believed that baptism is necessary for salvation. To say nothing of covenant inclusion, this is a dire consequence.

2. Every single is biased because of their background. There is no such thing as an unbiased person.
Generally accepted.

3. More specifically, Luther and Calvin are biased based on their baptism background.
Follows from 1 and 2.

4. This bias affected their view on baptism.
Follows.

I'm not saying that this was the only reason or main reason they rejected it, nor did I say they reasoned this way in their writings. I'm saying that it affected their view, just like everything in our background affects our views. They could have ended up becoming credobaptists, and it would still be true that their infant baptism background had an effect on their formation of doctrine.

Paul Manata has asserted on this board that credobaptists are biased towards thinking Gene won the debate because they come from a credobaptistic background. It's simply a fact. I'm not going to scream slander on Paul Manata against me because Paul says there is a bias. I'm not going to demand that Paul Manata find a statement of mine that says "Because I believe credobaptism is correct, Gene must have won the debate." That would be improper.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the argument is doctrinal. Infants baptized before the Reformation is not germane to the argument. My point was simply that a Reformed view of infant baptism did not precede a theology and practice of credobaptism. If you have a problem with this, why don't you take it up with Mark Dever or David Coffman, who both agree despite different positions on baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> Did a "reformed and covenantal" view of believers baptism proceed the reformation? The kind of "reformed credo-argument" that a Malone, a White, or a Cook would make?
> 
> You know, the whole "seed of faith" and "elect only because of the progression of the covenants" and the "typological nature of the OC?"
> 
> Without this all the credo is left with are *descriptions* and from these he cannot derive the practice of "believers baptism alone."
> 
> Now, maybe you disagree, but many reformed baptist have went the CT argument route because the case from mere example is flimsy at best.
> 
> So, you you have examples of this kind of argument before the reformation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between rejecting a previous doctrine of infant baptism and forming a new one, as the Reformers did, and elaborating on a doctrine using greater understanding of the covenants.
> 
> Reformed baptists still use argument from example (Gene used it in his debate, in fact), and there was never a point where Reformed credobaptists rejected the anabaptist doctrine of baptism and then had to come up with a new justification for it. These are completely different.
> 
> Though Reformed credobaptists did not descend directly from the Anabaptists, it's not really in dispute that their credobaptism was, among other sources, derived by the Anabaptists.
Click to expand...


Okay, and paedobaptists had used arguments from Matt 28 and circumcision hundreds of years before the reformation. In fact, in 150 AD gentile Christians in the chruch had changed Acts 2 to read: "Forf the promise is for us and our children." This shows that the idea of covenantal succession was accepted even then. And this point has been underscored and agreed upon by top notch NT scholar Ben Witherington III (who sides with the credobaptists and makes essentially the same arguments as Beasly-Murray) in his book, _Troubled Waters_. In fact, he says that he and many other scholars think this may be the first known refernce to a justification for infant baptism, and this is covenantal and what guys like Calvin used.

And, I wonder how many credo books you've read. Read Malone's *positive* argument for credobaptism., Yes, he uses argument from example, but his MAIN argument, taking two large chapters, is one from CT! Where is this found in the Anabaptists?

Your biases are obvious to all.

I counter every one of your moves.


----------



## Jim Johnston

elnwood said:


> Paul Manata has asserted on this board that credobaptists are biased towards thinking Gene won the debate because they come from a credobaptistic background. It's simply a fact. I'm not going to scream slander on Paul Manata against me because Paul says there is a bias. I'm not going to demand that Paul Manata find a statement of mine that says "Because I believe credobaptism is correct, Gene must have won the debate." That would be improper.



It's statements like this that bother me. I also said that _paedobaptists_ were biased, Don. _I_ am biased, Don. (And, I'm not under the impression that, say, Richard Dawkins has any quotes out there that say, "I disagree with theistic arguments because I hate God and love my sin; I'm biased." That doesn't mean he's not biased.)


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Reformed baptists still use argument from example (Gene used it in his debate, in fact)



Oh, yes, that's right. Is = ought, but when Christians do it it's not fallacious.

Jesus served the supper to Judas, therefore we should serve the supper to those who we know are unregenerate. Is = ought, right?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SemperFideles said:


> So the Reformers were cowards on Baptism Randy?



I don't think they were cowards. But if such heavy persecution was levied upon antipaedobaptist and persecution was eminent then I may not have chosen that as a sword to fall upon. But Justification by Faith. Well that is another issue. 

Anabaptist were definitely a strange breed. They were also persecuted because of their ourtageous beliefs. When the 1644 was written a century later it was to clarify that the Credo's were not of this ilk. Anyone who held to antipaedobaptism before that time was heavily persecuted whether or not they were othodox or not. And you know this. Death was basically eminent if you were not in Germany. By the time the 1644 was written there were enough solid guys who held to the view that they were finally listened to. And they were able to dispel any fear of the unorthodox errors of the anabaptists.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would like to add one more thought. I am not sure to its validity but it is something that has crossed my mind over the years. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, were all baptized as Catholics. It seems that that would have some bearing in their thoughts concerning baptism also. Luther hated the idea for many years that he would be splitting with the Roman Church. And after many years of ministering if he denounced his baptism he would have been an unbaptized minister of the Faith. And that would have brought repute against him. I suspect that that would have done the same for the others. It would have been a major criticism they would have received. And if they did get rebaptized then that would have brought major repudiation. Luther was especially cautious about removing ceremony or changing any administration of the sacraments for conscience sake of those who were weak or feared change. 

Just some ramblings. I will listen to Paul's intro tonight and comment. I am very interested in his premise and syllogism.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Randy,

I know you've been on the RB list discussing my argument and my opening. Will you be able to listen to my argument without recalling how you've already discussed and had my opening tainted?

And, Randy, why didn't the reformers "reform" the subjects of communion? (No one has answered this yet.)


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> Randy,
> 
> And, Randy, why didn't the reformers "reform" the subjects of communion? (No one has answered this yet.)



Paul, as I said elsewhere, I don't buy the argument that the Reformers ignored baptism. But I have been trying to figure out why you bring this up. My glib answer is "why would they be inclined to?"

I'm missing the point. Is it simply because my glib answer is the correct one and it applies to paedobaptism too?


----------



## Jim Johnston

Hi Vic,

The argument from the credo is that the reformers didn't reform "baptism." Well, they did. So what the baptist means is that they didn't "reform" the *subjects* of the sacrament.

Okay, what about the *subjects* of communion. In gthe 1200's Rome did away with infant communion. So, should they "reformers" have "reformed" the *subjects* of this sacrament?

No, says the baptist! Because the *subjects* were correct there.

Okay, so Rome got the *subjects* right, just not the other details.

That is, no one wants people to *reform* the *subjects* of communion in pre-reformation RC dogma. 

Well, same with infant baptism. Rome had the *sujects* right, but not other things.

Indeed, one could say that since the anabaptists didn't "reform" the *subjects* of communion, then believers only communion is the "unreformed doctrine of reformed baptists" ! ;-)


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Vic,
> 
> The argument from the credo is that the reformers didn't reform "baptism." Well, they did, so what the baptist means is that they didn't "reform" the *subjects* of the sacrament.
> 
> Okay, what about the *subjects* of communion. In gthe 1200's Rome did away with infant communion. So, should they "reformers" have "reformed" the *subjects* of this sacrament?
> 
> No, says the baptist! Because the *subjects* were correct there.
> 
> Okay, so Rome got the *subjects* right, just not the other details.
> 
> That is, no one wants people to *reform* the *subjects* of communion in pre-reformation RC dogma.
> 
> Well, same with infant baptism. Rome had the *sujects* right, but not other things.
> 
> Indeed, one could say that since the anabaptists didn't "reform" the *subjects* pf communion, then believers only communion is the "unreformed doctrine of reformed baptists" ! ;-)




 Thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> Randy,
> 
> I know you've been on the RB list discussing my argument and my opening. Will you be able to listen to my argument without recalling how you've already discussed and had my opening tainted?
> 
> And, Randy, why didn't the reformers "reform" the subjects of communion? (No one has answered this yet.)




Now I know who you are. I am behind the times. 

We really haven't been. Bob has discussed some stuff but he hasn't heard any of it yet. Before you had the debate I was telling them not to underestimate you and that you would back everything up with the Scriptures. Of course I was chided. But I warned them. I even warned them not to think of CT Paedo as being unreformed or a doctrine left unreformed. 

I will be utterly fair with my assesment. I actually predicted you would win. What I have said here is what I posted over there. That is all I am going to do. I will listen to part of it and then post here and then there. I have already been critical of Gene as you may have noticed. And no one over there rebutted me in my critique. 

Concerning the subjects of communion. I am not real familiar with the argument. Is it that the Catholic Church didn't support paedocommunion or that they did? I am really out of the loop on that one. The Presbyterian Churches I have been a member of wouldn't allow it. The RPCNA I was a member of required a person go through an examination first. 

I don't think every doctrine the RC Church believed needed to be Reformed. Reformation doesn't mean you have to change everything. That is rediculous. The doctrine of the Trinity is a great example. As far as reforming the doctrine concerning the elements and how they were viewed, .... that was one of the main points of persecution for the English Reformers. Jusitification by Faith alone was a secondary very important issue when persecution started in England. The first test was what do you think about the Mass. I picked that up reading Ryles Light from Old Paths book.

I promise to Listen without any tainting. Because I expect you won the debate anyways. I found Gene's Intro lacking. Your intro is next after I go watch my Samuel Rutherford play Right Tackle on the Jr. High team in about a half hour. 

You ought to go over and read what I said about you before the debate. I think you would be very proud of me. I gave you a lot of credit and took some away from my side. I warned them not to be to cocky. 

Will be back on later.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> Hi Vic,
> 
> The argument from the credo is that the reformers didn't reform "baptism." Well, they did. So what the baptist means is that they didn't "reform" the *subjects* of the sacrament.
> 
> Okay, what about the *subjects* of communion. In gthe 1200's Rome did away with infant communion. So, should they "reformers" have "reformed" the *subjects* of this sacrament?
> 
> No, says the baptist! Because the *subjects* were correct there.
> 
> Okay, so Rome got the *subjects* right, just not the other details.
> 
> That is, no one wants people to *reform* the *subjects* of communion in pre-reformation RC dogma.
> 
> Well, same with infant baptism. Rome had the *sujects* right, but not other things.
> 
> Indeed, one could say that since the anabaptists didn't "reform" the *subjects* of communion, then believers only communion is the "unreformed doctrine of reformed baptists" ! ;-)




I must be the weirdest Reformed Baptist ever if that is the way most of them think. 

By the way isn't comparing one subject (communion) and another (baptism) like comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Honestly, after reading some of the posts from other Reformed Baptists I'm suprised that they would even argue some kind of "conspiracy" theory about the reformers "under pressure". That's pretty low....


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

My summary of Paul Manata's Intro to the debate. 

Premise 1. Baptism is for those who enter the Church

Premise 2. Infants of one or more Christian parents are Church members.

Paul discusses the grammitical historical hermeneutic. We both agree on that. Then he makes the point that family plays a BIG role in discovering the truth of what we are looking at.

Then Paul starts to discuss the ramifications of being covenantally cursed and how that relates to children by quoting Jeremiah 44:7 and Michael Horton. To be covenantally cursed in the Old Covenant is something we are just going to have problems with because we see the natures of the Covenants differently. Besides this covenantal cursing is based upon the Old Covenant of Moses and not the New Covenant. The New Covenant can not be broken according to Jeremiah 31. It is not a covenant like the one made with the fathers which they broke. Grant it Paul is making a point about a Covenant Family and the basis of the Church is the Covenant Family in his understanding. Again I think we need to make a distinction between the natures of the Covenants and Covenant families here based upon the different natures of the Covenants. We are going to differ here. 


Paul makes mention under his second premise that no Jewish apologist has made a mention of Christians being cursed for removing their Children from the Covenant. I find this rather odd. I am not a historian but if my mind understands the days of the early church Christians were considered outside and apostate from the Jewish covenant anyways. So I am not sure that that would have been an argument. Albeit it is still an argument made from silence. Which may be a good argument or not. Paul's point in mentioning this is that the early Christians must not have excluded their children from covenant inclusion or being members of the New Covenant because the apologist don't say they are cursed for covenant exclusion of the children. But I find this a rather moot argument because the Jews considered Christians cursed anyways because of covenant unfaithfulness. Therefore the Christian's children were cursed according them and they wouldn't have written about this anyways.


After this Paul goes into describe the immutablity of the Covenants. I agree with him concerning this for the most part. Covenants are immutable but their natures are different. I know we are going to disagree on the nature of the covenants. And possibly even whether or not the Covenant of Grace had a sign before Abraham. And then we will disagree on the Nature of the Covenant of Circumcision probably. 

Then Paul discusses the Church and when it starts. Gene and I are definitely going to agree with him for the most part here. But whether or not we are going to agree on whether or not the ecclesia is fully matured or how the ecclesia is related to a specific covenant or not is another matter. Paul also shows that the children were included with this ecclesia in the Old Covenant and the whole assembly stood before the LORD. Again we are left without defining our distinctions and and consideration of the natures of the Covenants. I believe he is blurring the lines because he does not see the difference between the natures of the Covenants. Every man can stand before the face of the LORD. Even Balaam the Seer stood before the LORD and communicated with Him. Paul Manata is speaking of the Old Covenant Congregation and he is not making a distinction between natural Isreal and spiritual Isreal. Even St. Paul said not all of Isreal was Isreal. Paul is not even considering the Nature of the Covenants he is mentioning. As I mentioned before in the first Critique, Rich and I had a discussion on the Abrahmic Covenant and the distinctions that are discovered in it even. There are differences to who is considered in covenant with God's everlasting Covenant and who is not but is included in the Covenant of circumcision. I don't think Paul is considering these distinctions either. A link to this discussion is in my first critique of Gene's intro.

Paul then goes into a lot of Scripture quotes that emphatically say "the Children." And as a highlight verse he turns to Malachi's prophesy of John the Baptist. The turning of the Fathers hearts to their Children and the Children's hearts to the father. He is emphasizing the Covenant Family restoration as opposed to the curses found under the old covenant. 

After that Paul brings to the attention the passage of Jeremiah 31 and the Law on the heart. He makes mention that the law was not upon old Covenant hearts. And they were cursed for it. At this point I am scratching my head because he is implying it seems to me that because a child is born to someone who has the law written on his heart that the child automatically should be assumed to have the same law written on the childs heart. 

I am probably butchering Paul's points but we just are going to have a major disagreement on the nature of the New Covenant vs. the Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic Covenant. 

One of my disagreements with Paul is that our Children are not cast off because we have not baptized them or consider them to be in covenant with God. I consider children to be born under the Covenant of Works, not the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision nor the mosaic. I am commanded to raise my children in the admonition of the LORD. I am also commanded to admonish others to be reconciled to God which would bring them into a New Covenant Relationship but all children are born outside of the Covenant until God brings them into the New Covenant. My children attend Church with me and I admonish them to call upon the Lord but they are not New Covenant Members whose sins are forgiven without Christ effectually calling them. 

Just my 2 cents at this point. 

BTW... Paul is a much better debator than Gene on this issue so far. And he is a much better writer than I am so he will probably rip me apart. And that is ok. He did not ask me to critique him either. 

Next...

Paul makes a point to say he believes all the texts he quoted on children , and that I have not mentioned because of time, are verses that include children in the New Covenant. Well, Ok but I have many questions as to their generalities and specific points. We could almost make a case for all children of believers are going to be in heaven by the passages Paul quotes and I am not sure he wants to do that either.

He later discusses the training of Children up in the admonition of the Lord. And seems to imply that this is only done in a covenantal inclusion that looks like the Old Covenant inclusion. But I totally disagree with this. He then makes mention of the 5th commandment and raising children. But I think the promise of the fifth commandment would be applicable even to someone who is not covenantally included with Abraham and after. For any child who honoured there parents biblically, God would bless. BTW there were families who were in the Covenant of Grace around the time of Abraham who were not of his family and who didn't receive the Covenant of Circumcision. They had no sign but they were in the Covenant of Grace. Nehemiah Coxe mentions this in his book Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ.

Then Paul asserts the same argument that we have all heard before that the sign of baptism was placed upon all the family members and there must have been children there. Therefore the Covenant sign is placed upon children. 

Again we are just going to disagree about the Natures of the Covenants. Whether there is a cursing or non cursing in the New Covenant is a big point of contention that I believe is being missed so far. His understanding must be if one was cursed for not circumcising in the old then there is a curse for those not given baptism at birth by believing parents. His argument is that there is no removal of children from Covenantal inclusion of God's visible people. But I don't think Paul M. understands the Nature of the New Covenant clearly. The children in the New Covenant are those of faith. They are the spiritual children of Abraham who are justified by faith alone and their sins are forgiven. 

Another point I want to make is that every parent eveywhere is responsible for raising their children up in the LORD. It matters not if they are regenerate or not. We are all going to be held accountable for how we all discipled our children. It doesn't take some kind of doctrinal Covenant inclusion to do this. In fact I think it is rather deceptive to teach a child they are in a New Covenant relationship with God when they may be strangers to the covenant. It neglects the nature of what the new Covenant is. A Covenant made based upon the forgiveness of sin and knowing the Lord. Not like the one that the early church fathers could break. It is an unbreakable Covenant.

Just from listening to his first part Paul has not proven his conclusion to me as you can see. 

Now I did this off the cuff and Paul may have something to say as to how I heard him and that is fine. I am not the infallible Pope. LOL

That finished the first introduction section. I did this in a rather tired state so if you don't understand what I have written, your not crazy.

I will continue on to the next section later.


----------



## 44jason

Hello brothers,
I have been out of town on a vacation since the debate last Sunday night. I have read much of the comments above and am not surprised that the paedo's feel like Paul did a good job. Of course, I totally disagree. I had several "fence-sitters" in the audience that night who I talked to in order to get an *unbiased* response. Each one I talked to had the same reaction: Paul is a good debater but his argument was simply unconvincing. Gene's arguments seemed to be more defensive because Gene had to correct Paul's inconsistent hermeneutic.

Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, *so baptize them all and let God sort them out."* He used Hebrews 10:30 to defend this position -- just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Heb. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.

It is true that Gene was caught off guard with this assertion by Paul. But who could blame Gene; this position is so off-base that Gene was surprised that his good friend said this. Gene even admitted that the assertion trapped him by surprise, and then Gene had to re-trace his steps and had to use valuable time trying to decipher this twisted position.

In fact, Paul's position was such a stretch that Paul spent most of his cross-examination time begging Gene to re-write the Bible so that infant baptism is clear -- to which Gene said, "I am pleased with the way it is written." (_paraphrase_)

The audience picked up on the fallacy of Paul's position and submitted the following questions:

"If Christ is the mediator of the NC does he mediate on behalf of baptized infants. If so, how can they be lost?" 

"Who is the federal head of these baptized infants who have not yet confessed Christ and who are not yet regenerate. Are they the children of God, the children of Adam or are they in limbo?" 

"Scritpure says, "As many as have been baptized in Christ have been clothed in Christ". Have baptized infants been clothed in Christ?" 

"What obligation does God have towards baptized infants of believers?"

By the end of the Q&A Paul was arguing like an Arminian and asserting doctrine that sounded much like "age of accountability."

Now, to my paedo brothers. I appreciate Paul and all his friends participating in this event. It was truly edifying to the congregation of Murrieta Valley Church. Being Reformed and being Baptist, we found this debate to be truly a blessing to all -- on both sides of this important issue. May the reformed community continue to grow together FOR THE SAKE OF THE GOSPEL!

*May God bless you men,
Jason Robertson*
Pastor of Murrieta Valley Church
FIDE-O


----------



## Herald

Jason - welcome!


----------



## tellville

puritancovenanter said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Reformers were cowards on Baptism Randy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they were cowards. But if such heavy persecution was levied upon antipaedobaptist and persecution was eminent then I may not have chosen that as a sword to fall upon. But Justification by Faith. Well that is another issue.
> 
> Anabaptist were definitely a strange breed. They were also persecuted because of their ourtageous beliefs. When the 1644 was written a century later it was to clarify that the Credo's were not of this ilk. Anyone who held to antipaedobaptism before that time was heavily persecuted whether or not they were othodox or not. And you know this. Death was basically eminent if you were not in Germany. By the time the 1644 was written there were enough solid guys who held to the view that they were finally listened to. And they were able to dispel any fear of the unorthodox errors of the anabaptists.
Click to expand...




puritancovenanter said:


> I would like to add one more thought. I am not sure to its validity but it is something that has crossed my mind over the years. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer, were all baptized as Catholics. It seems that that would have some bearing in their thoughts concerning baptism also. Luther hated the idea for many years that he would be splitting with the Roman Church. And after many years of ministering if he denounced his baptism he would have been an unbaptized minister of the Faith. And that would have brought repute against him. I suspect that that would have done the same for the others. It would have been a major criticism they would have received. And if they did get rebaptized then that would have brought major repudiation. Luther was especially cautious about removing ceremony or changing any administration of the sacraments for conscience sake of those who were weak or feared change.



Randy has said what I basically wanted to say but didn't know how. Maybe the way I was conveying myself was totally off, because what he said obviously didn't bring the wrath of the padeos!


----------



## Jim Johnston

Hi Jason,



> have been out of town on a vacation since the debate last Sunday night. I have read much of the comments above and am not surprised that the paedo's feel like Paul did a good job. Of course, I totally disagree. I had several "fence-sitters" in the audience that night who I talked to in order to get an unbiased response. Each one I talked to had the same reaction: Paul is a good debater but his argument was simply unconvincing. Gene's arguments seemed to be more defensive because Gene had to correct Paul's inconsistent hermeneutic.



In fact, to date, not one paedo has said I lost the debate but many credos (even RB pastors, even credos on TNM site) have said Gene lost. It's not because they're biased. This is who I used to get an *unbiased* response. 



> Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out." He used Romans 10:30 to defend this position -- just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Rom. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.



Actually, that is not "my reason," I gave my reason in the argument that I _explicitly laid out_ as "my reason." In fact, I never even mentioned Romans 10:30! I don't mind you staying credo, but should you misrepresent me so bad? I mean, it's pretty bad to misrepresent someone so bad that you don't attribute to them their explicitly stated reason for baptizing infants of believers while attributing to them reasons they never stated as their reasons! This alone throws your ability to objectively comment on the debate into serious disrepute. Seriously, I think an answer should be forthcoming. How could someone attribute to me an argument I never used as my "reason" to baptize our covenant children, but not tell everyone about the argument that I explicitly and positively stated as my reason for doing so. Shoot, even credobaptis R. Snyder got that part right in his above review (even though he got some things wrong I haven't been motivated to correct his post, but when something so blatantly at odds with the observable evidence is stated, and my position slandered and mocked without any basis in reality, I just had to say something. I hope Jason's inability to grasp my basic argument, and his woeful disregard for the observable and public evidence, serves as indisputable evidence against his so-called "honest review." Is the above type of totally off-the-wall analysis actually evidence of someone trying to convince himself that his own position was actually propounded and defended well that night?



> It is true that Gene was caught off guard with this assertion by Paul. But who could blame Gene; this position is so off-base that Gene was surprised that his good friend said this. Gene even admitted that the assertion trapped him by surprise, and then Gene had to re-trace his steps and had to use valuable time trying to decipher this twisted position.



Oh, okay, if that's the way we're going to analyze the debate: "I was caught off guard by Gene's wacky comments and so had to spend my valuable time trying to decipher his twisted position." 



> In fact, Paul's position was such a stretch that Paul spent most of his cross-examination time begging Gene to re-write the Bible so that infant baptism is clear -- to which Gene said, "I am pleased with the way it is written." (paraphrase



What? This is ridiculous. I actually spent my time asking Gene the question about "teach neighbor", which ruined Gene's stated interpretation of Heb. 8 right there, I asked Gene about prescriptions and had to ask him the question or 4 times and still got no answer, hew didn't even answer my question, and then asked him, repeatedly, how the prophets could have written that "all children of believers are in the NC." Gene didn't even seem to understand this question. _I think I showed that his position a priori ruled out mine so that there would be no way the Bible could teach that all children of believers were in the NC... even if they were!_ That's a serious problem; reflect on it a bit.



> The audience picked up on the fallacy of Paul's position and submitted the following questions:
> 
> "If Christ is the mediator of the NC does he mediate on behalf of baptized infants. If so, how can they be lost?"



That's your own assumption of "the fallacy of my position." Based on YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the NC, then that's a valuable question. Based on mine, it's nothing more than begging the question. Really, that you think these are actual points, and not re-affirmations of what you _already came to the debate believing_, speaks volumes to how "objectively" you listened to the debate.

Christ doesn't mediate on behalf of the non-elect. I agree with Hebrews. he mediates for "all those who draw near."



> "Who is the federal head of these baptized infants who have not yet confessed Christ and who are not yet regenerate. Are they the children of God, the children of Adam or are they in limbo?"



Adam is, of course. But, what does this have to do with a covenant relationship?

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. 

Psalm 22:9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. 

And, again, I must point out that you view the NC as only have one face, I view it as having two. To hold me accountable to your understanding of the NC is to beg the question. Now, if you remember, in the debate, I argued from I Cor. 5:1-13 to prove an external or legal aspect to the NC. Gene's response, "The word New Covenant isn't in there." Now, as a pastor, you've got to know that this is bad exegesis. Thus Gene never rebutted my point, and therefore he left my legal element argument unscathed. So, _as far as the debate goes_, Gene didn't do close to what you think he did, let's at least be honest there.



> "Scritpure says, "As many as have been baptized in Christ have been clothed in Christ". Have baptized infants been clothed in Christ?"



Oh really, even the false professors??? I already refuted this in the debate. Let's make honest points.

And, Eze. 44 says that "No longer can uncircumcised people in flesh and heart come to my temple." We know that infants of the Israelites were brought there." So, did all the infants have "circumcised heart."




> By the end of the Q&A Paul was arguing like an Arminian and asserting doctrine that sounded much like "age of accountability."







> Now, to my paedo brothers. I appreciate Paul and all his friends participating in this event. It was truly edifying to the congregation of Murrieta Valley Church.



And we appreciate you. We don't ask that you become paedo, but we do ask for honesty.


----------



## 44jason

Paul, you know that the above is a misprint. I quoted you as using *Romans 10:30* but meant *Hebrews 10:30*. You act as if I was just lying and then call for me to be honest.

Paul, I didn't expect such from you. *You knew what passage you quoted* (it was a major part of your polemic), but rather than defend it you try to act like I am dishonest. Would you like to retract such an assertion and then respond to what I said -- or do you wish to just continue with your above behavior. If you wish to continue with silly tactics then I have no desire to have such a conversation on a public forum.

My desire is to be helpful and informative to all within the Reformed community -- not to win debate points. By your above comments I am no longer sure if you share in this desire. I will wait for your response.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Jason,

I didn't know it was a misprint, actually. So, you've imputed false motives to me. Actually, why would I given all the other major misrepresentations you made in your post? 

Anyway, It was not a "major part" of my polemic. It was used in the cross exam period when Gene was crossing me. And, it wasn't used with the intent to, as *you* say, "Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out." He used Romans 10:30 to defend this position." I don't use Hebrews 10:30 to defend that position. And, in fact, if you can recall, I put forth a logical syllogism and asked Gene which premise he disputed. He never even answerred that question. I used Hebrews 10:30 to defend the idea that there is a legal, or administrative aspect to the NC. But, it was not a "major" part of my polemic. In fact, I didn't use it in my opeining, and only briefly touched on it in my rebuttal. To more major part was my use of I Cor. 5:1-13. To this Gene didn't respond other than to say, "the world new covenant isn't in that passage."

At any rate, there were too many other aspects of your post which were not even close to what happened. So, though I don't think you are *deliberately* being dishonest, I think your biases are really coming through and evidencing themselves in the fact that you are misrepresenting the agreed upon facts of the debate.

I mean, would you like to retract your statement that "my only reason for baptizing babaies was...' when I never stated that as my reason, and in fact gave another reason as my main reason, which I then defended and argued for throughout the remainder of the debate.

To misrepresent the fact is not being "helpful or informative." I am simply informing the Reformed community of the actual facts, whether you were convinced by my arguments in another matter. I'm sorry that you think spot-lighting blatent errors and misrepresentations is "just wanting to win," but why should I let errors go unchalleneged and not responded to. 

If you could accurately summarize my position, that would at least be a start.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

If I remember correctly the reason for his Paedo position in the intro had to do with a Covenantal blessing and Covenantal Cursing. The restoration of the Blessing of how God would turn the hearts of Father to child and child to Father was his intro. We really disagree on the Nature of the New Covenant as I mentioned above.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One more thing. I am willing to bet that Jason and Paul are sharing some true points of the debate. I will find out as I go along and listen. I have a hi regard for both of these guys.


----------



## Jim Johnston

puritancovenanter said:


> If I remember correctly the reason for his Paedo position in the intro had to do with a Covenantal blessing and Covenantal Cursing. The restoration of the Blessing of how God would turn the hearts of Father to child and child to Father was his intro. We really disagree on the Nature of the New Covenant as I mentioned above.




Randy, the stated position was my syloogism.. You're bringing up a *sub*argument I used in defense of premise 2.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tom Bombadil said:


> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly the reason for his Paedo position in the intro had to do with a Covenantal blessing and Covenantal Cursing. The restoration of the Blessing of how God would turn the hearts of Father to child and child to Father was his intro. We really disagree on the Nature of the New Covenant as I mentioned above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, the stated position was my syloogism.. You're bringing up a *sub*argument I used in defense of premise 2.
Click to expand...


Yep your correct... MY bad.


----------



## Jim Johnston

puritancovenanter said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritancovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly the reason for his Paedo position in the intro had to do with a Covenantal blessing and Covenantal Cursing. The restoration of the Blessing of how God would turn the hearts of Father to child and child to Father was his intro. We really disagree on the Nature of the New Covenant as I mentioned above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, the stated position was my syloogism.. You're bringing up a *sub*argument I used in defense of premise 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep your correct... MY bad.
Click to expand...


Just to make this clear (not for you, Randy) let me quote part of what I read in my opening:



> Tonight we’re debating about who the proper subjects of Christian baptism are. Gene’s position is that professing Christians alone are to be baptized. I believe that professing Christians as well as their infant children are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Since both Gene and I agree about baptizing professors, I’ll focus on the infant portion of my argument. My argument is simple: (1) All who join the visible Church are proper subjects of Christian baptism. (2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent join the visible Church (at birth). (3) Therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parent are proper subjects of Christian baptism



So for Jason to say,



> Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out." He used Romans 10:30 to defend this position -- just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Heb. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.



is to totally distort what actually happened. Actually, in my opeing, which was my positive case, I never mentioned any arguments for internal/external.

(note: the term "at birth" is not meant to function as a term in the argument, simply as an explanation. Just to avoid unecessary questions like, "does the child become a memebr at his baptism?" In fact, this is what Gene has said my position is, which my above argument, if he had payed attention, utterly refutes. As I said, I don't care if credos stay credos, I expected it. I care about slandering the facts of the debate.)


----------



## 44jason

Paul, I am shocked that you are saying this. This is not the Paul that I met last Sunday. The first paragraph of your above comment (#233) is a "conversation-ender" for me with you, a brother in Christ. *You cannot really think that I believe that you didn't know that I had made a typo in writing the word "Romans" instead of "Hebrews". Why? * two reasons: in comment #229 I didn't just write the Romans 10:30 but I also quoted the verse I was referring to by writing "His people". "His people" is not in Romans 10:30 -- because *THERE IS NO* ROMANS 10:30!!!!!!!!

So Paul, I have no desire to continue to debate you in a public forum such as this, out of respect for our Lord's testimony.

I will gladly continue conversing with others about the facts of this debate. That which I have said can be confirmed by listening to the MP3's. The death nail to Paul's position came in the end when He affirmed his belief that he believes that Jesus is in a covenant relationship with the unelect in the New Covenant. That issue goes to the heart of the Paul's definition of NC and Paul's view of baptism.

As a Baptist, my definition of what baptism is does not allow for Paul's view that we should be knowingly baptizing the unconverted. Baptist may unknowingly baptize one who is unconverted as did the Apostles on one recorded occasion, but it was definitely neither the norm nor something they thought was OK.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

> I will gladly continue conversing with others about the facts of this debate.



Pastor Jason, I must say that Paul's reaction is not about Heb 10:30 or Romans 10:30, but about your misrepresentation of Paul's argument.

Suppose I summarize Gene's argument by saying that, his argument is basically "those who profess their faith are elect, and therefore those who profess their faith should be baptized. And since infant cannot profess their faith, there is no way any infant can be elect, therefore infant cannot be baptized" would you protest that I am misrepresenting Gene's position? I do think that your summary of Paul's argument fall in the same line. From a baptist's stand point, you will react to my "summary" similar to how Paul reacted to your "summary", which is understandable.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Here's how I read it: "Rom. 10:30"

OK, what is that verse... can't find... what's up...? 

OK, there IS no Rom. 10:30. Must be a typo. *I have no idea what the correct reference is.* Is it elsewhere in Rom. 10? v.3 perhaps? v.13? No, I need "his people".

At this point, I have no idea what the reference is to. Now, if I'm Paul, I have my opening statement in front of me, I can see there is no reference to Rom 10:30. Do I even check and see if there is a Rom. 10:30? Probably not. So do I have any idea which of all the [e-sword check of ESV] 161 verses containing the phrase "his people" I may have referenced _at some time_ in the debate?


Should Paul have called for "honesty" at this point? Myself, I did not see this as a personal attack on Jason's integrity. Knowing Paul, I thought he was simply asking for "accuracy", which is a "milder" term. But, remember that from Paul's standpoint, the issue is misrepresentation of 1) what WAS his main argument versus its restatment, and 2) based on a (problematic) text which was in the end not referenced except once, much later in the debate (now that we know which text).

Can we  and move on?


----------



## 44jason

Polo, No, actually Paul is reacting to the Heb/Rom reference. Here is the quote of what he actually said, 



> Actually, that is not "my reason," I gave my reason in the argument that I explicitly laid out as "my reason." In fact, I never even mentioned Romans 10:30! I don't mind you staying credo, but should you misrepresent me so bad? I mean, it's pretty bad to misrepresent someone so bad that you don't attribute to them their explicitly stated reason for baptizing infants of believers while attributing to them reasons they never stated as their reasons! This alone throws your ability to objectively comment on the debate into serious disrepute. Seriously, I think an answer should be forthcoming. How could someone attribute to me an argument I never used as my "reason" to baptize our covenant children, but not tell everyone about the argument that I explicitly and positively stated as my reason for doing so. Shoot, even credobaptis R. Snyder got that part right in his above review (even though he got some things wrong I haven't been motivated to correct his post, but when something so blatantly at odds with the observable evidence is stated, and my position slandered and mocked without any basis in reality, I just had to say something. I hope Jason's inability to grasp my basic argument, and his woeful disregard for the observable and public evidence, serves as indisputable evidence against his so-called "honest review." Is the above type of totally off-the-wall analysis actually evidence of someone trying to convince himself that his own position was actually propounded and defended well that night?


I don't need to go through this quote and point out Paul's silly tactic to ignore the facts by calling into question my integrity.

Now, concerning the substance of your opinion of my summarization of Paul's argument let me say this: Have you listen to the entire debate including the Q&A? Gene actually said that not all professers are in the elect so your attempt to make a parallel doesn't work. My summary used actual arguments made by Paul. Your summary ignored Gene's actual statements to the contrary of your summary.

But, Polo, thank you for engaging in this conversation. I understand that you think that I may be misrepresenting Paul, just because he says so. But the debate is online for all to listen to. If and when you do listen to it, you will hear Paul challenge Gene that we cannot know who are in the elect. Paul said since we do not know then we cannot have "conversion" as a requirement for baptism candidacy. Paul did not argue that baptism had anything to do with conversion, in fact. Paul argued that baptism had only to do with being a sign that you are in the visible church. Gene refuted this with Scripture. Paul failed at any consistent biblical argument; Paul relied heavily on the logical integrity of his given syllogism rather than the theological consistency with a vast amount of clear Scriptures quoted by Gene.
*
By the way, Paul's logic was:*
Premise 1 = all who join the visible church are proper subjects of Christian baptism
Premise 2 = infants of one or more professing Christian parents join the visible church at their birth
Conclusion = therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parents are proper subjects of Christian Baptism

Paul said that since the premises are true then the conclusion is unavoidable.

*But premise two is invalid. END OF DEBATE!
*
But Paul spent his time arguing for the acceptance into the visible church knowingly unregenerate people -- and then argued that God would sort it out -- and thereby used Hebrews 10:30.


----------



## 44jason

Bruce, thank you for your comment. I am guilty of being confusing. I hate misquoting a reference -- especially in a sermon!!! Thankfully, this was just in an online forum. OH, and I hope no-one ever ignores my entire sermon if I ever mis-quote a reference -- as Paul asked you guys to ignore all of my comments as being "totally off-the-wall analysis". Or as he said, "This alone throws your ability to objectively comment on the debate into serious disrepute." REALLY.

Well, I happen to know Paul's tactic. He tried using such diversions during the debate if you listen closely. Don't get me wrong, I love Paul as a brother in Christ. But I do find it funny that he runs away from certain things in order to stay on point with his Presbyterian presuppositions.

And don't say that I as a Baptist do the same thing. Being a Southern Baptist who is a Covenant Theologian and Calvinist proves that I not an apologist for denominational presuppositions. Paul would have you believe that and has asserted such several times in the last few comments. But that is only an attempt to attack me rather than defend his arguments.

I will not play his game. It's a smart move in winning public support, but a poor move when it doesn't work. Sorry Paul.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Paul said, "IF the premises are true," and he tried to argue for proposition 2, spending most of his positive presentation on that one point, and arguing for it from 1) old testament texts which were either explicitly or implicitly referencing the New Covenant, and 2) new testament texts (since he was pretty sure proposition 1 was agreeable.)

It is certainly the baptist's position that #2 is invalid, however, that proposition and the voluminous Scripture adduced to defend it needed to all be addressed, reinterpreted, and refuted in order to carry the debate from the dissenting side. Of course, there was Gene's positive presentation for his side also, which, if strong enough to withstand the other side's assaults, could have left the contest at a true "draw."


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Paul, I am shocked that you are saying this. This is not the Paul that I met last Sunday. The first paragraph of your above comment (#233) is a "conversation-ender" for me with you, a brother in Christ. *You cannot really think that I believe that you didn't know that I had made a typo in writing the word "Romans" instead of "Hebrews". Why? * two reasons: in comment #229 I didn't just write the Romans 10:30 but I also quoted the verse I was referring to by writing "His people". "His people" is not in Romans 10:30 -- because *THERE IS NO* ROMANS 10:30!!!!!!!!
> 
> So Paul, I have no desire to continue to debate you in a public forum such as this, out of respect for our Lord's testimony.
> 
> I will gladly continue conversing with others about the facts of this debate. That which I have said can be confirmed by listening to the MP3's. The death nail to Paul's position came in the end when He affirmed his belief that he believes that Jesus is in a covenant relationship with the non-elect in the New Covenant. That issue goes to the heart of the Paul's definition of NC and Paul's view of baptism.
> 
> As a Baptist, my definition of what baptism is does not allow for Paul's view that we should be knowingly baptizing the unconverted. Baptist may unknowingly baptize one who is unconverted as did the Apostles on one recorded occasion, but it was definitely neither the norm nor something they thought was OK.



Jason,

You're adding all this extra emotional baggage to my words. I'm being to the point. 

Anyway, forget the Heb/Rom thing. I actually thought you meant it. I didn't take the time to look it up or think about ch. 10.

As Polo correctly points out, my biggest complaint is your misrepresentation of my arguments that night. Citing something I never used in my *positive case for infant baptism* as my "main reason for infant baptism." If you can't see how this is poor scholarship, then I can't help you.



> The death nail to Paul's position came in the end when He affirmed his belief that he believes that Jesus is in a covenant relationship with the unelect in the New Covenant.



Okay, now here is Jason's chance to back up what he's saying here.

Please give the exact quote you're thinking of. Explain what I meant, and then explain how this is a "death nail."

The death nail is when Gene said that "they won't teach their neighbor" meant "they won\'t evangelize their neighbor as a NC member" and I showed that he admitted he would/has evangelized NC members.

The death nail is when Gene said that his ONLY verse that lays down the prescriptive command about who should be baptized, Matt. 28; that was thoroughly refuted.

The death nail was when gene admitted that his position entails that the Bible could not teach that all children of believers were in the NC... _even if God had tried to teach that_!

The death nail came when I gave an argument for a continued administrative or legal aspect to the NC from I Cor. 5, and Gene's only responses was, "the word new covenant isn't in the text."

The death nail came when Gene tried to argue that the "his people" in Heb. 10/l30 was the Jews and I pointed out that Hebrews says that he will call the Jews "NOT his people."

The death nail came when I gave an argument from Heb. 10:30 showing that the apostates were in covenant with God and I asked Gene which premise he cared to rebut, and he didn't rebut any of them. Now, if you knew anything about logic you'd know that this was a problem.

The death nail came when I showed that Gene's typology argument could also be used for not allowing ethnic Jews in the covenant. I did this by logical counter example. This means I took the same *logical form* of Gene's argument, used the same amount of true premises, but drew and absurd conclusion.

The death nail came when I pointed out that the meaning of circumcision was not something Baptists would think infants currently possessed, yet Baptists don't think children shouldn't have been circumcised.

The death nail came when gene did not interact with my stated syllogism in my opener. If you know anything about logic, his going to the nature of the NC, even if true, did not rebut my syllogism since that had to due with the "visible church." Thus Gene didn't even address or rebut the argument I laid out for him right in front of his, and every one else’s face.

I can keep going if you'd like?



> As a Baptist, my definition of what baptism is does not allow for Paul's view that we should be knowingly baptizing the unconverted.



If we can't know who is converted, as Gene Cook himself said, then how can I "knowingly" baptize the unconverted? Your statement has a built in contradiction. I mean, one is either converted or un-converted. There is no middle. Now, if I can know who is un-converted, then all the rest of the people are converted. Thus Jason thinks he can know who is elect! QED 



> Thankfully, this was just in an online forum. OH, and I hope no-one ever ignores my entire sermon if I ever mis-quote a reference -- as Paul asked you guys to ignore all of my comments as being "totally off-the-wall analysis". Or as he said, "This alone throws your ability to objectively comment on the debate into serious disrepute." REALLY.



Jason, this was based on *multiple* misrepresentations and misunderstandings. Not just the Heb/Rom 10 thing. Consider that one thing a mistake on both our parts and so dropped.



> Well, I happen to know Paul's tactic. He tried using such diversions during the debate if you listen closely. Don't get me wrong, I love Paul as a brother in Christ. But I do find it funny that he runs away from certain things in order to stay on point with his Presbyterian presuppositions.



Mere assertion, substantiate your charges.

And, note Jason says that I "run away" from things. Most people here would note that something that I need to work on is that I _don't_ run away from anything! 



> I will not play his game. It's a smart move in winning public support, but a poor move when it doesn't work. Sorry Paul.



Well, Jason, you've been called out and asked to substantiate your charges from quoting and interacting with my own words. Misrepresenting the observable and checkable evidence may be a smart move when people are to afraid or lazy to call you on, or ask you to substantiate, the fact. Poor move when it doesn't work. Sorry Jason.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Bruce, thank you for your comment. I am guilty of being confusing. I hate misquoting a reference -- especially in a sermon!!! Thankfully, this was just in an online forum. OH, and I hope no-one ever ignores my entire sermon if I ever mis-quote a reference -- as Paul asked you guys to ignore all of my comments as being "totally off-the-wall analysis". Or as he said, "This alone throws your ability to objectively comment on the debate into serious disrepute." REALLY.
> 
> Well, I happen to know Paul's tactic. He tried using such diversions during the debate if you listen closely. Don't get me wrong, I love Paul as a brother in Christ. But I do find it funny that he runs away from certain things in order to stay on point with his Presbyterian presuppositions.
> 
> And don't say that I as a Baptist do the same thing. Being a Southern Baptist who is a Covenant Theologian and Calvinist proves that I not an apologist for denominational presuppositions. Paul would have you believe that and has asserted such several times in the last few comments. But that is only an attempt to attack me rather than defend his arguments.
> 
> I will not play his game. It's a smart move in winning public support, but a poor move when it doesn't work. Sorry Paul.



Jason,

I know you're new here but I'm actually a bit shocked at how quick you amped up in this conversation. You've got 5 posts on the PuritanBoard and 3 posts in you're already accusing a man of dishonesty.

This medium lends itself to being misunderstood.

I agree with the other analyses that for you to simply sum up Paul's argumentation as "We don't know who to Baptize so let God sort them out" was uncharitable and deserved to be challenged very strongly.

You keep calling Paul's words "tactics" and accuse him of "running away" but then you accuse Paul of attacking you. I think, if you went back and read your initial post you might realize that such an analysis was bound to be challenged. I think you need to be prepared for a refutation of a pretty facile summary of the debate. It seems pretty hard to understand why you say you still love Paul but then won't extend him some charity in misunderstanding what you were trying to say and simply refuse to engage him as if he's not worth enduring with a loving patience.

I can understand why Gene responded to certain things the way he did in the debate because I've labored hard and long to understand the credo-Baptist position. Conversely, it seems you think that a Paedobaptist being consistent in his Sacramentology and Covenant Theology is merely resorting to tactics when he won't adopt your assumptions in a disagreement. I think you really need to spend more time understanding the paedobaptist Reformed position. It goes much deeper than a mere insistence that we desire to knowingly baptize the reprobate.

Grace and Peace,

Rich


----------



## 44jason

Paul,
You ask me just to forget about your character attacks on me and continue to engage you. Why would you just ask me or anyone to overlook your behavior? Such emotional reactions to your opponent do you no favors, brother. But I do forgive you.

Now, let me see if I can appease your desire for me to have to type all night... Saturday night non the less... when it is easier for us just to listen to the debate. So I will give you time references for the MP3's. Fair enough?

*MP3 #3*
*time: 13:00 =* You admit that you do not know if who you are baptizing is elect. Gene at least tries to test the validity of someone's faith, even if by the minimal "profession." But your argument is, since neither of us can know for sure then don't fault me for baptizing infants -- God will sort it out. 

*time: 13:20 =* You claim that infants are in the New Covenant based upon the Abrahamic Covanant. You continue through 15:45 and following to continue this argument by saying that infant baptism was in the Great Commission.

*time: 18:20 =* You again speak of your belief that all infants are in the New Covenant regardless of their spiritual condition.

*time: 28:47 =* Paul claims that the Great Commission is about baptizing disciples, but back around time: 15:45 he was arguing just the contrary. Namely, that the Great Commission was commanding us to baptize nations, even the unconverted.

*time: 34:00 =* Paul states that infants have both Adam as their federal head and the sign of the New Covenant. That baptized infants have both the sign of the New Covenant but have no mediator. 

*time: 38:00 =* Paul states that if a child does not draw near to God then God has no obligation towards that child. Gene points out that this makes infant baptism MEANINGLESS. 

*time: 39:00 =* Paul is asked that since Paul believes that infants are members of the visible church and are therefore valid candidates for baptism then why not communion? Paul says, "They cannot digest lamb chops." (He was serious.)

*time: 40:30 =* Paul states that Baby Dedications are a non-reformed practice done by Baptist. But Gene had already stated that such a practice is done in Baptist churches for traditional reasons not doctrinal reasons.

*time 42:00 = *Paul argues for baptizing children even though they are "enemies of God" because they aren't really enemies until they actually reject God. This is why I said that Paul argued for sort of an "age of accountability." 

AND RICH L., you must be mistaken. Paul accused me of dishonesty. So your comments are misdirected.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> AND RICH L., you must be mistaken. Paul accused me of dishonesty. So your comments are misdirected.



Jason, how can my comments be misdirected? I was asking you to calm down when you began a conversation that reduced Paul's argument to a facile presentation he never made. I think your initial post was uncharitable in its attribution and summary.

If you can point out where Paul stated that you were dishonest then we'll deal with that. We have Baptist moderators here to keep us all honest and protect the partisans.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me just point out a few things for you in your OP:


44jason said:


> Hello brothers,
> ...Paul is a good debater but his argument was simply unconvincing.
> 
> ...Gene's arguments seemed to be more defensive because Gene had to correct *Paul's inconsistent hermeneutic*...
> 
> ...Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, *so baptize them all and let God sort them out."*...
> 
> ...just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Rom. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.
> 
> ...this position is so off-base...
> 
> ...trying to decipher this twisted position...
> 
> ...Paul's position was such a stretch that Paul spent most of his cross-examination time *begging Gene to re-write the Bible*....
> 
> ...The audience picked up on the fallacy of Paul's position...
> 
> ...By the end of the Q&A Paul was arguing like an Arminian and asserting doctrine that sounded much like "age of accountability"...



Now, my friend, would you say that having one's honesty potentially called into question would be lesser or greater to being accused of being an inconstent exegete, careless about baptism, off base, twisted, adding to Scripture, fallacious, and Arminian?


----------



## 44jason

Rich,
Maybe you didn't read comment #233 in which Paul claimed that I was being dishonest. Remember, he was responding to my first post and made such a remark because I typed "Romans" instead of "Hebrews". So who is uncharitable?
Well, maybe you don't want to believe me. You should read more of Paul's statements over at the NarrowMind Aftermath blog where he does the same thing to a guy named Tony. Yes, he even calls him "a little more than dishonest". And you will never believe why?
So Rich, I appreciate your concern and efforts to keep me accountable. I do appreciate it. But like you said, here is the proof so "deal with that."
Now back to my statement: Listen to the debate and you will find that Paul admits that it does not matter to him that he is baptizing people who neither claim to be converted nor may ever be converted. In fact, Paul says that Hebrews 10:30 is proof that God will judge all of these people who he baptized as infants and will sort out who is truly regenerate and who is not.
Rich, you can continue to claim that my statement is unsubstantiated, but I the MP3's of the debate speak for themselves.
Do you agree with Paul?
In fact, I thought Presbyterians believed that baptism was a means of grace? Manata seemingly does not. Even we Baptist who are Reformed believe that there is a means of grace in a true believers baptism. But Manata is denies any such grace. In fact, Paul argued that God only administers grace WHEN the child draws near to God first.
Does that sound Arminian to anyone else or is it just me?


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Pastor Jason, I think your misunderstanding is this: If I am not mistaken, Gene was using the perfection of NC (i.e. NC = elect) to argue that, since we don't know if the infants are elect, we shouldn't baptize them. Paul's argument was that, since we don't anyone to be elect for sure, Gene's argument can be equally applied to the Baptist's side to prevent any professed believer from being baptized. Paul was using the "we don't know who are the elect" to refute Gene's argument, not as a positive reason why we should baptize infant. Paul's primary argument for infant baptism was the continuinty of the covenant of grace, not "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out". And this is your misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Also, we believe that there are external/internal aspect of a covenant. While Baptist believe that the New Covenant has only internal aspect (i.e. in the NC = elect). Therefore it is common that when a Paedobaptist says "a certain person is in the New Covenant", a Baptist will impose his "NC = elect" assumption and assume the Paedobaptist is saying "a certain person is elect", while the Paedobaptist simply mean that person is under the external administration of the New Covenant. An example would be Esau, he was in the external administration of the covenant of grace, he was circumcised, yet he was not one of the elect for all we know. Similarly, a person, whether an infant or professed believer, can be under the external adminstration of the covenant of grace - baptized, and yet not one of the elect. If you start imposing your Baptist understanding of New Covenant on what we are saying, you will definitely misunderstand/misrepresent what we are saying.

I did listening to the debate couple of days ago. Thank you for hosting and moderating the debate. I think the debate has been really helpful for many on this board.


----------



## 44jason

Polo,
Thank you for your comments. I did understand already the paedo position but it was good to hear it again from you. Concerning your assertion that Paul was saying that Gene's argument can be applied to the Baptist side, I would like to say that this was proven in the debate to be not valid. But Paul and his paedo colleagues continue to assert it as a sound argument.

I have given you ample time references so that anyone can listen with their own ears to Paul's arguments. I will do more references as time allows, especially to show where he asserts "baptize them all and let God sort them out" theology.

I did find it very interesting that Manata's theology of baptism was void of any means of grace -- in fact, he explicitly said that God would do nothing for a baptized person until that person "drew near" unto God. Even us Baptist who are Reformed believe that baptism is a means of grace. That is why we are so disgusted at paedo theology that says that a person is a candidate for the sign of the Covenant, is a member of the church, but cannot partake of the Lord's Table --- why? because they are not of Christ and cannot digest lamb chops.

Come on. I can see that we need a follow-up debate. And this time we can just focus on what is the definition of baptism. That will answer who should be a candidate. Of course, that was Gene's argument that no one wants to deal with.


----------



## 44jason

Good night. Will be back tomorrow, God willing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich,
> Maybe you didn't read comment #233 in which Paul claimed that I was being dishonest. Remember, he was responding to my first post and made such a remark because I typed "Romans" instead of "Hebrews". So who is uncharitable?
> Well, maybe you don't want to believe me. You should read more of Paul's statements over at the NarrowMind Aftermath blog where he does the same thing to a guy named Tony. Yes, he even calls him "a little more than dishonest". And you will never believe why?
> So Rich, I appreciate your concern and efforts to keep me accountable. I do appreciate it. But like you said, here is the proof so "deal with that."
> Now back to my statement: Listen to the debate and you will find that Paul admits that it does not matter to him that he is baptizing people who neither claim to be converted nor may ever be converted. In fact, Paul says that Hebrews 10:30 is proof that God will judge all of these people who he baptized as infants and will sort out who is truly regenerate and who is not.
> Rich, you can continue to claim that my statement is unsubstantiated, but I the MP3's of the debate speak for themselves.
> Do you agree with Paul?
> In fact, I thought Presbyterians believed that baptism was a means of grace? Manata seemingly does not. Even we Baptist who are Reformed believe that there is a means of grace in a true believers baptism. But Manata is denies any such grace. In fact, Paul argued that God only administers grace WHEN the child draws near to God first.
> Does that sound Arminian to anyone else or is it just me?



Have a good night's rest and a blessed Lord's Day.

OK, thank you for pointing that out. We all need to be careful in the way we utilize our polemics that they might not offend. Paul understands this and I would urge you both to be careful. As you have pointed out that example and have had multiple examples in your initial post that were passed over without censure, I would ask us all to continue to be more circumspect in our argumentation.

I think, as aleksanderpolo has noted, you need to distinguish between when a person is using a _reductio ad absurdum_ and when he is giving his actual thoughts on the means of Grace. I would be the first to jump on Paul if I thought what you attributed to a cross-examination or rebuttal accurately reflected his position on those points.

Incidentally, if you wish to interact more on the means of Grace, I would invite you to this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341

Please read all the way through to get to the heart of it. Perhaps you can shed some light on it especially given your concern for means of Grace.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Having read all of the posts here I think a word or two is in order.

First, Paul has made a wonderfully concise and brilliant argument for paedo-baptism in his first presentation when he said:

1) All who join the visible church are proper subjects of Christian Baptism.

2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent(s) join the visible church.

3) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent(s) are proper subjects of Christian Baptism.

Second, this argument gets bogged down by the acculturation of the credo-baptist position. That is: paedo-baptists are not fighting a theology, but a culture. The credo-baptist has created a "culture" of jokes, catch-phrases, misapplied history, and philosophical intransigence that the paedo-baptist must penetrate. Engaging in this culture is what causes the emotional responses of the credo-baptist position. Unfortunately, if the paedo-baptist is not careful, then he also will get bogged down in this culture and confirm the credo-baptist thinking of his culture.

The argument is not about the Bible. The paedo-baptist position is the Biblical teaching on the subject. The argument is about the credo-baptists' emotional and sociological attachment to "Believer's Only." This is evident in their many statements on the subject:

1) Their "joke" about the Bible being the proof of credo-baptism is near and dear to their hearts. It was used in the beginning of this debate by Gene. It was also used in the White/Shishko debate as well. In short they are saying, "We are the Biblical ones. The paedo's simply have a theology."

2) Their catch-phrase of "Believer's Only" is nowhere found in the Bible - hence the "joke" above.

3) Their "history" that the Reformers did not reform baptism is unsubstantiated and a gross misreading of the Reformation. Yet, they brashly call themselves "Reformed"? Not even Spurgeon would do so - but simply referred to himself as "Calvinistic."

Finally, I would call upon both sides to stop the name-calling and emotional jabs at the opposing person's "intentions" and get back to the point at hand. Such, I think, is impossible for the credo-baptist to do, because his "culture" is always getting in the way.

In short I am asking the credo-baptist to be epistemologically self-conscious.

Therefore, I would like to wipe the slate clean and ask the simple question that any Biblical Christian might have concerning 1 Cor. 7:14 which reads:



> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.


Paul is clear to point out that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for their own sake, but for the sake of the children. Thus, the child of at least one believing parent is considered "holy" or "set apart." Is this not the very definition of what it means to be in the Church - to be set apart? i.e. _ekklesia_ the "called out" ones?

Why then would you not administer baptism to one that the Bible calls is "holy."

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Paul,
> You ask me just to forget about your character attacks on me and continue to engage you. Why would you just ask me or anyone to overlook your behavior? Such emotional reactions to your opponent do you no favors, brother. But I do forgive you.



Again, I repost my un-refuted response:

Just to make this clear (not for you, Randy) let me quote part of what I read in my opening:




> Tonight we’re debating about who the proper subjects of Christian baptism are. Gene’s position is that professing Christians alone are to be baptized. I believe that professing Christians as well as their infant children are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Since both Gene and I agree about baptizing professors, I’ll focus on the infant portion of my argument. My argument is simple: (1) All who join the visible Church are proper subjects of Christian baptism. (2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent join the visible Church (at birth). (3) Therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parent are proper subjects of Christian baptism



So for Jason to say,




> Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out." He used Romans 10:30 to defend this position -- just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Heb. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.



is to totally distort what actually happened. Actually, in my opening, which was my positive case, I never mentioned any arguments for internal/external. The "character attacks" have been substantiated. You did not even come close to representing me properly.



> time: 13:00 = You admit that you do not know if who you are baptizing is elect. Gene at least tries to test the validity of someone's faith, even if by the minimal "profession." But your argument is, since neither of us can know for sure then don't fault me for baptizing infants -- God will sort it out.




Actually, Jason, the full context began at 12:15 and it was a response to gene saying that I am KNOWINGLY baptizing unbelievers.

Since Gene had said that he didn't know who the elect are, then I offered this refutation above:

"If we can't know who is converted, as Gene Cook himself said, then how can I "knowingly" baptize the unconverted? Your statement has a built in contradiction. I mean, one is either converted or un-converted. There is no middle. Now, if I can know who is un-converted, then all the rest of the people are converted. Thus Jason thinks he can know who is elect! QED "

Gen can't "test" the "validity" of one's elect status by a "profession," especially when he said he would baptize IMMEDIATELY after profession. A seconds worth of time is not anything like a "test of validity."

At any rate, Jason, this was a *response* to one of *Gene's* complaints against me. This was in the THIRD mp3 for crying out loud! You said above that this was "my main reason" for baptizing infants. How could it be when it wasn't in (a) my opening positive case, (b) my cross exam, (c) my rebuttal??? 

And, my argument was that whatever applies to me can be applied to Gene. If I can't know that I am not baptizing an elect, neither can Gene. Now, perhaps you'd like to do the probability calculus for us and show us the probability that the 1.5 billion Christians who have 'professed faith" are mostly elect.

Indeed, look at some resolutions brought to the SBC convention:



> Whereas in 2004 the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Church Profiles indicated that there are 16,267,494 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
> 
> Whereas well over one half of those members never attend or participate meaningfully in the life of any local Southern Baptist church and are thus no different than non-members; and
> 
> Whereas the ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle; now, therefore, be it
> 
> RESOLVED that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2005, urge Southern Baptists to repent of our failure to maintain responsible church membership, and be it further
> 
> RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further





> time: 13:20 = You claim that infants are in the New Covenant based upon the Abrahamic Covanant. You continue through 15:45 and following to continue this argument by saying that infant baptism was in the Great Commission.



This is bad, Jason. I never even said that! I never even said "based on." In fact, if you charitably listen to my argument, I simply said that Gene quoted WHAT WAS SAID TO ABRAHAM and so the EXEGETICAL INTENT OF GENE'S QUOTE couldn't be that "children were removed from the covenant." You've totally failed to grasp my argument. Your comments here perfectly illustrate what I've found over and over again. It is so bad that it is almost as if fingers were stuck in ears when I talked. If you don't understand the difference between what I said, and what you attribute to me, then you have some severe biases. I hope others can at least see the level of misrepresentation; even if they don't agree with my paedo views.

I continued that argument and showed that "believers baptism" could not be demonstrated from The Great Commission (besides, what does this have to do with what you attribute to me in your opening post here? Looks like you're "running" from the facts 

If you want to know what I said, here's the long version, it is different from your misrepresentation:



> Consider Matthew 28:18-20 briefly:
> 
> (1) The word “alone” is not in the passage.
> 
> (2) Them does not refer to “disciples” since “make disciples,” in Greek, is a verb. It refers to the nations.
> 
> (3) Those in the times of the New Testament would have understood “nations” a bit differently than we do. For example in Amos 3:2 Jehovah tells Israel that He has chosen them over all the “families” of the earth. But the passages which speak about Jehovah choosing Israel takes place in the context of choosing Israel over against all the nations of the earth (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 4:32-37). Thus the passage could have read: “Therefore go and make disciples of all the families of the earth, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
> 
> (4) The same root word for the verb that is translated “make disciples” has been used in the LXX to refer to teaching and training children. Manthano is the root word from where we get the noun “disciple.” The Israelites knew that they were to “disciple” their children. The idea of discipling our children goes all the way back to Abraham. Abraham was chosen “so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just…” (Gen. 18:19). It was common knowledge that parents had the job of making their children disciples. As Mathew says, we make disciples by “baptizing and teaching” people.
> 
> 5) the Gentile mission extends the Jewish mission - not replaces it; Jesus nowhere revokes the mission to Israel (10:6), but merely adds a new mission revoking a previous prohibition (10:5). The “minor commission” is dripping with Federalist assumptions. Entire families and towns were considered disciples of Jesus, or rejecters of Jesus, on the basis of the decision of the representative head of those families or towns. Thus this would have naturally been carried over into the “Great Commission.”



So, Jason, I simply demonstrated that it's much harder to probe "believers alone" baptism from this text. But, the funny part is that I got most the above arguments from Baptists themselves! Beasly-Murray, Keener, Blomberg, Witherington, &c.




> time: 18:20 = You again speak of your belief that all infants are in the New Covenant regardless of their spiritual condition.



Let's note again that this isn't in my intro and so doesn't substantiate your claim about "my only reason" for baptizing our infants.

But, let's look at your quote. The specific context, which you again conveniently left out, is that of a RESPONSE to Gene's question: "Why didn't they just say baptism replaced circumcision." And so in 18:20 I simply said, well why didn't the gentiles respond to the Judaizers that their children were not in the covenant, _and so why were they trying to circumcise them_? Weren't the Gentiles taught from inception into the community that their kids weren't in it? Wouldn't they have thought it odd that these Judaizers were trying to include the children Paul specifically said were out?

And, again, I must point out your misunderstandings. From the paedo perspective, you must understand, and, which I also pointed out in the debate, there are DIFFERENT SENSES to the phrase "in the covenant." When you treat being "in" the NC in just ONE SENSE you're begging the question against our view. I said this in the debate. But since it halts all your arguments, and forces you to deal with the argument stopper _before you move on_ to your "nature of the NC argument," I guess that's why my clear and explicit words get ignored.

So, if one is spiritually dead, then they are only in THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP. I made an ARGUMENT for this from I Cor. 5:1-13. It was INCUMBANT upon Gene to rebut this, what did he say, "Well the word New Covenant isn’t in I Corinthians 5." I mean, that's a good stall tactic, but not likely to persuade the critical thinker.



> time: 28:47 = Paul claims that the Great Commission is about baptizing disciples, but back around time: 15:45 he was arguing just the contrary. Namely, that the Great Commission was commanding us to baptize nations, even the unconverted.



What!!! This is absurd. I claimed that the great commission tells us to baptize disciples, and women are disciples, therefore we can baptize women. You'll note that this was Gene's argument for the Lord's supper. Anyway, I explained my view on Matt 28 and this should be taken as determinative of my views expressed later. Only someone bent on making me look bad would make these claims. Let's note, Pastor, that the TEXT says to baptize the nations, not "me." "Them" cannot refer to "make disciples" since "make disciples" is a "verb" and not a "noun." Almost every scholar agrees that the referent is "the nations." Anyway, I don't know how you're using "unconverted" or "disciple." So, again, you're READING YOUR ASSUMPTIONS into my text.

Look, in one sense, Jesus says that only those who persevere to the end are his disciples. But, we don't baptize at THE END of the Christian life, do we?

No, the text says, "make disciples of the nations by baptizing and teaching them." 




> time: 34:00 = Paul states that infants have both Adam as their federal head and the sign of the New Covenant. That baptized infants have both the sign of the New Covenant but have no mediator.



Well, unregenerate professors have THE SIGN of the New Covenant, but no mediator.

And, what's you beef? Where's your argument? What sense are you talking about being "in" the New Covenant?

You're not even dealing with my position, Jason. Is this "showing yourself to be a workman approved by God?" Are you treating me and my arguments in the best possible light? Am I nodding in agreement as you characterize my position? No. that should tell you something. I don't know about you, but I was always taught that when you critique someone they should see their position in your writings or comments and be in agreement, knowing that you have understood them. You are about 10,000 miles away from that.



> time: 38:00 = Paul states that if a child does not draw near to God then God has no obligation towards that child. Gene points out that this makes infant baptism MEANINGLESS.



And this makes non-drawing-near professors baptism MEANINGLESS then!! Do you even see how bad you're refuting yourself???



> time: 39:00 = Paul is asked that since Paul believes that infants are members of the visible church and are therefore valid candidates for baptism then why not communion? Paul says, "They cannot digest lamb chops." (He was serious.)



Yes, I was. Even most paedocommunionists agree with that! But, it appears that you don't bother to read them either. I try to read and study my opponents.

If you'd like the longer answer, well here's some hi-lights: It is agreed upon that *infants* did not eat the Passover. There was no Gerber Passover Lamb Blender back then. Suffice it to say, it is pretty clear that the meals were for men only, and for catechized children. This is why Jesus goes up to Jerusalem at age 12. This is why the Talmud speaks of taking 12 year olds to the feast "for the first time." This is why ancient Jewish sources recall a story of a "pious Jew" who was turned away at the gate for bring his very young children to the assembly. This is why it was only male disciplines with Jesus at the Passover, and no hint that it was weird that they were away from their family. This is why it was only men ("brothers") at Pentecost, which was the time of one of the OT feasts. This is why there are rituals for *men* to become clean and/or take the Passover the next month, but for women there is nothing. This is especially odd since at least 25% of the Israelite women would have been unclean for Passover (due to menstruation). But there is no ritual cleanliness or way for them to take the Passover the next month with the men who either missed it or had become unclean somehow (which they couldn't anyway since the Jews observed a a lunar calendar).



> time: 40:30 = Paul states that Baby Dedications are a non-reformed practice done by Baptist. But Gene had already stated that such a practice is done in Baptist churches for traditional reasons not doctrinal reasons.



 Well, that was a joke, a jab. Are you really trying to prove something by this? Anyway, Jason, Gene has done them IN THE WORSHIP service. if you want to know, though, since the Roman Catholic Church began believer's communion in the 1200's, then your view (and mine) of the subjects of communion is another "un-reformed doctrine of the RCC church."!!



> time 42:00 = Paul argues for baptizing children even though they are "enemies of God" because they aren't really enemies until they actually reject God. This is why I said that Paul argued for sort of an "age of accountability."



You argue for baptizing enemies of God do since you don't know who the elect are, and you have no "valid test."

And, David was God's enemy, but still called God his God. Around this same time Gene said that "we are ALL born enemies of God."

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. 

Psalm 22:9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. 

And, furthermore, what were they doing giving circumcision to "God's enemies?" Let's quote Paul Jewett:

“If anyone will look a little more deeply beneath the surface, he will perceive that the Old Testament is clearly concerned with the theological and ethical meaning of circumcision, which, as elaborated in the New, lies to close to that of baptism to be depreciated. […] This ethical and theological meaning, as the New Testament interprets circumcision, is not lost but taken up in the meaning of baptism (p. 86).

Paul describes the Ephesians as uncircumcised in the spiritual sense, that, prior to their conversion, they were apart from Christ. But if to be apart from Christ is to be spiritually uncircumcised, ‘alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,’ then to be in Christ must be to possess those blessings which circumcision in the flesh was no less certainly the sign of in the Old Testament than is baptism in the New. …[O]ne can hardly doubt that baptism has the same essential significance [as circumcision] for Christians in the New Testament (p. 87-88).

[T]he only conclusion that we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism” (p. 89).

So, I'm not saying anything that other BAPTISTS aren't.

Let's cite Baptist OT scholar P.D. Woodbridge:

“Circumcision was a physical expression of faith which distinguished those who belonged to the Lord and those who did not. […] [Circumcision was not meant to be understood as a sign of racial purity. […] In Joshua 5:2-8 the necessity of circumcision is again underlined, as God commands that the generation of Jews born on the journey through the wilderness, who had not been circumcised, should now undertake the rite. Verses 6-7, and 11-12 may also indicate that the people should re-dedicate themselves to the Lord before occupying the land promised in the covenant. […] It is clear even from these passages that circumcision is never merely a physical act. It is not sufficient to merely be physically circumcised. The Israelites in Deuteronomy are instructed to circumcise their hearts as a spiritual response to God’s choice of them as his people. This response involves fearing, serving and holding fast to him (v. 20); it is the opposite of stubbornness. Heart commitment is a necessity, not an option. […] The limitations of the mere physical act are underlined in Jeremiah 9:25-26, where the prophet plays down the value of circumcision as merely an end in itself; to rely on it could lead to false confidence and therefore Israel should be circumcised in heart. A Jew with an uncircumcised heart is no different from a Gentile whose nation practices circumcision (cf. Ezek. 44:9, where entry to the rebuilt temple is forbidden to those who are not circumcised in heart and flesh)” (Woodbridge, p. 411-412).

Certainly if the above spiritual realities were assumed to be operating in the adults who were circumcised in the Old Testament, being signified by the physical circumcision while being such that one was not warranted in assuming that infants possessed those realities, or assented to those meanings, then it does not bother the reformed paedobaptist to assume that baptism, which signifies myriad similar and dissimilar spiritual realities in adults which we do not assume infants currently posses, can rightly be given to the infant children of believers. 

Even if circumcision did not signify exactly the same spiritual realities as baptism, the point is that circumcision signified spiritual realities that we are not warranted in believing the infants of the people who professed the true religion back then, currently possessed. To say that since baptism represents X, where X is a spiritual reality we are not warranted in assuming infants currently possess, therefore we should not baptize our infants, is to make a demonstrably false claim. Things that represent X, where X is a spiritual reality we are not warranted in assuming infants currently possess, were given to infants all the time. Thus the argument from meaning is not an obvious argument against infant baptism. 

Cheers,


----------



## Jim Johnston

Jason slanders me again:



> In fact, I thought Presbyterians believed that baptism was a means of grace? Manata seemingly does not. Even we Baptist who are Reformed believe that there is a means of grace in a true believers baptism. But Manata is denies any such grace.



In fact, Presbyterians believe this:

WCF CH. 28.VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

If you can't even state our position correctly, then you shouldn't be "refuting" it, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Jason,
I think I can say, as a paedobaptist,

1) There is a sense in which it is immaterial *for the paedobaptist* whether the baptizee is presently, _or will be,_ converted. And the reason is--we are only baptizing the specific people God has commanded us (so we are convinced) to baptize. Since we are not impacted by a concern over whether a profession is genuine, we will baptize an adult who gives us a credible profession of faith. And so far as we are concerned, he is baptized, and he needn't be again, even if he thinks later on "oh, I wasn't actually converted til later." Because, for us, the order (baptism-conversion-baptism) is of far lower significance. In part this has to do with what baptism symbolizes, in our understanding. So, when I say "it doesn't matter," of course I am "concerned" about a person's sincerity, however, if God has told me to baptize a certain person based on an outward criteria, I don't let my concern about the potential of his lying impact me beyond a very short limit. Unless I think he IS lying, or have strong reasons to doubt that credibility, I actually have an obligation to baptize. Likewise, if God has commanded me to baptize children of believers, I have a duty to do so.

2) The means of grace are never effectual apart from faith. No Reformed Christian should ever say otherwise. Our contention is that the sacraments are *effectual* only when they are united to *faith* through the Spirit's operation, in his appointed time. There is nothing Arminian about this. The "drawing near" is something only a faithful person, a regenerate converted person can do. The elect infant might be blessed faintly in his hour of baptism, however, we really do not know what God is secretly doing, only what the church is doing outwardly in His name. And, the grace of God is most evidently ministered, in this means, at that hour, unto those who are exercising the most patent FAITH at that moment--the _believers_ who have brought their child to be baptized; baptism is functioning as a means of grace to them, as much or more at that moment than to the helpless child.

Perhaps this has cleared up some misunderstanding, I hope.


----------



## 44jason

Paul, As I discerned in my second comment way back, I can see that it is futile to try to have a conversation with you. You feel as if "character attacks are substatiated." I do not and will not participate in such. My arguments stand, the MP3's are clear, and I gain nothing by repeating the obvious.

Bruce, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your two points. Both of them underscore the fact that the real issue is not who is a candidate for baptism but what is baptism. There we find ourselves at odds. Baptist do not claim to know 100% who is regenerated. But Baptist do recognize that we are called upon to do everything we can to know (e.g. "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." Can't do that unless I know who is a believer and who is not.). In the Scriptures it was rare that an unregenerate person was baptized. John the Baptist turned away many; Jude, Peter, John, and Paul all warned of who was of the faith and who was not. Timothy (a non apostle) was called upon to know who was saved. Paul called the Thess. believers the "elect of God" if I remember right.

But just becuase sometimes we mistakenly baptize a non-regenerate person does not mean that we should either just quite baptizing all together or just start baptizing everyone's kids -- since perfection is unreachable. No, we shall do our best in the power of the Spirit to know the mind of Christ and baptize those who repent. That is what the Bible commands -- and no where does it command to baptize infants just because they have a believing parent.

And CalvinHodge, I just don't have time to correct your exegesis of 1 Cor. 7:14 right now, sorry.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I was going to listen to the second segment to day and respond to the examinations. But I am having such a peaceful day and enjoying it I will rest in the Lord and do it tomorrow. 

You all have a great LORD's Day. I am.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Brother Jason,


> we shall do our best in the power of the Spirit to know the mind of Christ and baptize those who repent. That is what the Bible commands


I agree with all the references to exercising a (fallible) spirit of discernment, and to do what we can to make just judgments. Of course, I disagree that in the case of baptism, those exercises extend beyond a simple assessment to a specialized _gnosis_. So far as I'm concerned, I'm only asking for the most basic outward testimony, which is not contradicted, followed by a simple outward rite-of-induction.

I strongly dispute the contention (if this is what you meant) that "having the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) means anything remotely like "knowing (or approximating) the knowledge Christ has" regarding human hearts. That concept *specifically* refers to revelation, our ability to know God's truth, it being Jesus gift to us to know it by the Spirit's enlightening help (Jn. 15:15). I hope you can see how I might be led to think that you could be saying that, given what you wrote above it.

Now, if you mean nothing more by "know the mind of Christ" than "follow the Word, alone," or "know Christ's *doctrine*," and so (since you thus believe the Scripture to teach) only baptize those who repent, _then I don't fault you._ I also must follow the Word alone. Surely we can't both be right, but we CAN both be sincere.

In Simple: Know the mind of Christ objectively= Agree; Know the mind of Christ subjectively= Disagree.


> -- and no where does it command to baptize infants just because they have a believing parent.


And I accept that this is your clearly stated, firmly believed, Scripture-stance.

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

And this is the excluded middle. One of us is right, the other wrong, because if the one is false then the other is true, there is no "we could both be wrong".

Peace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*MODERATOR NOTE*

I appreciate everyone who participates in these hard discussions. I value everyones thoughts whether I disagree with them or not. But for the sake of graciousness and goodness we need to move on from accusing anyone of character attacks. Motives can not be seen on the board. I do know that this thread has started to focus on personality instead of just being focused on the issues. Jason has a gracious spirit as does Paul or these men would not be held in hi regard. So if we can just move on without the accusations and get back purely on the topic, it would highly be appreciated.

(Pro 19:11) The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.

I am grateful you are here Jason. Go away Paul. J*UST KIDDING!*  LOL
__________________


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> Paul, As I discerned in my second comment way back, I can see that it is futile to try to have a conversation with you. You feel as if "character attacks are substatiated." I do not and will not participate in such. My arguments stand, the MP3's are clear, and I gain nothing by repeating the obvious.




Okay Jason, but let's all remember that I was using your terminology, i.e., "character attack." From my perspective I was spot on when I said you misrepresented and mischaracterized my position. I cited undeniable proof of this above. You have slandered my arguments, terribly misrepresented my case, and attributed to me arguments *for* paedobaptism that I never even used. As I'm sure you'd agree, I amunder no obligation to let false accusations fly unanswered. At any rate, I'm fine noting that you refuse to have an objective debate and deal with my responses to what you think my arguments are. Now, I know that tonight you're discussing the debate. Having read your comments above, I am frightened to hear how that's going to go. But, since I have demonstrated that you have misrepresented me, not dealt honestly and charitably with my arguments, and my demonstrations have gone unanswered, I can in good conscious say that I have warned and corrected your understanding of the debate. If you need to continue on in your misrepresentations, so as to bolster the rather shoddy case your side put forward, then I cannot stop you. If you feel that you know my position better than I do, then I think that attitude exposes serious logical weak spots and gives the impression that you are not really too interested in understanding so much as knocking down.

One more proof I'll cite. I've already proven that Jason' claim about what my "main reason" for baptizing infants was flat out false, let me quote what I have said about the type of arguments I use from Heb. 10:30 &c. I wrote this up BEFORE I debated, so no one can say I'm just saying this after the fact. In my extended argument from I Cor. 5, I said:



> Furthermore, *it is not my contention that if one substantiates the idea of a New Covenant “mixed community,” one has automatically substantiated the claim that “the children of professing Christian parent(s) are in said covenantal community*.” *I recognize full well that substantiating the one does not automatically substantiate the other; they are logically distinct.* This concession of mine is also pointed out by many reformed Baptists, of whom Fred Malone is representative. Says Malone, “Even if it were true that [the apostates mentioned in the book of Hebrews] were considered in the New Covenant by their profession, they were not infants” (p. 102).



Since I wrote this before the debate, then this proves what I think about those kinds of arguments. I SPECIFICALLY said that the types of arguments that Jason has said that I use as "my main reason" for baptizing infants, ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT!!!!!!

I have went above and beyond in answering Jason's false allegations. His comments about my arguments do not fit the observable and checkable public evidence. I have pointed this out numerous times. Jason has refused to admit his mistake, has continued in his representations, has taken comments of mine in the debate out of context, and has therefore shown a "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up" attitude.

Will Jason admit his error? Will Jason correct his misfrepresenations? Will Jason own up to his responsibility as an elder to study and show himself a workman approved? Jason can turn this into an emotional debate all he wants. This takes the focus off the original questions and assertions to be resolved. It is a typical tactic of those who cannot back up their original assertions. When someone is shown to have made false accusations, the accusor usually responds, "Now they're just attacking my character." Ok, given the above doccumentation, sufficient chances to correct his false charges, multiple witnesses saying that he's misunderstood, what word would you like to use for what Jason has done?


----------



## Jim Johnston

I should say that it was not my intention to get into a lot of what transpired here. I wanted to talk about the claims Jason made and judge them by the facts of the debate. Too bad this got side tracked. I do respect Jason and appreciate all the work he does defending the doctrines of grace. It is my opinion that I substantiated my claim that his comments mischaracterized (though I agree with what I stated above, I *do not* think this misrepresentation was deliberate and intentional) my position. I will henceforth abstain from further comments in this thread. (I always wanted to say, "henceforth."


----------



## 44jason

Robert asks concerning 1 Cor. 7:14 


> Paul is clear to point out that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for their own sake, but for the sake of the children. Thus, the child of at least one believing parent is considered "holy" or "set apart." Is this not the very definition of what it means to be in the Church - to be set apart? i.e. ekklesia the "called out" ones? Why then would you not administer baptism to one that the Bible calls is "holy."



For Robert to conclude that the Apostle Paul is equating OT covenant language which included circumcision with New Covenant baptism is stop reading the rest of the passage. In verse 16, the Apostle makes it clear that he is not speaking of salvation in any manner. The in verse 17 he makes it clear that he is speaking of individual responsibility. And then in verses 18-19 he makes it even more clear that he is not equating OT circumcision with anything in this passage. He even goes so far as to say that the outward sign "counts for nothing" but "keeping the commandments of God" count. So though it is true that those around a believer (their spouse or their children) are exposed, set apart, hollowed as being in the sphere of someone is filled with God's glory -- that in no way means those who are around them are recipients of that glory. So do not baptize them, do not put any sign upon them that claims them as God's. You can't save them and they have no spiritual advantage just because they are near you. Salvation is no based on statistical advantages but the finished work of Redemption -- as the Apostle mentions in verse 23 ("bought with a price").

Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Later...got to go.

Enjoying the conversation...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.
> 
> Later...got to go.
> 
> Enjoying the conversation...



I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.
> 
> Later...got to go.
> 
> Enjoying the conversation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341
Click to expand...


Sigh. As a credo-baptist I have to concur. The paedos aren't using such cheap language. Everybody is trying their best, I believe, to be faithful to the text. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean their motives are bad. And I really don't see anybody persuading anyone by pragmatism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

victorbravo said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.
> 
> Later...got to go.
> 
> Enjoying the conversation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. As a credo-baptist I have to concur. The paedos aren't using such cheap language. Everybody is trying their best, I believe, to be faithful to the text. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean their motives are bad. And I really don't see anybody persuading anyone by pragmatism.
Click to expand...


*In defense of Jason....*

I didn't think Jason was trying to throw a cheap shot as much as try to make an illustration and point to a fact. It was not pejorative in my opinion. It was an illustration. I believe he was trying to illustrate that the belief of a two for one special that doesn't apply here. And he then pointed to ....



> Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.




BTW, I had to go look up pejorative. 

First off paedo's do not believe the sign is empty in an infants life. It calls one to repent and believe. They do believe there are advantages in that Baptism is a special means of grace (and that doesn't mean a means of special grace). Now from Jason's point he is making reference to somethings that Paul M. said (If I am not mistaken) concerning the effectualness of Baptism. 

That is my $.25 worth and I will be collecting. It is a poor tax. And I liked Jason's point. Especially since I am a credo.


----------



## Jim Johnston

> Now from Jason's point he is making reference to somethings that Paul M. said (If I am not mistaken) concerning the effectualness of Baptism.



And, just so my side is clear, I hold the reformed paedobaptist tradition of saying that the grace signified in the sacrament must be joined with faith, the sacraments do not work _ex opere operato_.

If the infant does not have faith, or never does, then they do not take hold of the thing signified by the sign.... but this is the case with someone who makes a false profession too.

For what it's worth


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*Moderator intrusion again*

Now if I may. I would like to keep this just about the debate and on the points about the debate. There are enough baptism threads going on that the other threads can be used to discuss issues not pertaining to the specific debate. 

As I said I am going to listen to the cross examinations and I will post on them. So let's keep this about the debate and be good to each other. 

Thank you for your support. 

Randy


----------



## Semper Fidelis

puritancovenanter said:


> I didn't think Jason was trying to throw a cheap shot as much as try to make an illustration and point to a fact. It was not pejorative in my opinion. It was an illustration. I believe he was trying to illustrate that the belief of a two for one special that doesn't apply here. And he then pointed to ....
> 
> 
> 
> Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.
Click to expand...

Analogies are not cheap shots only if they accurately reflect the view. To conflate union with Christ with baptism and then represent the paedo view by that idea and then chalk it up to "buy one, get one free" is offensive.

We don't admit there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant. Baptism externally signifies the same thing regardless of the person being baptized in the paedo view of the Sacrament. What God applies to the elect united to Christ is His secret work.



> BTW, I had to go look up pejorative.
> 
> First off paedo's do not believe the sign is empty in an infants life. It calls one to repent and believe. They do believe there are advantages in that Baptism is a special means of grace (and that doesn't mean a means of special grace). Now from Jason's point he is making reference to somethings that Paul M. said (If I am not mistaken) concerning the effectualness of Baptism.
> 
> That is my $.25 worth and I will be collecting. It is a poor tax.



But we're past Paul now and we're dealing with the audience of paedobaptists in general (incidentally, I don't think the statement reflects Paul's view either). By acknowledging that we do not believe baptism is an empty sign then you, yourself, are acknowledging that the analogy is pejorative.

Either way, the dialogue is not helpful.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rich,
Read Pauls statement above. I knew what Jason was saying and I knew what Paul was saying I believe. We are talking past each other now. I liked the illustration. It wasn't meant to be demeaning.

ADDITION....

Rich I believe Jason is also trying to illustrate something about presumptive regeneration before there is any evidence. God doesn't save our children just because they are a package deal by being born to Christians. Some Presbyterians hold to presumptive regeneration which is bad form in our eyes. We don't mean to be offensive. We believe Presumptive Regeneration for infants who can't speak, walk, or be cognizant of God is dangerous. We are not trying to be offensive but there is some truth to the illustration. All analogies have their limits. And some may need to be explained a little more maybe.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, let's move on. I've just never been a fan of poor analogies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Does regeneration precede conversion (see _ordo salutis_)?

Doesn't conversion always follow regeneration (see golden chain Rom 8:29f)?

Don't people have to be regenerated in order to apprehend spiritual truth savingly (see 1 Cor. 2:14f)?

So what are we doing preaching to dead people? Don't they have to be alive first? Oh, right, its the ministry of the Word that is the ordinary medium of transformation. Is conversion instantaneous? Always? Aren't there people who sit, sometimes struggling for years, often fighting, frequently apathetic, who change over time? Not everyone who is born again can see the change like night and day.

Bottom line is: if you think your ministry is having ANY effect on people at all, at some level you are presuming, _believing_ in regeneration. Now, I guess that the logic of the other position is that logic that says: "no action, certainly no baptism, no "presumption" until we think maybe, just maybe, you're probably truly a Christian, and have likely been one for a couple years, minimum."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Does regeneration precede conversion (see _ordo salutis_)?
> 
> Doesn't conversion always follow regeneration (see golden chain Rom 8:29f)?
> 
> Don't people have to be regenerated in order to apprehend spiritual truth savingly (see 1 Cor. 2:14f)?
> 
> So what are we doing preaching to dead people? Don't they have to be alive first? Oh, right, its the ministry of the Word that is the ordinary medium of transformation. Is conversion instantaneous? Always? Aren't there people who sit, sometimes struggling for years, often fighting, frequently apathetic, who change over time? Not everyone who is born again can see the change like night and day.
> 
> Bottom line is: if you think your ministry is having ANY effect on people at all, at some level you are presuming, _believing_ in regeneration. Now, I guess that the logic of the other position is that logic that says: "no action, certainly no baptism, no "presumption" until we think maybe, just maybe, you're probably truly a Christian, and have likely been one for a couple years, minimum."



Yes this may be true but they need to at least be cognizant as I mentioned before. 



> We believe Presumptive Regeneration for infants who can't speak, walk, or be cognizant of God is dangerous.



I was speaking of the doctrine that presumes infants. Sorry I wasn't more specific.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I understand, Randy,
But my point is: it is arbitrary to say "we'll presume a little here, but in this case it is a bad idea." Well, it seems to me it either IS a bad idea, or it ISN'T.

Now, we all agree that there are "presumptivists" who are definitely abusing the notion--I think we call them hypercalvinists, or Kuyperians, or something. But the abuse of a thing does not negate the thing or its proper use. So to say that we who are ardent Reformed Confessionalists, who preach, teach, and seek conversions, are misusing the notion "just because" we baptize the infant--that's not an effective argument.


----------



## Jim Johnston

SemperFideles said:


> OK, let's move on. I've just never been a fan of poor analogies.




Yeah, because with Noah it was "Buy one, get 7 free!"


----------



## Herald

victorbravo said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 44jason said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.
> 
> Later...got to go.
> 
> Enjoying the conversation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh. As a credo-baptist I have to concur. The paedos aren't using such cheap language. Everybody is trying their best, I believe, to be faithful to the text. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean their motives are bad. And I really don't see anybody persuading anyone by pragmatism.
Click to expand...


Vic, I'm sorry but you are being charitable and making sense. There is another thread for folks like you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I understand, Randy,
> But my point is: it is arbitrary to say "we'll presume a little here, but in this case it is a bad idea." Well, it seems to me it either IS a bad idea, or it ISN'T.
> 
> Now, we all agree that there are "presumptivists" who are definitely abusing the notion--I think we call them hypercalvinists, or Kuyperians, or something. But the abuse of a thing does not negate the thing or its proper use. So to say that we who are ardent Reformed Confessionalists, who preach, teach, and seek conversions, are misusing the notion "just because" we baptize the infant--that's not an effective argument.



 This is at the heart of the issue. Notice who is being *presumptuous*, yet again, about regeneration. (remember regeneration precedes conversion - the wind blows where it will, you cannot see it).

The baptists are _adamant_ that infants and non-professors are unregenerate and just as adamant that professors ought to be presumed regenerate.

Thus, as I noted before, some argue that the latter category (professors = the regenerate) need not be told "know the Lord" or (as I've been told it means) repent of your sins and believe in Christ. You see, once a person, in their scheme, is _presumed_ regenerate this kind of declaration is no longer necessary for those presumed to be in the perfect New Covenant. I heard Gene and John Goundry repeat this again on Friday. Thus, a part of the Gospel need no longer be declared to certain professors because they are presumed regenarate and it is presumed they don't need this.

Conversely, non-professing young children are presumed unregenerate - not merely unconverted but unregenerate. The full counsel of the Gospel cannot be proclaimed to them but merely the "know the Lord" parts. You cannot disciple and encourage them to build up what _might_ be there in terms of spiritual capacity because, the Baptists keep saying, there is no _might_ for an infant. Nay, no might _at all_ - they are unregenerate - do not pass Go, do not collect 20,000 yen.

Beloved, an abuse of presumptive regeneration on the part of some paedobaptists is hardly unique considering the way some Baptists presume upon regeneration both negatively and positively on the basis of confession.

Now, I realize that not every Baptist will agree with Gene and Jonathan on the point of the professors but it is a problem with the approach in general. This consistent refrain that "infants are unregenerate" is alarmingly presumptuous.


----------



## Herald

> Thus, as I noted before, some argue that the latter category (professors = the regenerate) need not be told "know the Lord" or (as I've been told it means) repent of your sins and believe in Christ. You see, once a person, in their scheme, is presumed regenerate this kind of declaration is no longer necessary for those presumed to be in the perfect New Covenant. I heard Gene and John Goundry repeat this again on Friday. Thus, a part of the Gospel need no longer be declared to certain professors because they are presumed regenarate and it is presumed they don't need this.



Rich - I'm glad you used the word "some" for there is definitely a dichotomy in Baptist churches. The Finneyesque Baptist church would stand guilty as charged according to your assessment. But many Baptist churches that believe in the D.o.G. are moving back to historical Baptist beliefs. This is one of the reasons I was so heartened to view *[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8"]Rev. Paul Washer's[/ame] * message that caused such a recent ruckus in Baptist circles. The gospel is for all. It announces life to those in darkness and is the power (for believers) behind 2 Cor. 13:5.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Thus, as I noted before, some argue that the latter category (professors = the regenerate) need not be told "know the Lord" or (as I've been told it means) repent of your sins and believe in Christ. You see, once a person, in their scheme, is presumed regenerate this kind of declaration is no longer necessary for those presumed to be in the perfect New Covenant. I heard Gene and John Goundry repeat this again on Friday. Thus, a part of the Gospel need no longer be declared to certain professors because they are presumed regenarate and it is presumed they don't need this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich - I'm glad you used the word "some" for there is definitely a dichotomy in Baptist churches. The Finneyesque Baptist church would stand guilty as charged according to your assessment. But many Baptist churches that believe in the D.o.G. are moving back to historical Baptist beliefs. This is one of the reasons I was so heartened to view *[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8"]Rev. Paul Washer's[/ame] * message that caused such a recent ruckus in Baptist circles. The gospel is for all. It announces life to those in darkness and is the power (for believers) behind 2 Cor. 13:5.
Click to expand...


This is, of course, compatible with my very concern. This confidence over _profession_ breeds this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be mean here but it does point the fact that profession is not the great "indicator" that some continue to state in the refrain of "...we've got to try to mirror the perfect New Covenant as much as possible...."

The funny (not really amusing but strange) thing is that it is, again, a Baptist presumption that is projected upon paedobaptists because you assume that our ideas of Baptism are like yours. A historically confessional Presbyterian would never be so self-deceived about the baptism of his children to make the ministry of Paul Washer necessary - which is primarily directed against Baptists who are presuming too much about their profession. Since the significance of our baptism is, like the Gospel, _extra nos_ our baptism can never give us a false self-confidence.

This is really the telling issue: that some of the Baptists are warning the Presbyterians of presumption with their children. I keep thinking: "Dude, what position do you think you're in to be lecturing me about presumption?"


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, as I noted before, some argue that the latter category (professors = the regenerate) need not be told "know the Lord" or (as I've been told it means) repent of your sins and believe in Christ. You see, once a person, in their scheme, is presumed regenerate this kind of declaration is no longer necessary for those presumed to be in the perfect New Covenant. I heard Gene and John Goundry repeat this again on Friday. Thus, a part of the Gospel need no longer be declared to certain professors because they are presumed regenarate and it is presumed they don't need this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich - I'm glad you used the word "some" for there is definitely a dichotomy in Baptist churches. The Finneyesque Baptist church would stand guilty as charged according to your assessment. But many Baptist churches that believe in the D.o.G. are moving back to historical Baptist beliefs. This is one of the reasons I was so heartened to view *[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8"]Rev. Paul Washer's[/ame] * message that caused such a recent ruckus in Baptist circles. The gospel is for all. It announces life to those in darkness and is the power (for believers) behind 2 Cor. 13:5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is, of course, compatible with my very concern. This confidence over _profession_ breeds this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be mean here but it does point the fact that profession is not the great "indicator" that some continue to state in the refrain of "...we've got to try to mirror the perfect New Covenant as much as possible...."
> 
> The funny (not really amusing but strange) thing is that it is, again, a Baptist presumption that is projected upon paedobaptists because you assume that our ideas of Baptism are like yours. A historically confessional Presbyterian would never be so self-deceived about the baptism of his children to make the ministry of Paul Washer necessary - which is primarily directed against Baptists who are presuming too much about their profession. Since the significance of our baptism is, like the Gospel, _extra nos_ our baptism can never give us a false self-confidence.
> 
> This is really the telling issue: that some of the Baptists are warning the Presbyterians of presumption with their children. I keep thinking: "Dude, what position do you think you're in to be lecturing me about presumption?"
Click to expand...


Rich - first, a bit of perspective on the "Paul Washer phenomena." I am separating the need for Baptists to return to their roots from a criticism of paedobaptists. If my house needs cleaning I shouldn't be concerned with the mess in your house. Baptist churches have been hijacked by Darby, Finney and Scofield and the road back to their historical roots is painfully slow. Many churches will never make it. That is why I believe it is necessary, and appropriate, to make distinctions between Baptists and Reformed or "confessional" Baptists. What goes on in the latter (practice and theology) is much different than the majority of Baptist churches.

Second, I don't think there is much of a difference between paedos and credos when it comes to adult baptisms. Both of us are looking for a credible profession of faith before applying the sign. The sign signifies that which has already taken place by faith. Infant baptism? I think that is the point of departure from your comment, _"(Baptists) assume that our ideas of Baptism are like yours."_ Maybe I'm just an odd Baptist, but I see a material difference in our two views of Baptism, and I'm fine with that. If there was no difference then why would all these baptism threads exist? They exist precisely because there is a material difference.


----------



## 44jason

Picking up on a previous part of this thread, I wish to continue discussing 1 Cor. 7:14. One paedo brother suggested that the children in 1 Cor. 4:14 "are holy" because of one believing parent. So it was asked, "Why not baptize that which God declares holy?"

Do paedo's all use this interpretation of this text?
Do all paedo's believe that this is salvific "holiness"?
And if the child should be baptized in that verse, then the unbelieving spouse should also be baptized because they "are holy" in the same manner and to the same extent as the child?
Why do paedo's not baptize unbelieving spouses, since paedo's also find no problem with baptizing unbelieving children?
Especially if this unbelieving spouse has joined himself to the church life, the covenant community of the spouse -- why not go ahead and baptize them? There is no difference between their church membership and the infant's church membership.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Maybe I'm just an odd Baptist, but I see a material difference in our two views of Baptism, and I'm fine with that. If there was no difference then why would all these baptism threads exist? They exist precisely because there is a material difference.



Absolutely Bill. What I'm saying, though, is that many Baptists project their _material_ understanding of the nature of Baptism and look at the _form_ that paedobaptism takes and conclude incorrectly what we're "saying". Just because the form is similar does not mean that the material criticism is warranted.

And, yes, we all need to worry about our own backyards. I'm merely noting that Baptists need to be careful about how they criticize paedobaptists and criticize it based on the _substance_ of the doctrine.


----------



## Herald

btw...say a prayer for me guys. It's 2:58 am and I'm leaving my mothers house to drive 4 hours south back to MD. Pray that I stay awake and the Lord keeps me safe from the other drivers out there! Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Keep my brother Bill safe on his travels.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Picking up on a previous part of this thread, I wish to continue discussing 1 Cor. 7:14. One paedo brother suggested that the children in 1 Cor. 4:14 "are holy" because of one believing parent. So it was asked, "Why not baptize that which God declares holy?"
> 
> Do paedo's all use this interpretation of this text?


Well, not _all_ but the Reformed do. Here is the HC on that point. Please read carefully:


> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.


The concept of holiness in our view is that the child is marked out from the world and _distinguished from the children of unbelievers_ in the privileged sense that they are always near and among the place where salvation is found.



> Do all paedo's believe that this is salvific "holiness"?


No. It is holiness as being marked out from the world to be part of the community where salvation is found.



> And if the child should be baptized in that verse, then the unbelieving spouse should also be baptized because they "are holy" in the same manner and to the same extent as the child?


No, because the passage does not say that. The passage states that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made clean) by the believing spouse but that the children are clean. There is not reciprocity in the information given by Paul about the nature of the two.



> Why do paedo's not baptize unbelieving spouses, since paedo's also find no problem with baptizing unbelieving children?


Same reason given above. There is a difference between something common being sanctified for use but something that is holy is a different category. Further, the believing spouse is never commanded to disciple the unbelieving spouse but parents _are_ commanded to train their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord.



> Especially if this unbelieving spouse has joined himself to the church life, the covenant community of the spouse -- why not go ahead and baptize them? There is no difference between their church membership and the infant's church membership.


What Church is this that you're referring to? Most unbelieving spouses don't want anything to do with the Covenant community. They are certainly welcome there but if they are not submitting themselves to the teaching ministry of the Church then they are not disciples. Parents on the other hand, are under obligation to train and admonish children. Children, likewise, are commanded to obey for sake of promise (a promise, by the way, that originally only promised a geographical fulfillment within Palestine).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I do not subscribe to the principle, that what or who is holy _for that reason_ ought to be baptized. But, I would plead that the question posed could be read as affirmative of the rationality of baptism for the "holy".


Of course, the verse says two similar, but different things: one about the spouse of a believer, another about a child of a believer.

Regarding the spouse, the verbal description focuses on the relationship that is effected through the marriage. As one comment put it, the contrast to the old defilements couldn't be more plain. No more did a pagan marriage defile a believer, instead the pagan experienced some sort of incidental blessing. And as clincher, Paul offers the statement about the children. Here the language is not verbal-relational, but a descriptive noun. It is *stative*. This is a quality that inheres in the child. How could the child be "holy" if the pagan had defiled the Christian? It's an argument then, from greater to less. Since the child IS holy, your marriage is also a blessed union.

So, I fail to see how the stative aspect (which does not "prove" infant baptism, merely "affirms" in consonant terms what is held on other grounds), requires the conclusion that anything true about something "constituently holy" must also be true about something "relationally" holy? Therefore, even if it were demonstrable that the "holiness" of the child meant he was a fit candidate for baptism, it wouldn't follow (based on this linguistic argument) that a spouse was thereby made fit as well, if different limitations applied to the different relationships.

No Reformed paedo I know of thinks of this holiness as "salvific".

Clearly, there are some who might go ahead and baptize a "willing" but unbelieving spouse. Honestly, though, how many of us paedos have ever had to deal with this outside of "far-fetched hypothetical"? And how many people would conduct such a service, and not preach the gospel there and then, with warnings of consequence for 1) rejecting the gospel, and 2) partaking in this sacrament (of baptism) unto condemnation?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do not subscribe to the principle, that what or who is holy _for that reason_ ought to be baptized. But, I would plead that the question posed could be read as affirmative of the rationality of baptism for the "holy".


I see what you're saying. I just caught what I was assuming. I was inferring the HC understanding of how children are distinguished from the world.

Wow, this thread is getting epic!


----------



## 44jason

Rich you quoted HC
74. Are infants also to be baptized?



> Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.



Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
Every child of every believer has been redeemed???

Bruce: There are many unbelieving spouses in the church, involved in the covenantal culture of the church. Should they be baptized? They are doing more than the infants you are baptizing. And they are doing no less than the infants you are baptizing?


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> Keep my brother Bill safe on his travels.



Thanks for the prayer. Arrived home at 6:58 am. 2 minutes shy of four hours on the road. Now back to our regularly scheduled baptismal discussion.


----------



## Herald

> I'm merely noting that Baptists need to be careful about how they criticize paedobaptists and criticize it based on the substance of the doctrine.



Rich - if both camps can keep that in mind then a few things will happen:

1. Baptism threads will stay more on topic with fewer rabbit trails.
2. Misconceptions will be kept at a minimum leading to more profitable discussions.
3. There will be less baptism threads! Either credos and paedos will convert to the other side or the positions will be so well articulated that there will nothing less to discuss. Perish the thought! What would we talk about then?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich you quoted HC
> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
> Every child of every believer has been redeemed???
Click to expand...

 I'm not sure if you even realize how you move from one thought to the other so effortlessly.

You ask with shock (as if I'm going to say No): Do you really believe that redemption is _promised_ to the children of believing parents?

and then propose that another way of saying this is:

Every child of every believer has been redeemed.

Were you to read what preceded in the HC you would see that this does not follow. The promise is inherited by _faith_. In fact, the HC makes the promise to believing parents and their children but the HC does not equate the fact that parents seem to be believing with the fact that they are, in fact, elect.

Notice how you were not shocked that the HC said that believing parents were promised redemtion. It was quite natural for you to assume, given your presuppositions, that believing parents meant (and always means in the Scriptures) that a person is elect. As pointed out in the other thread, people can _appear_ to believe and they are given the sign because the sign does not crest or fall on the disposition of the recipient. The sign _signifies_ salvation. It declares what a person will inherit if their baptism is joined by faith but doesn't declare that what is true of the sign is necessarily true of the recipient.

God declares the meaning of the sign: union with Christ.
The sign is applied with a promise that those that have faith will receive the reality of the sign.
But the sign does not cease to mean what it means simply because of unbelief. Let God be true and every man a liar. Just because some people saw some stones in the river Jordan and thought they meant something else doesn't change what God meant them to signify.

Baptism, like the Gospel, points to Christ and His work. At the conclusion of Romans 10, Paul notes the irony that the Good News is heralded by a bearer of Good News. Yet, Paul notes, who has believed his report? In fact, among the Jews the news was received as bad. The fact of the matter is that the News did not change its "Good News"-ness on the basis of how it was received by the vast majority of Israelites.

God gets to decide what is Good News and God gets to declare what Baptism signifies regardless of how it is perceived by the recipient. Shackling its significance to the disposition of the recipient turns it from a sign that reinforces the Gospel to a sign of the "willing and running" of the individual.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

44jason said:


> Robert asks concerning 1 Cor. 7:14
> 
> 
> 
> Paul is clear to point out that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for their own sake, but for the sake of the children. Thus, the child of at least one believing parent is considered "holy" or "set apart." Is this not the very definition of what it means to be in the Church - to be set apart? i.e. ekklesia the "called out" ones? Why then would you not administer baptism to one that the Bible calls is "holy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Robert to conclude that the Apostle Paul is equating OT covenant language which included circumcision with New Covenant baptism is stop reading the rest of the passage. In verse 16, the Apostle makes it clear that he is not speaking of salvation in any manner. The in verse 17 he makes it clear that he is speaking of individual responsibility. And then in verses 18-19 he makes it even more clear that he is not equating OT circumcision with anything in this passage. He even goes so far as to say that the outward sign "counts for nothing" but "keeping the commandments of God" count. So though it is true that those around a believer (their spouse or their children) are exposed, set apart, hollowed as being in the sphere of someone is filled with God's glory -- that in no way means those who are around them are recipients of that glory. So do not baptize them, do not put any sign upon them that claims them as God's. You can't save them and they have no spiritual advantage just because they are near you. Salvation is no based on statistical advantages but the finished work of Redemption -- as the Apostle mentions in verse 23 ("bought with a price").
> 
> Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.
> 
> Later...got to go.
> 
> Enjoying the conversation...
Click to expand...


Hi:

What? This reply does not make sense. Things can be considered "holy" without them being considered "saved." We do not generally consider the Sabbath "saved" but we call it "holy" do we not? Exo. 20:8. The nation of Israel was considered a holy nation, Exo. 19:6. Are we saying that everyone in Israel was saved? Aaron was told to wear holy garments and he would be anointed with them on, Exo. 29:29; and be washed, Lev. 16:4, 24; 22:6

I think Jason has tried to divert the point by bringing in an irrelevant thesis.

The question was simple: Why would you not baptize someone whom the Bible says is holy?

Jason has not answered the question.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## 44jason

Rich,
To disagree is not to misunderstand.
You keep assuming that I do not understand the PB theology.
Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that your opponent does not know as much as you or understand you just because he disagrees.
Many arguments that have been put forth by PB's have been based on their confessions. In other words, I am asked to prove how the PB practice is in contrast to their confession. That is not a valid request. As a Baptist, I am trying to point out the fact that PB is inconsistent with Scripture.


----------



## Jim Johnston

44jason said:


> As a Baptist, I am trying to point out the fact that PB is inconsistent with Scripture.




Hmmmm, and so you ask about paedobaptist interpretations of the text? What does myriad interpretations have to do with Scripture?

Argue with Rich from the text and forget about myriad interpretations.

If we want to play this game, we can point to Baptists who would disagree with your interpretation. Read Witherington's view on I Cor.7 and his slicing and dicing of Jewwett.


----------



## VictorBravo

Tom Bombadil said:


> If we want to play this game, we can point to Baptists who would disagree with your interpretation. Read Witherington's view on I Cor.7 and his slicing and dicing of Jewwett.



Paul, do you have a citation? I'd like to see what this is about.

This brings up another question, I hope it doesn't sidetrack: I recall Jewett actually accepting the idea that circumcision points to baptism. He proceeded down a different track. So we need to be careful about countering someone on one point and accepting him on another. It is a valid thing to do, but hard to remember what is going on.

I think some of the different participants are operating from the assumption that one side's (or the other's) arguments are monolithic. They obviously aren't.

It gets really hard to sort these things out when we don't even know which arguments are being addressed. I don't have a solution for this except to plead for clarity. Careful reading is required as well.

I've been toying with the idea of preparing some sort of matrix of the various arguments and perspectives. I don't know if I could do it. It would be cool if someone already has.


----------



## Jim Johnston

Vic,

In Witherington's book _Troubled Waters_ he discusses this on pages 41-49.

I know Jewett disagrees with me on I Cor. 7, but is pretty much in line with me on Circumcision... but he even says things about that which I'd disagree with.

I basically use them to show that I have some baptist somewhere who agrees with me on my points and thus I'm not just saying what I'm saying "because I'm a biased presbyterian."

Case in point, Witherington and Beasley-Murray agree with much of my analysis of Matt. 28. Other parts of my analysis have been culled from men like Blomberg and Keener. All these men are baptistic.


----------



## 44jason

Out of respect for the moderators' wishes, I am not conversing on this topic with Paul in this thread. I will answer Paul at Fide-O on this subject for now so that the moderators will see that I have and will continue to protect the integrity of the PuritanBoard.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

44jason said:


> Rich,
> To disagree is not to misunderstand.
> You keep assuming that I do not understand the PB theology.
> Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that your opponent does not know as much as you or understand you just because he disagrees.
> Many arguments that have been put forth by PB's have been based on their confessions. In other words, I am asked to prove how the PB practice is in contrast to their confession. That is not a valid request. As a Baptist, I am trying to point out the fact that PB is inconsistent with Scripture.



Jason,

When I quote the HC and you re-interpret the HC as saying that everyone who is promised redemption _is_ redeemed then I think it is charitable for me to state that you have simply not studied the paedobaptist confessions carefully.

The only other assumption would be for me to ascribe that you knew precisely what the HC was saying on that point but that you purposefully misrepresented it. As you are a minister of the Gospel that is not a thought I will entertain.


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Pastor Jason, out of curiosity I visited Fide-o and found your post:



> The paedo-baptist believes that the New Covenant is made up of a mix of elect and un-elect just like Israel of the Old Covenant. Pointing to Hebrews 10:30 they argue that there are covenant-breakers in the New Covenant. Therefore, they argue, we can baptize children and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.



Do you still think this is the reason why Paedobaptist baptize infants? If you are still thinking so, I think you are not only misunderstanding/misrepresenting Paul, but other paedobaptist as well. If no, then these are really careless wording that isn't really helping the dialogue/debate.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

44jason said:


> Rich you quoted HC
> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
> Every child of every believer has been redeemed???
> 
> Bruce: There are many unbelieving spouses in the church, involved in the covenantal culture of the church. Should they be baptized? They are doing more than the infants you are baptizing. And they are doing no less than the infants you are baptizing?
Click to expand...


HAS BEEN? How do you get "HAS BEEN"?


----------



## MW

44jason said:


> Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
> Every child of every believer has been redeemed???



Do you believe that every person has been redeemed who makes their own profession of faith? If not, I can hardly see the relevance of the question. It only requires us to consider that ONE infant of believing parents has been redeemed by Christ to justify the application of the covenant sign to ALL of them. The sacraments are administered in such a way as to favour the side of election, not the side of apostasy. Rom. 3:3, 4.


----------



## Herald

> The sacraments are administered in such a way as to favour the side of election, not the side of apostasy. Rom. 3:3, 4.



Matthew, now that is one of the best paedo explanations as to an infants spiritual condition that I have ever heard. It doesn't make me a paedo but it is a good explanation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> The sacraments are administered in such a way as to favour the side of election, not the side of apostasy. Rom. 3:3, 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, now that is one of the best paedo explanations as to an infants spiritual condition that I have ever heard. It doesn't make me a paedo but it is a good explanation.
Click to expand...


Bill,

Having acknowledged that, try re-reading these posts:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299595&postcount=33
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299668&postcount=35
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299794&postcount=41

This is precisely at the heart of a basic premise about children of believers - whether we presume apostasy or try to train them in hopeful anticipation that God has elected them. If the latter, it makes little sense to wait until they are mature to start training them like Christians.


----------



## Herald

SemperFideles said:


> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sacraments are administered in such a way as to favour the side of election, not the side of apostasy. Rom. 3:3, 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, now that is one of the best paedo explanations as to an infants spiritual condition that I have ever heard. It doesn't make me a paedo but it is a good explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Having acknowledged that, try re-reading these posts:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299595&postcount=33
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299668&postcount=35
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299794&postcount=41
> 
> This is precisely at the heart of a basic premise about children of believers - whether we presume apostasy or try to train them in hopeful anticipation that God has elected them.
Click to expand...


Rich - we're a few days removed from the cause of the all the fireworks in the baptism threads. Having said that I think all of us are in a better frame of mind to consider the arguments presented by those who hold to the opposing position. 

I have never had a problem understanding why paedos baptize their children. Looking at it from the paedo hermeneutic, it makes perfect sense. Matthew's statement just seemed to resonate with me. If brevity is the soul of wit, then Matthew is a witty soul! He summarized what many on the paedo side have being trying to say. That does not take away from anything you said in your posts. If anything, Matthew validated your statements.



> it makes little sense to wait until they are mature to start training them like Christians.



Even the credo would agree with this. We're coming at from a completely different angel. We would consider the training up of a child as being a means of proclaiming the gospel to this child. If God saves them in childhood then the training does not stop. At the point of conversion the training materially changes from a salvific approach to a discipleship approach. From a practical perspective not much will change. God is able to use for good all the teaching that was imparted prior to conversion. It doesn't go down the proverbial toilet. We're still left with our differences, but sometimes we use common methodologies.


----------



## terry72

I know that I am very late in listening to this debate. I am currently listening to Gene's opening argument. He is on point 2. He has just introduced as an argument, John G. Reisinger's "4 seeds of Abraham" as an argument against paedo. I find that very interesting coming from someone that just claimed to not hold to NCT.

By the way, Gene is a good friend og mine. I participated with him in his debate against Bruce Reeves here in Arkansas. I was a credo then. I have since become paedo, as many of you know.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BaptistInCrisis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, now that is one of the best paedo explanations as to an infants spiritual condition that I have ever heard. It doesn't make me a paedo but it is a good explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> Having acknowledged that, try re-reading these posts:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299595&postcount=33
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299668&postcount=35
> http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299794&postcount=41
> 
> This is precisely at the heart of a basic premise about children of believers - whether we presume apostasy or try to train them in hopeful anticipation that God has elected them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich - we're a few days removed from the cause of the all the fireworks in the baptism threads. Having said that I think all of us are in a better frame of mind to consider the arguments presented by those who hold to the opposing position.
> 
> I have never had a problem understanding why paedos baptize their children. Looking at it from the paedo hermeneutic, it makes perfect sense. Matthew's statement just seemed to resonate with me. If brevity is the soul of wit, then Matthew is a witty soul! He summarized what many on the paedo side have being trying to say. That does not take away from anything you said in your posts. If anything, Matthew validated your statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it makes little sense to wait until they are mature to start training them like Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even the credo would agree with this. We're coming at from a completely different angel. We would consider the training up of a child as being a means of proclaiming the gospel to this child. If God saves them in childhood then the training does not stop. At the point of conversion the training materially changes from a salvific approach to a discipleship approach. From a practical perspective not much will change. God is able to use for good all the teaching that was imparted prior to conversion. It doesn't go down the proverbial toilet. We're still left with our differences, but sometimes we use common methodologies.
Click to expand...

Well, I won't argue with you that Rev. Winzer is extremely concise. I was using the beauty and brevity of it to underline the point I was trying to make because it sums it up and allows me to refer back to it so that it might be read in a new light.

I think, also, if you read the thread again you'll notice that it is this tension of trying to train a kid on the one hand while you're telling him he's unregenerate on the other that is the main problem with the Baptist approach. It's the reason why continuity in the command to train and admonish is only coherent within a paedo schema (at least the way my small, non-Winzer, mind can conceive of it).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

terry72 said:


> I was a credo then. I have since become paedo, as many of you know.
> 
> Blessings in Christ,
> Terry W. West



Well, I can tell, by your Avatar, that you are a very thoughtful fellow.


----------



## Herald

> (at least the way my small, non-Winzer, mind can conceive of it).



Brother Rich, I didn't intend my comments to be a slight to you. I simply meant to say that Matthew's short post shed light on the paedo argument. I was in no way impugning what you had to say. Please forgive me if it came across that way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

BaptistInCrisis said:


> (at least the way my small, non-Winzer, mind can conceive of it).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Rich, I didn't intend my comments to be a slight to you. I simply meant to say that Matthew's short post shed light on the paedo argument. I was in no way impugning what you had to say. Please forgive me if it came across that way.
Click to expand...


Of course I know that Bill. It was meant to be self-deprecating humor! I'm in a great mood today. It will take more than someone pointing out the obvious fact that Rev. Winzer is much sharper and wiser than I to make me feel bad.


----------



## Herald

joshua said:


> *MOD's NOTE:*
> 
> Rich, Bëël,
> 
> You two stop this bickering back and forth NOW, lest you face indefinite suspension.




You're pulling rank on a board owner? Whoa! Dude, you've got power!


----------



## 44jason

*ATTENTION TO ALL.*

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

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

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


----------



## Jim Johnston

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


----------



## MW

To see the gospel of forgiveness reconciling brethren is very heartening to this lowly gospel minister. Blessings!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Gotta love it. Without Gospel Grace it only leads to war. Thanks Jason and Paul for working it out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!


----------



## Jim Johnston

joshua said:


> Paul-you stink. Just kidding...maybe.



Josh, as a moderator, I ask _you_ to ban _yourself_ for that comment!


----------



## tartanarmy

Hey Terry! You are now a Paedo, wow!
When and how did it happen brother? Curious minds want to know.

Mark


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is Pt. 3 of my analysis. I know. I know.... Not this again. Oy Vey! Well I am going to finish it. It just depends on how burnt out I get before I listen to the next part. I got pretty burnt out from the discussion last time. 

The Gene and Paul Debate... An Analysis... pt. 3

In the second segment Paul starts off with his rebuttal with a cross-examination of Gene’s knowledge and doctrine of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Paul asked Gene if this Passage indicates that a New Covenant Member will never need to be evangelized because he is a new Covenant Member. Gene indicates that is true.

Paul then asks Gene a very hypothetical question based upon backsliding and whether or not Gene might be telling a backslider who is a New Covenant Member to Know the LORD.

Paul seems to be accusing Gene of going against his own understanding of scripture by telling a backsliding New Covenant Member to Know the LORD. This line of questioning is very hypothetical and misleading from my standpoint. I would say Paul is reaching here into things that do not apply and he is fishing for a self-contradiction and violation of Gene’s biblical understanding.

I wouldn’t have answered the questions the same way Gene did but I am not analyzing my response. Gene did give good appropriate answers and announced he could not know if anyone was regenerate other than himself.

Then we move to discussing whether a person could draw prescriptions from descriptive statements. It is fallacious to do so. It was a statement Paul quotes of Gene who made it during a debate with an atheist. Paul says it is a move from what is the case to what ought to be the case. And Gene affirms this is true for the Atheist because he has no Morale ground to base anything on. The Christian has this foundation so it is not fallacious for the Christian. It is because the Christian does not base his prescriptions on a material universe. Christians are for Biblical prescriptions.

Paul seems to have been baiting Gene for another fallacy up to this point by taking a question out of one context and trying to apply it to a different context. These contexts are the worldviews between the Christian and the Atheist. I believe Paul is groping and fails at this point also.

So now we are on to the next line of questioning. Paul then associates the phrase ‘they and their children’ to New Covenant Promises and other passages of the Old Testament. He then starts a line of questioning from this thinking. In my understanding Paul flattens out the promises to much assuming that the Children are automatically born new covenant members because of these general promises.

Paul then asks Gene, “Do these passages refer to all of the physical children, half their children, or is there another option?” Gene then says the passages refer to children who are believing children based upon the information given in the New Testament.

Paul then gets into a discussion of how we should interpret ‘all of their children’. I am not sure any of the texts he quotes use the term all. I think he is assuming it. Then Gene asks if Paul is a Calvinist. What does all men mean in this context. Paul then diverts to another question and doesn’t answer Gene. At this point Paul does something beyond understanding. He asks Gene how could his (Paul) position be stated that believers and all of their children are to come into the New Covenant and how can that be prophesied.” In my estimation Paul is asking Gene, if he were God, how would he have breathed out the scripture concerning this fallacy of Paul’s. He asks Gene what way could God have revealed it so Gene could understand and accept it. Gene says he is satisfied with how God revealed his truth already. And that it didn’t mean all of Isreal or all of the parents or all of the children. Then Paul pushes the point even further and asks how could the scripture have been said to mean all of them.


Then Paul’s line of questioning turns to the invisible /visible church as lined out in the confessions. And time is called. I don’t think Paul made his points very well and that he failed at many different levels. Gene wins this part in my estimation.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Hey! Who brought this thread back? Randy, was that you?!? Man, and things were going so smoothly around here...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Gotta keep the pump primed... We are gonna have an EP debate and we need to be on our best behaviour. Better get some practice.


----------



## tellville

Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.



But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.


----------



## tellville

SemperFideles said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?


----------



## Jim Johnston

tellville said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?
Click to expand...


even if true, how would this not be an example of the genetic fallacy? I, for one, try to avoid fallacious reasoning in my thinking.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

tellville said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich had asked for a legitimate source to the claim that the early Reformers had incentive to keep the doctrine of infant baptism due to pressure to keep a state church. I am currently reading a thesis discussing Karl Barth's views on Baptism. Karl Barth makes this claim in volume 4 of his Church Dogmatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?
Click to expand...

It's a lame bit of Neo-Orthodox humor. Barth denied that the Resurrection happened in real human history and thought the orthodox insistence on the event being tied to history to be a bit of pagan theology. Hence, when Barth appeals to human history to establish another thing I have to think: how can this really be _true_.

Either way, I really don't care what Barth thought about the Reformers. He butchered their theology.


----------



## Pilgrim

Tom Bombadil said:


> tellville said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that happened in human history so for Barth to claim it is true would be to engage in pagan theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what your getting at with that statement. Are you just saying that Barth is being inconsistent in making such a claim given what he says elsewhere about pagan theology? Or are you just joking around (in the good way!)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> even if true, how would this not be an example of the genetic fallacy? I, for one, try to avoid fallacious reasoning in my thinking.
Click to expand...


Agreed. One can hold to something that is right for the wrong reasons, or can pervert it to ungodly ends.


----------

