# Fessing Up...



## LadyFlynt

We've been on the fence on the paedobaptism/believer's baptism issue...well, guess what...street preacher finally fell off of the fence!
He's going to speak with our pastor about having the rest of our children baptized.

PS...can someone tell me what "credobaptism" is and how it is different from "paedobaptism"?


----------



## turmeric

Credobaptism is believer's baptism in Latin. Same root as "creed".


----------



## LadyFlynt

We suspected as much...but just wanted to make sure.


----------



## Larry Hughes

LadyFlynt,

If you don't mind me asking. What was the final straw that caused the 'falling off of the fence'?

The reason I ask is that I to (and my wife) have been struggling with this issue for years. 

For me it started not so much, or at all for that matter, about infant baptism but the issue of "when" is one baptized. In short I was converted late in life (33) from pretty much raw atheism/agnostcism (which is why I became a geologist/hydrogeologist) > was baptized in a baptist church merely because when I did go as a very very small child that was the only church I knew. Two reason for that were: post conversion at 33, (1) I was very ignorant of any doctine at that point (never even heard of a commentary or study bible) AND (2) If one understands the modern atheistic/agnostic mindset well one knows that one of the great "fears" of such is attaching to falsehood or cults. Freshly converted to the truth I was a bit edgy about where to go to be baptized and join. Because at that point the confusion of denominations overwhelmed me and I knew that not all that claimed to be christian was actually christian. I didn't know many specifics but I knew there was a real spiritual body of Christ and then the churches run on earth some of whom to greater and lesser degrees where true to that. Thus, I basically defaulted to my mom's church for no more reason than even at 33, educated, career for years - I trusted my mom.

However, struggles with indwelling sin and doubts assailed my literally within weeks. I couldn't understand why I still sinned and other things. This lead me to years of torment over assurance - many things in the "did I do it right" category. Among this was timing of baptism. Mode at that point was easy, I could measure it, I had been immersed (a fact). The only understanding I had of baptism was a meager baptistic understanding (immersion/post conversion) and that was it. You can see where this leads one struggling with doubts. It was no mere infant issue. That at that time had never even entered my mind. I would simply reason something like this (it was more painful than I lay it out here though):

"I don't know PRESENTLY if 'my PAST conversion was true conversion BECAUSE I struggle with sin (how could a christian do X) and other doubts assail me. Thus was the conversion I was baptized from the real conversion? Thus, was I baptized rightly (timing)? Further, if I now refuse to be "re-baptized" do I prove that I'm rebelling more and thus prove further that I'm really not converted? BUT I truly don't desire to be rebellious AND TRULY desire to do what God says I should do. I just don't know what to do!" If I could answer the "when" definitively, then it would be easy. OR if someone could answer it for me. But none could for no man could see the heart and be certain!

The torment of that is tremendous. I went to my pastor and other friends that were baptist asking and NONE absolutely NONE could give an answer. Which I found odd considering that timing of baptism is a distinctive for a baptist. And I was shocked at the almost superstitious certitude in which they found their own comfort toward their own baptism. Things like, "You just know that you know that you know...you know!" I thought to myself, "Man my heart must be so depraved and evil because I don't know at all! (which beset more terror and doubt)" Or as one told me they came home and opened their bible and it fell to a place that had the term "baptism" in it and based upon that "the Lord was giving them a message to be rebaptized". 

When querying concerning my own situation I would either get the mystical, "What do you think the Lord is leading you to do?" or its twin, "What ever you think you should do", which is kind of hard to determine since that's the point your struggling with in the first place. Or I'd get a "testimony" from someone who had been "re-baptized" yet they couldn't really explain very well why they decided such. Or I'd get an answer that said no I don't "think" you need to without any real explaination as to why other than "I don't think/feel you need to."

Then came the panic, "Even if I re-baptize TODAY, HOW do I know that I'm really converted even now?" By this time I had read Jer. about the heart being so wicked who could know it. AND this set me to thinking, "How can anybody be certain in order to get the timing of baptism absolutely correct?" What about Simon Magnus, no mention of "rebaptism" there!

By grace, I found Sproul before I did go so far as to be re-baptized. And I was trying to because I was desparate, the torment of doubts about being in the kingdom or not, yet knowing the truth are overwhelming. One thing Sproul said really crystalized it for me. He stated that (paraphrased from memory), "when Satan comes to accuse me and causes me doubt, I can say to him, 'No Satan, you are a liar. I bear the mark of Christ in my body in baptism.' Not that baptism CAUSES salvation but that it points to the promise of God and I TRUST (faith) in that." That was great relief to me and I can remember telling my wife, "NOW, there is a shepherd of sheep."

I began to see (if I'm not decieved) two very distinct views on baptism emerging. One was saying primarily/weighing more on it as a sign of man's conversion and inward reality (however that is suppose to be detected), and the other primarily a sign of God's promise. All other signs and miracles in Scripture seem to follow the later since fallen man is inherently a sinner and liar, and since God sees the heart and doesn't need anything bearing witness to a man He doesn't need our giving a sign to prove anything to Him. It seemed to reason that if it was primarily God's sign then it is the superior sign. If it is primarily man dependant (which timing necessitates) then it necessarily is inferior and fickled at best.

If it is primarily God's sign, then in times of struggle and doubt it can engender and strengthen one's faith not because it is magical (ala Rome) but it points to God's promise and trusting in His promise IS faith. A physical way to recite God's promise to save me by Christ alone. If it is rather primarily "my" confession, then when I look to it in time of doubt it becomes a circular reasoning tornado that I cannot get out of and creates doubt and unbelief.

After years of struggling with this I came to view "re-baptism" as sinful. THEN, I began to think, if this is true then why not infants of believers children? If it is a sign physically communicating God's promise of redemption for our weakness or even to us when yet unconverted, then why not? 

Today, I'm not certain why I'm on the fence still. Part of it is that in our area if you want some form of reformed sound doctrine you will have to find the very RARE SB church that is calvinistic and reforming. In that vein its a matter of practicality.

So, I'm always curious as to what pulls a fence straddling baptist finaly over.

Thanks,

Larry


----------



## RamistThomist

Larry,
That was a great post. I think you hit on things that many of us have gone through. Thanks


----------



## tdowns

*I wonder about my own kids*

I was raised baptist, and am now in a "baptitist" non-denominational church. I'm pretty much sold on the infant baptism, and if my church did that I would baptise them immediatly, but they don't. So to baptize them, in my understanding, we'd have to become members of another church that does baptise infants. Not sure I'm ready to do that, my church has problems, but a True to the doctrines of Grace pastor and great loving flock. I trust in my children's salvation through faith, and wonder what I should do. Wait till they can "make a statement of faith" ( I put in quotes because I find it ironic that churches including mine, that supposedly have "believers baptism, baptise pretty small kids, that state a confession, but really, we have no more idea of it's validity, than an infants, other than waiting to see fruits later. I think most kids will regurgitate what their parents tell them is true). Or ask my Pastor if he would baptise both kids (6 and 3)? 

I know baptisim doesn't save, but I want to follow God's will. How do you (those who hold to infant baptism) consider children of believers who have not been baptised?

Just seeking thoughts on the matter I guess. From both sides.

TD


----------



## LadyFlynt

The final straw was in street preacher's (dh) study of household baptism. The whole house (servants included, believers and unbeliever's were baptized...same with Jewish households, all males, including servants-of hebraic or non-hebraic background, were circumcized). It was a covenant between the head of family and God.

I know what you mean with all the difficulty you went through (why I would like my own children to "remember" their baptism) but aren't we putting too much emphasis on the baptism? We know it doesn't save, yet we rely upon it to designate a point of salvation...this is where our thinking is messed up. Even in presbyterian circles (I was against covenantal baptism because of presbyterians I knew who would say that they don't remember ever being sinners and that they have "always been saved" pointing to their baptism and confimation) there is wrong thinking betimes.

Baptism is a statement of the family as a whole, but has nothing to do with individual salvation. Yes, the eunich was believed and was baptized...this was his statement...if he had had a family (which obviously couldn't be) he would have gone and baptized them as others elsewhere in scripture did. I think our mistake as baptists is that we tend to take certain verses to mean one thing and not look at other relational verses before coming to those conclusions.

(can anyone tell...mentally I've fallen off the fence too...now if I could just get my mind to over rule my emotional attachment to believer's baptism...something to work on...oh, woe can be women's emotions)


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_ He's going to speak with our pastor about having the rest of our children baptized.



I truly respect your decision, but I highly doubt that a Bible church is going to baptize infants. I may be wrong, but....


----------



## LadyFlynt

Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.

However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.
> 
> However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/



Interesting, indeed!! Is the baptism conducted during a regular worship service? And how is it conducted? What is the mode? 

As to the comment that you little one has already been dedicated...there IS a difference between a "dedication" and a baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.
> 
> However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/



Colleen,
Do you think the dedication is any way connected to the covenant?


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Actually ours has left that open to the head of household's decision as they respect either position and honestly can't come to a definate oneway-or-theother on it.
> 
> However comment has been made on the fact that we "just" dedicated our littlest one this summer :/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colleen,
> Do you think the dedication is any way connected to the covenant?
Click to expand...


I have seen a few baby dedications in Southern Baptist churches. The parents and the church are told to raise the child up in the Lord. I suppose there are similarities in some regard to a baptism, but I'm not sure it could constitue as a baptism. No water is used. As I recall, the baby is not dedicated in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of course it depends, I suppose how it's done in her church.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Baptism at end of service, dedication at beginning.

Baptism for believer's is of course dunking! I would hope they wouldn't dunk my baby!


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Baptism at end of service, dedication at beginning.
> 
> Baptism for believer's is of course dunking! I would hope they wouldn't dunk my baby!



I hope not either, but I have heard that it's done in some quarters.


----------



## Scott Bushey

The dedication of samuel was just that. It was not in liu of the sign being placed upon samuel as God commands. Hannah was faithful on the 8th day to circumcise sam. This is where the dedication is inconsistant.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The dedication of samuel was just that. It was not in liu of the sign being placed upon samuel as God commands. Hannah was faithful on the 8th day to circumcise sam. This is where the dedication is inconsistant.



Let me get this clear in my mind, a dedication can be in lieu of a baptism? What constitued a biblical infant baptism?


----------



## Scott Bushey

A dedication cannot be seen as a replacement for baptism (or circumcision). Thats where the dedication falls to the floor.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> A dedication cannot be seen as a replacement for baptism (or circumcision). Thats where the dedication falls to the floor.



Got it. I would think so. Never in my wildest dreams did I think a Southern Baptist dedication of a baby constitued a baptism. I guess that really goes without saying. 

Does it matter who does the baptism?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ivan,
Deep in the knower of some credo baptists, they need to do something with their infant. They see the sign being placed in scripture. They see God as a God of families. They see what hannah did. They cannot reconcile infant baptism so they believe they are doing the next best thing; the baby dedication. But to be consistant, they would need to really look hard at hannah and what she was truly doing. She circumcixed her son, based upon obedience to Gods command, and she LEFT samn at the temple; he lived there. How many parents today are being consistant? They are not placing the sign. They are not leaving their son or daughter with the pastor and in fact, God hates the dedication as it breaks the 2nd commandment. They think God honors that when in fact, the God of the scriptures hates it. To be consistant, one would need to place the sign first.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ivan,
> Deep in the knower of some credo baptists, they need to do something with their infant. They see the sign being placed in scripture. They see God as a God of families. They see what hannah did. They cannot reconcile infant baptism so they believe they are doing the next best thing; the baby dedication. But to be consistant, they would need to really look hard at hannah and what she was truly doing. She circumcixed her son, based upon obedience to Gods command, and she LEFT samn at the temple; he lived there. How many parents today are being consistant? They are not placing the sign. They are not leaving their son or daughter with the pastor and in fact, God hates the dedication as it breaks the 2nd commandment. They think God honors that when in fact, the God of the scriptures hates it. To be consistant, one would need to place the sign first.



What he said!


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ivan,
> Deep in the knower of some credo baptists, they need to do something with their infant. They see the sign being placed in scripture. They see God as a God of families. They see what hannah did. They cannot reconcile infant baptism so they believe they are doing the next best thing; the baby dedication. But to be consistant, they would need to really look hard at hannah and what she was truly doing. She circumcixed her son, based upon obedience to Gods command, and she LEFT samn at the temple; he lived there. How many parents today are being consistant? They are not placing the sign. They are not leaving their son or daughter with the pastor and in fact, God hates the dedication as it breaks the 2nd commandment. They think God honors that when in fact, the God of the scriptures hates it. To be consistant, one would need to place the sign first.



I was never comfortable with SBC baby dedications. They are not done in our church. I see it as trying to play off ends to the middle. God doesn't work that way. 

This is the warning that my Calvinistic Southern Baptist college pastor told me 30 years ago: "If you follow the logic of infant baptism as many Calvinistic do, you will be convinced they are right. Their argument is very convincing." Or words to that affect. 

Not there yet, and at 52 I don't know if I ever will be. Besides, there is not a Reformed church to be found within driving distance of me.

I am interested in learning more about it, but I don't know that you will ever have a "convert".


----------



## Larry Hughes

Jacob,

I appreciate it. It comes from a real life experience concerning the issue. That is where it started for me and the frustration/struggle with a lack of an answer from the baptistic side.

In our bylaws, a calvinistic SBC, we even have a provision that says the elders would be reasonably assured that regeneration had occurred. Pondering John 3 that confused me. I asked about that once because my concern is how does an elder go about this impossible task and the answer I received was that we have to make sure we don't accidentally baptize for example a Mormon who does not affirm true faith in Christ. I thought, "Well sure, that's a pretty gross example. But what about a little closer to the real world?" 

For it concerned me deeply about how an elder might perform this task without harming a true freshly stricken convert who may be and likely is very weak, shocked by it all? Because when I was converted though I was well educated in the world, held a college degree in the sciences, had a career and by worldly standards could hold my own - I knew very little in terms of "church" language. I saw Christ one day during the preaching of His word very powerfully and went from stark atheist/agnostic to a broken sinner just like that. It was like I'd been living in a dream (nightmare) world and had just awoken for the first time. Reality and truth hit me very powerfully and irresistablly and I was broken in heart. I knew very little in terms of "terminology" but I knew I must repent and flee to Christ and be baptized. Had someone quizzed me to death at that point I would have been scared to death by it and probably ran. Because in my ignorance I truly felt like this filthy dog coming among these pure people (the church). I was ashamed to even walk into the church doors because my view of the people of the church was like pure saints. That's how little I knew. Thus, it would have taken very little to frighten me away, not from Christ but in the confusion from the church itself. And it was so sudden one could hardly measure the "fruit in my life" because less than 24 hours ago (at that time) I was openly an unbeliever pure and simple.

Ladyflynt,

Thanks for the reply. "Baptism is a statement of the family as a whole, but has nothing to do with individual salvation." That is about were I've arrived as well. The family structure and language in the OT and NT is rather unavoidable and stark. The tragic individualism we see in the church today seems to be an American phenomena both historically and socio-geographically.

In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> The tragic individualism we see in the church today seems to be an American phenomena both historically and socio-geographically.
> 
> In Christ Alone,
> 
> Larry



Wooo...good point. Something to ponder. That certainly speak to Southern Baptists, doesn't it.


----------



## pastorway

Show me a household baptism where the person baptized did not first hear the Word preached and believe the gospel. 

As John MacArthur demonstrated in his debate on infant baptism with RC Sproul:



> There´s never an incident of a baby being baptized in any of those households"”it never identifies them. "Households" simply mean"”could mean "family, could mean "servants" who were a part of that household.
> 
> 1. Cornelius´ house"”Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius heard it"¦it says, "They all heard the Word"¦they believed it"¦the Spirit fell"¦they were all baptized." All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on all, they were all baptized.
> 
> 2. In the jailer´s house"”Acts 16 is the next one"¦Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, "All heard the gospel"¦all were baptized."
> 
> 3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, "All believed"¦all were baptized."
> 
> The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia and Stephanas"”Lydia is in the book of Acts.
> 
> 4. But, in the case of Lydia, it´s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred"”they heard, they believed, they were baptized.
> 
> 5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized.
> 
> I mean, it´s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized. That excludes infants because infants can´t hear and believe. The "household" then is defined"”it is defined as "those capable of hearing, understanding, believing." That´s the definition of the "household."
> 
> In Stephanas´ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, "All who were baptized," it says, "All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints." Babies can´t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says, "All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church." It´s impossible for infants.
> 
> In the case of Lydia, in Acts, "her heart was opened when she heard the gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened," it says. So, we understood she heard the gospel, she believed"¦others must have heard the gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized. By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single person.
> 
> In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman"”you know, whom Jesus talked with and He healed his son"”it says about that man, "He himself believed and his whole household." They all believed. Household belief, then household baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism.
> 
> http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/INFBAP.HTM



Phillip


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

What tipped the boat for me was the covenantal concept of circumcision replacing baptism. I was SBC, now OPC. 

I, like so many of us here, was baptized in a Baptist church, and later became Presbyterian. Three cheers for you Colleen and streetpreacher!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip,
I never heard that argument before.........I am going back to a credo theology! 







~Sorry Phillip......


----------



## pastorway

just showing how the household arguments do not hold up, that's all. 

Neither does the supposed connection that has baptism replacing circumcision. If one replaced the other then the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) surely would have sent a quick note off to those thinking they had to be circumcised to be saved by saying, "Forget about it, silly people, you don't need to be circumcised, for you have already been baptized." 

Just my two Baptist cents......

I'll go aWay now and try not to spoil anyone's last straw arguments.

Phillip

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey

And Calvin just had a bad day............

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Radar

I am curious, concerning all the points and counterpoints made about household baptisms, why there are, baptistically speaking, no half-household baptisms recorded; i.e., where all were preached at within the house, some believed and some didn't, ergo some were baptized and some not.

My baptistic viewpoint would darn near expect such to be the case, given all the households mentioned. Yet seemingly uncharacteristically, the batting average for all of these examples is 1000. Why no half-household baptisms?

Peace


----------



## LadyFlynt

BATTER"S UP!!!

Philip's turn!


----------



## Scott Bushey

One of the key issues is whether or not _discipleship_ equals regeneration. Judas was a disciple, he was not regenerate. Ananias and Saphira were disciples (probably baptized); they were not saved. Demas was a disciple (Probably baptized), he was not saved. 

Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 

Baptism equals discipleship, not conversion.

PS: Anyone whom wants a scanned version of J. Jeremias's Treatise on household baptisms, I will send the file.


[Edited on 1-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> PS: Anyone whom wants a scanned version of J. Jeremias's Treatise on household baptisms, I will send the file.


Can you send me a copy? I'll U2U my email address.
Thanks,
Bob


----------



## JohnV

There's more to it than just extension. I know that I have to know and believe responsibly for my family. Even for others. I once heard that a Reformed family was attending Bible studies at a local neo-Pentacostal church. They saw me going there from time to time, and thought I approved. They didn't know that it was out of dispute that I was going there, not out of approving of it. I was trying to settle something for someone else, and trying to rescue them from that circle. But instead, someone else thought that if John is going there it can't be bad, so they went. If this is so, even inadvertantly, for people not of my family but use me as a guide-post of sorts, then it is even more so for my wife and children. They look to me for what I would do, what I approve of. 

I do the heavy thinking about it, I make the hard decisions. New teachings are always tough to handle. Someone has to give the authoritative stamp of approval. And subjected individuals always look to those whose authority they respect. I do too; I look to the Church. It is important as a husband and father to be respectful and respected, and then to lead. 

So if Paul came to my villiage and preached a new gospel, it would be up to me to weigh it carefully. And if I believed, then my household would also gladly receive it, even though they may not have gone through the hard thinking I did to get there. 

On the other hand, if my wife, whose instinct I have come to trust trust, tells me there's something wrong with it, I need to listen and weigh that too. Some things you know by study, and some things you know by conscience, even if you can't put your finger on the exact problem. But a family counts on the leadership of the father, especially when it comes to adopting a new theology. I have to listen more than anything, but then lead them with honesty and integrity.

So there is the federal aspect of it in the actual practice that needs to kept in mind. Families would usually receive baptism if the father believed. Also, in certain cases, the mother's initiative would be looked to. Servants would look to their masters, if they trusted them. And usually they would, even if they were harsh masters. The thing is, we're talking about real-life situations where this happened, not some cut-and-dried stereotype. 

Scott:

May I please have a copy?


----------



## pastorway

There is no evidence in any of the household passages that anyone who did not hear and believe was baptized. They all heard, they all believed, they were all baptized.

Acts 10 - 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon *all those who heard the word* 45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47"Can anyone forbid water, that *these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit* just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Acts 16 - 32Then they *spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house*. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, *having believed in God with all his household*. 


Acts 18 - 8Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, *hearing, believed and were baptized*. 

There is a pattern here - they all heard, believd, and were baptized - it is up tp those who uphold baptizing infants to find them in the households, for in the text, they are not there!

Phillip

[Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## RamistThomist

Whether or not children were included in the households (as I believe they were) is a moot point. What is important is whether children are included in the New Covenant. 

1)Children of believers are expressly included in the prophecies of the NC (Jer. 32:38-40; Isa 59:21; 37:24-26). Note all the references to descendants's descandents, etc.

2)Given the context of these glorious promises, notice how Peter speaks to the Jews in the first sermon of the NC, that the promise is unto you and your children. What was the means of covenant entry?

3)As the history of the Church shows in Acts, their central debate was over whether or not the Gentiles had to include their children in the new covenant _by means of circumcision_--their debate was not whether the Jewish Christians had to start excluding their children.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Not to beat something to death but purely from a Baptistic view how does one determine regeneration in order to "œget" the timing correct. Because from the baptistic view this seems to be the crux of the issue. When I´ve talked with fellow baptist they always say two things "œmode and timing"œ. However, if pressed some will concede mode - that is they would not press a person to be "œre-baptized" if they had been sprinkled in a former church and if their own conscience was convinced that by this mode it was a true baptism. But, as to timing this cannot be conceded and is not - this is crucial to baptism being viewed as baptism or not in the "œbelievers only" scenario and the timing is inherent to the term "œbelievers baptism". If timing is not crucial then it seems that "œbelievers only" baptism arguments fall necessarily.

Now I´m looking at this purely at "˜how do you do this and teach this´, and as a scientist I tend to analyze. Therefore, it is a very practical issue and question. If timing is essential the next very obvious question is how does one define the timing? The answer would be, "œa proper baptismal candidate would be one that is presently born again, regenerate, etc"¦" The next logical question would be, "œHow do we determine this?" Well infants are easy since they cannot make a conscience decision. What about adults? How do you determine true rebirth in an adult and what is the Scriptural support for THIS very action - determining regeneration. One must be able to answer this because one has said that timing is the crucial issue regarding baptism. Furthermore, as some would say, "œnot being baptized correctly, per timing, is being disobedient and thus sinful"œ. Thus, this becomes no small issue as instructed, because what Christian wants to be sinful regarding this and do not all desire to be obedient to their Lord regarding baptism! So, one cannot just "œpunt" the question at this point, else it looks disingenuous even though that may not be the intention. Thus, since men can themselves be internally deceived regarding their status and other men cannot "˜see´ other men´s heart how is this crucial timing achieved?

Further reaching in shepherding one´s sheep: Most Baptist I know would not affirm a re-baptism, that it is to be administered only once. A true re-baptism would be unscriptural and this they would affirm. On the other hand the same would say that it is not "œre-baptism" if the first "œbaptism" (I´m not sure what such an act administered would be labeled, false baptism, public bath, mistake?) was given and the person was not truly regenerate (again the timing). So, in theory a believers baptism only teaching would never administer a "œre-baptism", but in practice how can this be done? E.g., If a person was truly regenerate but was struggling and doubted the timing of their own conversion and then went to the pastor and both become convinced to re-baptize/baptize for the first time, would in reality this not be unscriptural since he/she really was regenerate - in the sight of God? If one answers, "œWe do not baptized based upon an infallible knowledge of regeneration and do as little based upon presumption as possible", has one not conceded the point - that regeneration is undetectable to men and being thus undetectable so is the "œcrucial element of timing" conceded, and thus the argument for "œbelievers only baptism". But this all still goes back to "œhow do you do what you say you do in order to get the timing right - detect regeneration?"

And there seems to be another danger. Becoming fixated upon timing of conversion for assurance. We should not ever become fixed on timing since that is neither here nor there and could lead to a false assurance. Some people have very distinct and powerful conversion "œexperiences" and some come to faith gradually and cannot pin point. Is it not dangerous to require all conversions to fall into the former category? Yet, believers baptism only necessitates this "œwhen exactly was I converted thinking". Else its just guess work and if its guess work then timing cannot be all that crucial.

If I were becoming a believers only baptism affirming pastor it would seem I would want to be able to answer this crucial point about this distinctive of the denomination. If I say something is a distinctive about myself or company or what ever, then I should be able distinguish the distinctive for anyone asking about it.

Then there is Simon Magnus in Acts. That would have seemed to have been a golden time to mention "œyou need to repent and be baptized truly for the first time since you were not regenerate the first time." And John 3 seems to militate against "œregeneration detection" since the operation of the Holy Spirit is secretive. Actually the Law itself by extension seems to militate against such detection by men since the Law requires fulfillment from the heart and men can outwardly do the works of the Law yet not fulfill the Laws requirement from the heart, mind and soul - deceiving both themselves and others. Jeremiah 17:9 seems to militate against such, "œThe heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: (who can know it)?" One might say that we should know them by their fruits and this is our detection, but is that not only applied to those who are within the visible church as members? Why would we need to see the "œfruits" of those openly inside (but non-members) or outside of the church who openly reject the faith for they openly do so, it wouldn´t be a mystery to us.

These are the questions that I just can´t seem to sit down regarding the issue. Perhaps I'm greatly ignorant, always a definite possibility. But I would be lying to myself if I pretended to have these settled.

In Christ,

Larry


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> There is no evidence in any of the household passages that anyone who did not hear and believe was baptized. They all heard, they all believed, they were all baptized.
> 
> Acts 10 - 44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon *all those who heard the word* 45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47"Can anyone forbid water, that *these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit* just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
> 
> Acts 16 - 32Then they *spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house*. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, *having believed in God with all his household*.
> 
> 
> Acts 18 - 8Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, *hearing, believed and were baptized*.
> 
> There is a pattern here - they all heard, believd, and were baptized - it is up tp those who uphold baptizing infants to find them in the households, for in the text, they are not there!
> 
> Phillip
> 
> [Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]



Who is to say that infants or the imbecile cannot receive the word? Discipleship does not equate with regeneration. Disciples are to be baptised.

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

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## daveb

These are some points that are always forefront in my mind when I think of household baptisms. I'm still sitting on the fence concerning infant baptism but these are passages I now see in different light then I once did.



> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 2)Given the context of these glorious promises, notice how Peter speaks to the Jews in the first sermon of the NC, that the promise is unto you and your children. What was the means of covenant entry?



I often found that I came to this verse and missed it entirely. When I read it thinking of what the Jews would have understood Peter to be saying I can see how this is about covenant inclusion. If this passage is not about covenant inclusion why would he use such language?

Some say that "your children" means descendants not their literal children. Anyone have thoughts on the validity of this argument?



> 3)As the history of the Church shows in Acts, their central debate was over whether or not the Gentiles had to include their children in the new covenant _by means of circumcision_--their debate was not whether the Jewish Christians had to start excluding their children.



This is very important. If their children were not to be included in the covenant as they always were surely something would have been said to indicate this. As it stands there is no reason for the Jewish believers to think anything has changed. In fact for them to have believed that their children were not in covenant anymore would seem quite strange when you look at Acts.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dave,
What you say above is critical in the understanding of covenant theology. Credo presuppositions unintentionally block the line of site; The premise we hold fast is that God is immutable and that this God has always been a God of the family unit. The promise to Abraham is eternal; "To you and your children". In Malachi, God calls for the "Godly seed". In the gospels Christ says that the kingdom 'belongs' to children as these. Peter commands 'The promise is to you and your children". The rationale that God would (in the NT) cast away this principle in my opinion is ridiculous.


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The promise to Abraham is eternal; "To you and your children". In Malachi, God calls for the "Godly seed". In the gospels Christ says that the kingdom 'belongs' to children as these. Peter commands 'The promise is to you and your children".



Before knowing what covenant theology is I could never make sense of these verses.

I struggled for quite some time with eternality of the Abrahamic covenant since it involved unregenerate. As a Baptist I thought the new covenant only had regenerate people in it. Just exactly what to do with the Abrahamic covenant is the issue that I'm undecided on. Whether it applies to literal children or spiritual children is something I'm not sure of. If it applies to literal children (as I suspect it does) then I'll switch sides and baptize my children, if not, I'll stay in the same camp. 



> The rationale that God would (in the NT) cast away this principle in my opinion is ridiculous.



I believe you have good evidence for such a stance.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The promise to Abraham is eternal; "To you and your children". In Malachi, God calls for the "Godly seed". In the gospels Christ says that the kingdom 'belongs' to children as these. Peter commands 'The promise is to you and your children".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before knowing what covenant theology is I could never make sense of these verses.
> 
> I struggled for quite some time with eternality of the Abrahamic covenant since it involved unregenerate. As a Baptist I thought the new covenant only had regenerate people in it. Just exactly what to do with the Abrahamic covenant is the issue that I'm undecided on. Whether it applies to literal children or spiritual children is something I'm not sure of. If it applies to literal children (as I suspect it does) then I'll switch sides and baptize my children, if not, I'll stay in the same camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rationale that God would (in the NT) cast away this principle in my opinion is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have good evidence for such a stance.
Click to expand...


You ask does it apply to 'literal children". Did circumcision?


----------



## blhowes

What, if any, would be the justification of thinking of them as spiritual children instead of literal children?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 
Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 
Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." 
Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

~Is the above physical or spiritual? Both!

Mal 2:15 ...And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are hol

Was this promise just literal or was it a spiritual promise? It is both.


----------



## blhowes

I may have been misunderstanding what Dave was talking about when he used the term 'spiritual children'. I've heard others (not necessarily on this board) refer to the promise in Acts 2:39 (unto you, and your children) as being to the Christian and those who they 'lead to Christ'. Somewhere in the NT Paul refers to his relationship to Timothy or Titus that way.


----------



## Scott Bushey

What promise is Peter refering to? If it is the Abrahamic, then the same rationale applies. Being cut off from Israel, a result of not being obedient to the command of God to place the sign, was spiritual as well as physical.


----------



## JonathanHunt

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the Jerusalem council (Acts 15)
> 
> Just my two Baptist cents......
> 
> [Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]



Sorry, Phillip, did you say... Baptist Cents?



What Jerusalem Council? That would look suspiciously like presbyterian church government!



JH

PS I am not asking what the phrase 'jerusalem council' refers to. I know. I just believe, along with many baptists (I thought ALL baptists) that Acts 15 doesn't describe any council, but rather the meeting of two local churchs. This view is (suprisingly but honestly) supported by Dr Robert Reymond, himself a Presbyterian.


----------



## pastorway

just remember that when you are talking to people of differing theological persuasions it helps to speak their language!!


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> You ask does it apply to 'literal children". Did circumcision?



Yes, good point.


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> What, if any, would be the justification of thinking of them as spiritual children instead of literal children?



Bob, Romans 9:6-9 is used to suggest that those children are spiritual in nature rather than physical. I'm not sure I buy the argument though.

6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

[Edited on 6-1-2005 by daveb]


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gen 17:5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
> Gen 17:6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you.
> Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
> Gen 17:8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God."
> Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.
> Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
> Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
> Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
> Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
> 
> Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
> 
> ~Is the above physical or spiritual? Both!
> 
> Mal 2:15 ...And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.
> 
> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are hol
> 
> Was this promise just literal or was it a spiritual promise? It is both.



This is good Scott. I believe that I was in error by falsely separating the physical act from its spiritual significance. I'm still learning about the whole concept of the external sign and what that sign signifies inwardly.

BTW, I appreciate your dialogue on this....I'm learning! 

[Edited on 6-1-2005 by daveb]


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> Just my two Baptist cents......
> 
> I'll go aWay now and try not to spoil anyone's last straw arguments.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> [Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]



Ok. Have a nice day .


----------



## Larry Hughes

Just speaking about the general use of the term "œhousehold" in today's context: If you spoke to me today and said something like, "How's the "household" doing". I would without thinking about it in any theological context respond by intuitively saying, "My wife is well, the baby is due in May and my daughter has a bad cold." I might even mention the dog. The point being that is my household and my report on it.

As a matter of fact I do get emails and letters from friends catching up with me that ask, "how's the Hughes', how's the Hughes clan, how's the Hughes home, how's the Hughes home stead, the Hughes house, Hughes family and the alike." I'm never referred to even by my single never-married friends in the singular and that since I've been married, and I was single for a long time.

Thus, in use of the language it would be a very constrained stretch to answer, "How's the Hughes household/home/etc...?" with, "I'm doing fine." And if I did they might think something was wrong at home. Or even more constrained beyond language recognition, "I'm doing fine and if my wife was here to hear the question she would say the same, and my daughter not being at an age of intellectual cognizance is unable to give you her status."

Second, if it were hypothetically possible and I had heard Peter's sermon and ever before ever having joined any denomination to skew my thinking in any direction - before I understood one iota of doctrine - a pure ignorant irreligious no background Gentile - if I heard Peter say "and the promise is to you and your children and to all those who are far off..." My immediate reaction would have been to have myself and family baptized. At least until Peter or somebody stopped me and said, "You can't have your baby baptized because...we meant spiritual children and so forth". If that would be the understanding for an ignorant formerly irreligious Gentile for which I can best honestly answer, then how much more would a Jew having a tremendously strong covenant/covenant sign upbringing/teaching?

Third, I´m certain this has surely been asked, but what would a modern orthodox Jew understand Peter to be saying there in Acts 2:38 & 39 if he were to read that today? This being as close as we could come to a 1st Century Jew being there hearing it first hand.

Finally, what would be the difference in these two narrative constructions:

1. "œAnd with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized."

& a hypothetical narrative of the following:

2. "œAnd that day several tornado warnings were issued saying that the tornado was near. Then they that heard/received the warning sought shelter."

If families and households were involved in each case and if children and babies were present with their parents (which would indeed be the highest and most natural probability), could we conclude in any real sense from #2 that the children/babies were not taken to and given shelter from the warning. If not for #2, then why so for #1?

I´m not trying to be obtuse, just trying to learn. Perhaps simplistically but trying to learn.


Larry


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Bob, Romans 9:6-9 is used to suggest that those children are spiritual in nature rather than physical. I'm not sure I buy the argument though.


To me, Acts 2:39 just sounds like the promise that God will save his elect. The 'you' represents the Jews that God saves, 'your children' represents their children that God saves, and 'all that are afar off' is the rest of the elect.

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto *you* (_as many as the Lord our God shall call_), 
and to *your children* (_as many as the Lord our God shall call_), 
and to *all that are afar off*, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

That's what makes the most sense to me now, anyway. I'm guessing that some may disagree.


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> To me, Acts 2:39 just sounds like the promise that God will save his elect. The 'you' represents the Jews that God saves, 'your children' represents their children that God saves, and 'all that are afar off' is the rest of the elect.
> 
> Act 2:39 For the promise is unto *you* (_as many as the Lord our God shall call_),
> and to *your children* (_as many as the Lord our God shall call_),
> and to *all that are afar off*, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
> 
> That's what makes the most sense to me now, anyway. I'm guessing that some may disagree.



Bob, I've found that Acts 2:39 and Romans 9:6 are often used in conjunction. I've heard some say that the children are the same as those "that are afar off". These children are thought to be not the children of the flesh but the children of promise (this is where some will bring Romans 9:6 in). 

However, I agree with your interpretation that the "your children" is pointing to physical seed.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by daveb]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> 
> 
> 
> Just my two Baptist cents......
> 
> I'll go aWay now and try not to spoil anyone's last straw arguments.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> [Edited on 1-6-05 by pastorway]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Have a nice day .
Click to expand...


Now I'm disappointed in you! Go sit in the corner or behave...this is getting interesting...


----------



## pastorway

The promise is to as many as the Lord will call.....exactly right Bob! Whether it is you He calls, your children, or those far away from us in another land - the promise is to the ELECT....and we cannot ever take for granted that our children are automatically elect because they have been born to believers. Election is unconditional.

As for the households, sure it would have included infants if the families had infants, but those in these households who were baptised also all heard the Word and believed it. All who heard and believed were baptized. To insert an infant into those baptized puts little people in the text that are not there.

You will not find a single reference to infant baptism in the whole Bible. It simply is not there. The regulative principle then requires that we refrain from baptizing infants.

The household passages cannot be used to support infant baptism. Neither can Acts 2:48-49. Neither can an appeal to circumcision in the OT since we are never told in Scripture that baptism replaces circumcision.

See? Infant baptism must be derived from a systematic theology and inserted into the text. We throw _Sola Scriptura_ out the window when we say that the Bible teaches us to baptize our children. 

Phillip


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> As for the households, sure it would have included infants if the families had infants, but those in these households who were baptised also all heard the Word and believed it. All who heard and believed were baptized. To insert an infant into those baptized puts little people in the text that are not there...The household passages cannot be used to support infant baptism.



Phillip, see this thread, especially Bruce's post to which I linked.



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Neither can an appeal to circumcision in the OT since we are never told in Scripture that baptism replaces circumcision.



Two questions: 1) What is your interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12? 2) What would you say is biblically signified by: a) circumcision, and b) baptism? 



> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> See? Infant baptism must be derived from a systematic theology and inserted into the text. We throw _Sola Scriptura_ out the window when we say that the Bible teaches us to baptize our children.



It is really impossible to make sense of _any_ separate passages of Scripture in relation to one another without engaging in _some_ level of systematic theology. Thus the fact that paedobaptism requires a systematic theological treatment of the many issues that have been discussed in this thread in no way shows that it violates Sola Scriptura.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 1) What is your interpretation of Colossians 2:11-12?


I think these verses expand upon the truth of verse 10, that the Colossian believers are complete in Christ. Though they weren't circumcised physically, in Christ they were circumcised spiritually by God. They are also complete in Christ through their spiritual baptism in which they die with Christ and are also quickened with Christ.

I don't *yet* see anything beyond that regarding a connection between physical circumcision and physical baptism. The reason is because I don't see any connection between the spiritual circumcision and the physical circumcision in this passage (these gentiles weren't circumcised). Since I don't see the physical circumcision in the passage, it follows that I don't see a connection between physical circumcision and physical baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bob,
If I am following you; You agree that God commands a sign to be placed upon His covenant people, correct? Circumcission was the sign in the old, baptism in the new. I don't know if you will find a clear cut mandate other than the call to place the sign.......


----------



## daveb

Colossians 2:11-12

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 

What is signified in baptism is that we are buried and rise with Christ. Baptism is replacing circumcision as the seal of the covenant. We do not need the circumcision of our flesh but of the heart. I believe this much is clear, but whom is the recipient?

I remember reading Piper on this passage and he said that what is equated in this passage is the "circumcision made without hands" and baptism. Since only those who are regenerate receive the "circumcision made without hands" so also only the regenerate should receive baptism.


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> See? Infant baptism must be derived from a systematic theology and inserted into the text. We throw _Sola Scriptura_ out the window when we say that the Bible teaches us to baptize our children.
> 
> Phillip



Are you saying that it's wrong to use systematic theology when studying the scriptures? (Just curious as I will admit to being new and ignorant in these terms and ideas)


----------



## Larry Hughes

There is a bit of irony in this from the "believers only" who are Calvinistic side. If an Armenian asks us, "If all that are saved are elect only, then why do you evagelize?" The answer is always, "Because we don't know who the elect are." But if asked, "Why do you baptize professers only", the answer is, "Because only the elect receive baptism."

On another note. The minute I learn my ABC's in order to read the bible, I've began systematizing my thoughts. Then on to the English language, etc...Systematizing anything is just a matter of building upon knowlege before hand and analyzing/re-analyzing older knowledge for clarity.



[Edited on 1-7-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Dan....

> I remember reading Piper on this passage and he said that what is equated in this passage is the "circumcision made without hands" and baptism. Since only those who are regenerate receive the "circumcision made without hands" so also only the regenerate should receive baptism.



....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?


----------



## Scott Bushey

sa 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen. 
Isa 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. 
Isa 44:4 They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> There is a bit of irony in this from the "believers only" who are Calvinistic side. If an Armenian asks us, "If all that are saved are elect only, then why do you evagelize?" The answer is always, "Because we don't know who the elect are." But if asked, "Why do you baptize professers only", the answer is, "Because only the elect receive baptism."







> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> On another note. The minute I learn my ABC's in order to read the bible, I've began systematizing my thoughts. Then on to the English language, etc...Systematizing anything is just a matter of building upon knowlege before hand and analyzing/re-analyzing older knowledge for clarity.


----------



## blhowes

Larry Hughes,
I'm glad that I went back and skimmed through the thread. I missed your post initially somehow and it looks like you've asked some really good questions.



> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Second, if it were hypothetically possible and I had heard Peter's sermon and ever before ever having joined any denomination to skew my thinking in any direction - before I understood one iota of doctrine - a pure ignorant irreligious no background Gentile - if I heard Peter say "and the promise is to you and your children and to all those who are far off..." My immediate reaction would have been to have myself and family baptized. At least until Peter or somebody stopped me and said, "You can't have your baby baptized because...we meant spiritual children and so forth". If that would be the understanding for an ignorant formerly irreligious Gentile for which I can best honestly answer, then how much more would a Jew having a tremendously strong covenant/covenant sign upbringing/teaching?


If I were in your hypothetical character's shoes, I might have reacted a little bit differently. Since my thinking hadn't yet been skewed in any theological direction, I wouldn't automatically think that all the family should be baptized. After Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you" and the Holy Spirit had pricked my heart, I would have probably spoken to the rest of the family and encouraged them to repent and be baptized. If there was an infant in the family, I would probably have asked Peter, "What about baby Bob here. He's too young to repent?" If Peter was a good baptist, he'd tell me to wait until the baby's old enough to repent and believe. If he was a Presbyterian, he'd tell me to hand him the baby.

I've gotta go catch a train home from work. I'll try and give your other questions some thought and respond later.

Nice questions,
Bob


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?



Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
Click to expand...


Exactly - and thus it is inevitably _presumption_ that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by daveb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> ....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly - and thus it is inevitably _presumption_ that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?
Click to expand...


God's promises are more reliable than man's profession to be sure. If I'm going to trust anything it's the promises of God.

Those who were not baptized as infants must be baptized under a profession of faith, we see this as good enough evidence in this scenario.

Can you tell I'm running out of arguments? :bigsmile:

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by daveb]


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly - and thus it is inevitably presumption that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?
Click to expand...


Thanks Chris.

Double exactly.

Then how can timing be essential to baptism whereby men´s consciences are bound to a timing (true and real regeneration), whereby they may have no idea whether they "œgot it right or not". One tells a man, he must X otherwise he is being disobedient and if disobedient to God thus committing sin - which is manifestly binding his conscience. Most of the time this is done very softly and implicitly rather than harshly saying it just as I´ve stated. But people can put two and two together. To continue, he may not be able to discern this and a second baptism if it IS indeed a second baptism even by "œbelievers only" standards would be a sin (because it is claimed we do not re-baptize, at least the more conservative Baptist. My wife grew up around groups that dunked every time the weather changed). Telling a man he must do something yet not explaining how he is to go about doing it can only drive to despair or wrath, causing further sin.

It seems if it is by presumption then the whole process is conceded. That is why the issue never began about infants for myself (I didn´t even have children then, nor was married).

In one sense it is a very practical pastoral issue. 

And are not the promises of God to both adult hearers and their children to engender faith and trust or in the strictest sense the occasion whereby faith may occur whenever it may occur - even the recollection from memory of such? Isn´t that the point of Gospel promise to engender faith and not unbelief.

Blessings Always,

Larry

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Dan....

> Quote:
> Originally posted by Me Died Blue
> Quote:
> Originally posted by daveb
> Quote:
> Originally posted by Dan....
> ....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
> 
> 
> Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
> 
> 
> Exactly - and thus it is inevitably presumption that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?
> 
> 
> God's promises are more reliable than man's profession to be sure. If I'm going to trust anything it's the promises of God.
> 
> Those who were not baptized as infants must be baptized under a profession of faith, we see this as good enough evidence in this scenario.
> 
> Can you tell I'm running out of arguments?
> 
> [Edited on 7-1-2005 by daveb]



Close..

Only, I would add that it is not only the infant children, but all the children who are in the household that must be baptized. A 14 year old should be baptized if one or more of his/her parents are professing believers. The household baptisms of the New Testament and that the Old Testament saint were to circumcise all males (regardless of their age, hence Ishmael) in their households both evidence this.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> Now I'm disappointed in you! Go sit in the corner or behave...this is getting interesting...



*sits in corner*


----------



## Scott Bushey

And turn that chair around, young man.


----------



## pastorway

if we are going to baptize the children we should also baptize the adults - even if they are not saved and have not made a profession - 1 Cor 7:14 - "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife...."

Also, I do not discount systematic theology, but to hold to a systematic that requires you to insert things in the Scriptures that are not there is dangerous.

And we must admit that all of our children are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. They all need to hear the gospel. Think about Nicodemus - if we could rpesume anyone in Israel was regenerate, would it not be him? But Jesus told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the kingdom of heaven. Just because we are saved does not mean that we assume our children are also - not until they show fruit, repent, and believe. Otherwise there is no need to preach to them the gospel and they will grow up with a deadly false assurance.

All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.

Phillip


----------



## Scot

I've mentioned this before but I'm somewhere in between the two camps. I do believe children should be baptized but I don't believe that it is a "seal" like the confession states. I believe that adult converts need to be baptized and also that the children of believing parents (or one believing parent) should be baptized. Children of believers are "set apart" in the sense that they are in a christian home where they will hear the gospel. That doesn't mean they are "sealed." If someone is "sealed" in the biblical sense then they are regenerate. 

I believe that believing parents are to put the sign of baptism on their children in hopes that their sins will be "washed" away. A sign OF the seal, not a sign AND a seal.

This puts me in the middle somewhere. I disagree with both sides somewhat. I've asked before and I'll ask again: What am I?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> And turn that chair around, young man.



Yes Ma'am........


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> And turn that chair around, young man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Ma'am........
Click to expand...


Mark,
Don't make me have to take you outside and give you a bleesing like you'll never forget pal!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Phillip writes:


> All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.



Phillip, 
How do you come to the conclusion that we do not preach the gospel to our children just because we place the sign on them? Again I say, regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration....our rearing of our children comprises all the components of Gods gospel. Conversion requires Gods message proclaimed; either way you look at it.

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if we are going to baptize the children we should also baptize the adults - even if they are not saved and have not made a profession - 1 Cor 7:14 - "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife...."
> 
> Also, I do not discount systematic theology, but to hold to a systematic that requires you to insert things in the Scriptures that are not there is dangerous.
> 
> And we must admit that all of our children are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. They all need to hear the gospel. Think about Nicodemus - if we could rpesume anyone in Israel was regenerate, would it not be him? But Jesus told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the kingdom of heaven. Just because we are saved does not mean that we assume our children are also - not until they show fruit, repent, and believe. Otherwise there is no need to preach to them the gospel and they will grow up with a deadly false assurance.
> 
> All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.
> 
> Phillip



But just as one side is asserting (inserting) that infants are to be baptized, are you not also asserting (inserting) that infants are not to be baptized?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Scot_
> I've mentioned this before but I'm somewhere in between the two camps. I do believe children should be baptized but I don't believe that it is a "seal" like the confession states. I believe that adult converts need to be baptized and also that the children of believing parents (or one believing parent) should be baptized. Children of believers are "set apart" in the sense that they are in a christian home where they will hear the gospel. That doesn't mean they are "sealed." If someone is "sealed" in the biblical sense then they are regenerate.
> 
> I believe that believing parents are to put the sign of baptism on their children in hopes that their sins will be "washed" away. A sign OF the seal, not a sign AND a seal.
> 
> This puts me in the middle somewhere. I disagree with both sides somewhat. I've asked before and I'll ask again: What am I?



Scot, I personally am right where you are at!


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if we are going to baptize the children we should also baptize the adults - even if they are not saved and have not made a profession - 1 Cor 7:14 - "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife...."
> 
> Also, I do not discount systematic theology, but to hold to a systematic that requires you to insert things in the Scriptures that are not there is dangerous.
> 
> And we must admit that all of our children are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. They all need to hear the gospel. Think about Nicodemus - if we could rpesume anyone in Israel was regenerate, would it not be him? But Jesus told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the kingdom of heaven. Just because we are saved does not mean that we assume our children are also - not until they show fruit, repent, and believe. Otherwise there is no need to preach to them the gospel and they will grow up with a deadly false assurance.
> 
> All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But just as one side is asserting (inserting) that infants are to be baptized, are you not also asserting (inserting) that infants are not to be baptized?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you see, we can only do what the Bible expressly tells us (positive command) since baptism is a new covenant positive institution. So, to baptise children we need a command to.
> 
> 
> (pssst, don't ask me about giving women the Lord's supper because then I'll have to draw inferences like those silly presbyterians.)
Click to expand...


okay, then from the household baptism view, couldn't that be considered leaving out what is commanded (therein lies the arguement)

as far as that last part goes (and I know your Italian ego is going to love this) I haven't a clue what you are speaking of.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Mark,
> Don't make me have to take you outside and give you a bleesing like you'll never forget pal!



I don't think I want a.......bleesing.......


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I'm sorry if I am butting in where I am not wanted. What ever happened to examining a person by their profession.

I do admit to seeing and instance of a child being born regenerate in the life of John the Baptist. Get it. He was a Baptist. I bet he was baptized by pouring. Anyways we are to look at a persons profession of faith. Remember the Romans 10 passage. Confession is part of this. 

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. For with the heart one believes and is justfied, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:9&10

Confession seems to play some part of this. Children in the Mosaic Covenant were not necesarily members in Christ. They were circumcised to be members of nationalistic Isreal. Children of the New Covenant are suppose to be members of a nation also. But in order to be a part of this nation we have to be regenerate converts. 

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possesion, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people... 1Peter 2:9,10a

And the passage in Ephesians 2:12,13


----------



## RamistThomist

Randy,
You have given many verses that could be shown, perhaps, to preclude paedocommunion. They do not touch infant baptism. Do you see baptism as my testimony to the world or God's testimony that he is a Covenant-keeping God faithful to his promises.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

My point exactly. Infant baptism isn't biblical because their is no confession of faith. The only babes to be Baptized are those confessing Christ. I think Paul does refer to young immature Christians as being babes. We can discern babes in Christ by their confession. I didn't see a rebuttal of Pastor Ways argument of household. I would like for Scott to respond instead of just pulling on Calvins name and neglecting the argument. I'm not trying to be disrespectful Scott. I just believe you brushed off his scriptural argument that came from MacArthur. I am not a big MacArthur fan either but I would like to hear what you have to say.


----------



## turmeric

I still don't get this. Was I saved JUST BECAUSE my parents were Christian? Did God positively promise to save all the children of believers? If not, then WHAT covenant promise is baptism the sign of? Someone will probably quote the WCF at this point which is fine, but I've read those quotes and I still don't know what God promised to do for believers' children. I don't think He guaranteed that they would all be regenerated, so why do we baptise them?
BTW; I was baptised twice before becoming a believer, then when I did get saved, being a Baptist at the time, I got re-baptised.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I believe the debate comes down to:

Since we know that Baptism has no role in salvation then...

Is baptism for those that have confessed first and only

or

Is it ALSO for those that are within the household where the head is a believer

and do these two items equate with...
a sign of ourselves or a sign of the Lord


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I still don't get this. Was I saved JUST BECAUSE my parents were Christian? Did God positively promise to save all the children of believers? If not, then WHAT covenant promise is baptism the sign of? Someone will probably quote the WCF at this point which is fine, but I've read those quotes and I still don't know what God promised to do for believers' children. I don't think He guaranteed that they would all be regenerated, so why do we baptise them?
> BTW; I was baptised twice before becoming a believer, then when I did get saved, being a Baptist at the time, I got re-baptised.



I think the doctrine is called unconditional election. Not because he saw anything in us or our Parents. Maybe based upon some promises to our parents. Being a parent I am hopeful that God does promise to save my babies. I don't want to go with out them. But the doctrine is called unconditional.


----------



## gwine

PuritanCovenater said:

I do admit to seeing an instance of a child being born regenerate in the life of John the Baptist. Get it. He was a Baptist. I bet he was baptized by pouring.

Wouldn't John the Baptizer be more correct? And I'll bet he was circumsized, not baptized (as an infant). But, since I am opposed to gambling . . .


----------



## Larry Hughes

> What ever happened to examining a person by their profession.



Depends. What is meant by "examine"? How elaborate, what language because they may not speak "church language" especially the more pure never churched, to what extent, how much time for fruit, what fruits specifically, how does one discern false fruit since we are all very capable masters of hypocrisy, by whose infallible ability to discern? 

AND all of this assumes elders exist at all in your church, which in the SB community and about 99% of the other "believers only" churches by-in-large is not the facts. And how will one see the heart of a professor by this anyway? And how much examination was given to Simon Magnus? Or for that matter in Acts where do we see any examination? The E. Eunice seemed to be pretty quick, "here is water what prevents me...". No elaborate disertation defense or board examination. 

That is the danger, the examination tends to grow from mere profession to a man made scheme, depending upon the church by-laws, all in a vain attempt to "guarantee regeneration" before baptism.

Simple profession by an adult seems necessary for obvious reasons but beyond that? Our own by-laws state that the elder should be assured of regeneration. How? How does an elder today do what an Apostle could not do and Scripture very plainly says no man can do?

I had a family member who is an other wise sound pastor tell me on a number of occassions that he wouldn't baptize a particular person who asked because he didn't feel or think they were 'saved yet' (meaning born again). Awful, just plain awful.

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I believe the debate comes down to:
> 
> Since we know that Baptism has no role in salvation then...
> 
> Is baptism for those that have confessed first and only
> 
> or
> 
> Is it ALSO for those that are within the household where the head is a believer
> 
> and do these two items equate with...
> a sign of ourselves or a sign of the Lord



I do believe it is an important thing to be baptized. As circumcision was administered to show you were a member of the covenant and a part of the nation Isreal, I believe a persons confession should lead to baptism and thus being admitted into God's New Covenant Holy nation..(The visible Church)

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Paul Manata said
Adults have ALWAYS had to profess faith. Were you under the impression that Abraham ran around like a wide-eyed maniac, tying down those adults who did not want to be part of Israel on a slab of rock, and then removing foreskin with a knife laughing under the pale light of a full moon? 

Now that would make a cool movie.

You know I am not saying that. I am only saying that the New Covenant seems to only include those whom the Lord knows are his. The sign of baptism has implications of being placed into Christ. Unbelievers are not in Christ.

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> 
> 
> 
> What ever happened to examining a person by their profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends. What is meant by "examine"? How elaborate, what language because they may not speak "church language" especially the more pure never churched, to what extent, how much time for fruit, what fruits specifically, how does one discern false fruit since we are all very capable masters of hypocrisy, by whose infallible ability to discern?
> 
> AND all of this assumes elders exist at all in your church, which in the SB community and about 99% of the other "believers only" churches by-in-large is not the facts. And how will one see the heart of a professor by this anyway? And how much examination was given to Simon Magnus? Or for that matter in Acts where do we see any examination? The E. Eunice seemed to be pretty quick, "here is water what prevents me...". No elaborate disertation defense or board examination.
> 
> That is the danger, the examination tends to grow from mere profession to a man made scheme, depending upon the church by-laws, all in a vain attempt to "guarantee regeneration" before baptism.
> 
> Simple profession by an adult seems necessary for obvious reasons but beyond that? Our own by-laws state that the elder should be assured of regeneration. How? How does an elder today do what an Apostle could not do and Scripture very plainly says no man can do?
> 
> I had a family member who is an other wise sound pastor tell me on a number of occassions that he wouldn't baptize a particular person who asked because he didn't feel or think they were 'saved yet' (meaning born again). Awful, just plain awful.
> 
> [Edited on 1-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]
Click to expand...


What does Romans 10:9,10 say. I am not capable of judging the heart but I am capable of listening. Every Pastor is considered an Elder. So the SBC does have someone to examine a persons confession. The Deacons are also considered to be someone of reputations most of the time. But we all know that there is no perfect church so we just try and do what the scriptures say. The old saying let's just kill'em all and let God sort em out seems appropriate sometimes. 

I admit this is a hard subject to discern. I have looked at this for years and still have problems. It would be much easier for me to just cave and fully accept Paedo baptism but my conscience being bound by scripture just won't allow me to do that. I am not saying your consciences are not bound to scripture if you are a paedo baptist. I am saying mine doesn't accept your premises based upon what I understand the scriptures to say. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last. If the subject was so clear everyone would agree. I do not think it is as clear as some think it is. 

My only contention is that I believe that the New Covenant member is regenerate according to the Scriptures. The only way of seeing that on this side is by their confession. We do our Best and let God sort out the rest.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Good Night. It is almost 2:00 a.m. Yes this is a shameless way to get another post.


----------



## Dan....

> I still don't get this. Was I saved JUST BECAUSE my parents were Christian?



We were not chosen to salvation because our parents were Christians (John 1:13, "not of blood"). We are saved because God chose us in Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1). 

However, God not only ordained that His chosen would be saved, He also ordained the means leading to their conversion. The Christian home is one of those means. God is a God of generations (Gen 17:7). 



> Did God positively promise to save all the children of believers?



No. He promised to be a God to them. Covenantally, He is a God to them. Just as He was the covenant God of the nation of Israel (to both the elect and the non-elect), so He is the covenant God of the church. The church (those who profess the true religion and their children, WCF XXVII:2), as was Israel, is a mixed multitude. Just as unbelieving Israelites were cut off from the people of God with Whom they were in covenant, so unbelieving church members are cut off from the people of God with Whom they are in covenant.



> If not, then WHAT covenant promise is baptism the sign of?
> Someone will probably quote the WCF at this point which is fine,



WCF XXVIII:1 - _Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20_



> but I've read those quotes and I still don't know what God promised to do for believers' children. I don't think He guaranteed that they would all be regenerated, so why do we baptise them?



We baptize them because they are in covenant with God; they are included as members of the New Testament Church. We place on them the outward sign of that covenant relationship.

We do not know who is regenerate and who is not, but we do know who are visibly included in His covenant community -and such are the ones who the church ought to baptize.

The promises of the covenant give us hope. God is a faithful God. He does work among the generations of those who love and obey Him.


----------



## Scott Bushey

~Preaching to the choir......

1) For all that has been said above in regards to the "profession". Profession is what a believer does; it is a *James* thing. It is NOT a requirement for salvation; it is proof of it. (And even in that profession, there will be false professors) The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account. Paul is telling the Romans that by their faith, they WILL 'confess'.......

2) Discipleship = Baptism

3) *Baptism does not equal regeneration (necessarily)

*There are many examples in scripture where disciples fell away. The admonition in the book of Hebrews in reference to 'falling away' is to visible church members who have obviously been baptised



[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Mark,
> Don't make me have to take you outside and give you a bleesing like you'll never forget pal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I want a.......bleesing.......
Click to expand...


Thats it; go to your room. Do a report on the book of numbers and the Geneology in Matthew chapter 1 or no soup for you!


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_ The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account.



Excellent point, something that is often missed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_ The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point, something that is often missed.
Click to expand...


It may not be an account of someones salvation but it surely explains it, unless you want to look a Jacobs election. It is partially explained.


----------



## Larry Hughes

> What does Romans 10:9,10 say. I am not capable of judging the heart but I am capable of listening. Every Pastor is considered an Elder. So the SBC does have someone to examine a persons confession. The Deacons are also considered to be someone of reputations most of the time.



v.9, "œthat if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; v.10, for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

It is a proclamation of the Gospel (Good News) to the readers (the church) for the hearers/readers not instructions for the elders or deacons.

Please don´t here me wrong, I´m not saying baptize adults without any profession. And I realize that every Pastor (if he is not forsaken his call or was actually called) is considered an Elder. As for Deacons in the SB community, yes strictly speaking "˜as they should be´, but most of the deacons I´ve encountered (how do I say this kindly)"¦are really not too scripturally established or balanced and theology/doctrine would not be their cup of tea. Great, dear and nice men who would help in a pinch do anything, but doctrine? At least this is the pervasive case in this part of the south, I cannot speak for other areas. E.g. we (a previous church) had a deacon go on a mission trip to Utah, he came back with the conclusion that the Mormons are just like us.



> I am not capable of judging the heart but I am capable of listening.



Doesn´t this then concede the point of guaranteeing in this life that baptism cannot be issued based upon infallible knowledge. If not why not? And if so how can one say that the timing of it is ESSENTIAL? Because that is what one is commanding to be done. One cannot achieve the strict command one is issuing, thus it is conceded.

All I´m looking at is a piece of the argument as much as I can examining it from the baptisic side only. Does it hold water by its own requirements? If it doesn´t then why not? Could it be that it is fundamentally incorrect somewhere down the line?



> but my conscience being bound by scripture just won't allow me to do that. I am not saying your consciences are not bound to scripture if you are a paedo baptist. I am saying mine doesn't accept your premises based upon what I understand the scriptures to say. I could be wrong.



Same here (on the fence so to speak) and I deeply respect that. I don´t think or view these discussions on either side as trying to force bind one - one way or another, but discussions of what does the bible really teach us. Which ever side one comes from. If someone is moved to a different position let it be from convinced scripture well reasoned. I don´t think ANYONE from any side that I´ve read here desires ANYTHING less than that.

Blessings In Christ Alone Always,

Larry


----------



## daveb

Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_ The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point, something that is often missed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may not be an account of someones salvation but it surely explains it, unless you want to look a Jacobs election. It is partially explained.
Click to expand...


Absolutely Randy. Thats the point of this passage. Look at verse 8:

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 

The Word is near to you! How near you ask; It's in your mouth and even in your heart; that is the word that saves men. The same word which we all proclaim.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 

This same gospel which has saved you is not impartial. It will even save the gentile; it saved you Romans didn't it? All who call on Christ will be saved, even those not of Israel.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 

Take to the gentiles and Jews that which is already in your mouth and heart, by doing so, you validate that which already resides within you; how can they hear if someone doesn't bring them the message? beautiful are ye whom are obedient to the commision.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 

Men cannot be saved unless they hear the preached word; be faithful to your calling!

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.



Bruce dealt with that well in another thread, which I linked above - sorry for not emphasizing that link more in my overall response to Phillip. I think it is a sound argument, indeed.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.



Dave, contrast this idea along side the immutability of God, what it meant in OT times in relation to circumcision, how the converts reacted according to scripture and the resultant response towards their households. There you will have it!

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 

The whole household had the sign placed upon them via command. Notice this wording: "must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant". EVERLASTING...IN YOUR FLESH! (In your flesh/your children)

Not to disrespect anyone, i.e. Phillip way or Macarthur, but dispensational theology has obvious fractures in that dispensationalism creates all sorts of unbiblical segmentation and in my opinion, alters Gods immutability. It creates inconsistancy in Gods economy.


[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce dealt with that well in another thread, which I linked above - sorry for not emphasizing that link more in my overall response to Phillip. I think it is a sound argument, indeed.
Click to expand...


Thanks very much Chris, this is exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dave, contrast this idea along side the immutability of God, what it meant in OT times in relation to circumcision, how the converts reacted according to scripture and the resultant response towards their households. There you will have it!
> 
> Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
> Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> The whole household had the sign placed upon them via command. Notice this wording: "must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant". EVERLASTING...IN YOUR FLESH! (In your flesh/your children)
> 
> Not to disrespect anyone, i.e. Phillip way or Macarthur, but dispensational theology has obvious fractures in that dispensationalism creates all sorts of unbiblical segmentation and in my opinion, alters Gods immutability. It creates inconsistancy in Gods economy.
> [Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Your points here are timely and well taken.

Everyone in the household had the sign of the covenant placed upon them due to the faith of the parent and not the faith of the children. It is the duty of the parent to have the sign placed upon the child in response to passages such as Gen 17. 

God's immutability is something I think I've not considered in regards to this discussion for too long. In the OT God is a God of households requiring that all in that household receive the sign of His covenant. Not all who receive circumcision were saved and those who were of the elect receive the sign before coming to faith. Even though not all who receive the sign will come to faith God still requires it placed upon them. Even Esau whom God knew would not be counted among the elect had to receive the sign.

Now it comes down to this: has God changed in the way He deals with households? We know for fact that God acted in a certain way in the OT in this regard, has He abrogated this in any way? If it cannot be proven that God in fact deals differently now than He once did then the default position must be the of the paedobaptist.

Acts 2:39

"For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

I do not see any change.


----------



## Me Died Blue

Furthermore, Randy, even if the New Covenant _did_ "only include those whom the Lord knows are his," how is man's profession of faith any more a reliable and sound ground on which to presume such status with the Lord than are God's promises to bless and favor the children of believers?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I believe the debate comes down to:
> 
> Since we know that Baptism has no role in salvation then...
> 
> Is baptism for those that have confessed first and only
> 
> or
> 
> Is it ALSO for those that are within the household where the head is a believer
> 
> and do these two items equate with...
> a sign of ourselves or a sign of the Lord
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe it is an important thing to be baptized. As circumcision was administered to show you were a member of the covenant and a part of the nation Isreal, I believe a persons confession should lead to baptism and thus being admitted into God's New Covenant Holy nation..(The visible Church)
> 
> [Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


I believe that is the point...as a member of Israel was circumsized...so are we baptized. Didn't they also circumsize their infants or did they wait until they were grown? Physical nation is moot as many went off and started their own nations.


----------



## turmeric

Thanks, Dan, that helps!


----------



## pastorway

if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.



I for one would rather not see the universe implode. Will you guys please be careful!


----------



## Larry Hughes

> (Calvin asked what arguments could the credo urge against us that could not have been given to Abraham?).



Paul,

That makes a lot of sense!!!

E.G.:

Romans 3: 1-3, "œThen what advantage has the Jew? <<<Or what is the benefit of circumcision?>>> Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. <<<What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?">>>

Verse 3 seems to answer the questions regarding those baptized that would fall away.

Paraphrased: "œThen what advantage has the Jew (the baptized Christian)? <<<Or what is the benefit of circumcision (baptism)?>>> Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. <<<What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?">>>

Genesis 17:14, "œBut an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." 

Seems similar to and answer the questions arising from households in which only one of the spouses is converted and is baptized while the unbelieving spouse is not - as opposed to the children. In other words they openly cut themselves off by rejecting it in the same household.

Larry


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one would rather not see the universe implode. Will you guys please be careful!
Click to expand...


Is that like when you see yourself in Back to the Future?


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.



touche.

Immutability helps in recognizing that God still continues to work in a certain way since it hasn't been abrogated. However, because females are able to receive baptism (unlike circumcision) they are included the same way as sons always were.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Is that like when you see yourself in Back to the Future?


Yeah, or maybe more like the old Star Trek where matter and anti-matter met. 

I do trust you guys...just be careful.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.



The implosion is obviously occuring at the cerebral level as many are coming to understand paedo baptism as the purest form of biblical theology here on PB. Obviously, without too much effort one can rationalize why women were not circumcised (Please do not go there and tell me women can be circumcised; As a medical person I am well aware of the barbaric practice in the middle east known as FGM. This _circumcision_ happens on the labia minora. If it is a sign, no one could see it based upon what is actually circumcised) I will add, woman of the OT were infact circumcised as the male seed past through the circumcised male, i.e. the federal head of the family, to fertilize the female seed......

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm)

In the administration change, obviously woman could partake of a right such as baptism.


[Edited on 1-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

Exactly - Covenant Theology is not a doctrine that says "eternal continuity on every point" but rather a hermeneutic that says "assume continuity on each point until instructed otherwise on that point." Kind of like the difference between "innocent despite any contrary evidence" and "innocent until proven guilty."


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Exactly - Covenant Theology is not a doctrine that says "eternal continuity on every point" but rather a hermeneutic that says "assume continuity on each point until instructed otherwise on that point." Kind of like the difference between "innocent despite any contrary evidence" and "innocent until proven guilty."



This is a great way of summarizing it Chris. Exactly what I was trying to say, just much better.


----------



## Larry Hughes

I´ve heard arguments in the past in the form that if baptism had replaced circumcision then in Galatians would not have Paul mentioned this to end the controversy about the Jews requiring such for Gentile converts. But wouldn´t that miss the entire point of what Paul is addressing in Galatians? Is he not addressing works/law righteousness Vs. grace. That seems to be the point concerning circumcision and why the Galatians ´lost their joy´. 

Furthermore his example in addressing Peter´s denial of grace via his actions as well seems to support the thrust of Paul"˜s ere works/law Vs. grace. Thus we see that even actions can deny grace. It would not have made sense for Paul to have merely replaced circumcision with baptism at this point in addressing the issue since grace alone was the issue and not the signs. Simply replacing baptism for circumcision would look something like: "˜You foolish Galatians it is not circumcision that saves you, baptism is the sign´. 

Also the Jews of that time already showed a propensity to err and be confusion greatly over the sign (not unlike Rome"˜s formulation). And to have done so IN this situation could have run the danger of making baptism "˜the work necessary´ (e.g., & we know this error is possible by way of Rome"˜s grasp of baptism).

The issue Paul was addressing was not covenant signs but grace alone. 

It seems that a correct (emphasis on correct, just like circumcision was misunderstood) understanding of infant baptism actually would accentuate the "˜grace alone´ aspect rather than detract from it. Even John MacArthur makes a tremendous and wonderful argument about infants dying and going to heaven due to the sovereign election of God and that Calvinism can only allow for this - that "œwe have no more to do with our election than does an infant". 

Though the danger to err with the signs is always there since fallen humans by nature LOVE to work their way to heaven, even misapplying God´s institutions. It would also seem that to solely require profession only (formerly believers) baptism - that emphasis is placed on man to "œdo something", in this case make his profession the work required. 

Is this not what we see pervasively in the church? I know when we use to go door to door one of the problematic things one would run into was people responding, "œOh, I made a profession, was baptized, walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, etc"¦ X years ago." Thus, hanging their hats on the work done. Of course the same could happen for infant baptism but either way merely shows the error of men seeking to work their way to heaven. 


Blessings, 

Larry


----------

