# Some credible Credo arguments In my humble opinion.



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 27, 2007)

This is a blog entry from someone who use to belong to the board but is no longer with us. 
He is not allowed here but these thoughts are I am sure. So have at it. 



> Four Paedobaptist Arguments Reviewed and Critiqued
> 
> Those who baptize babies have a number of problems if they want to think of themselves as following the Bible. There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible. Moreover, throughout the New Testament, baptism is coupled with repentance, faith and discipleship (Matt 3:6; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12f, 37; 11:47; 1Cor 1:16 taken with 16:15 ).
> 
> ...


----------



## Archlute (Sep 27, 2007)

Well, they might be credible to a credo, but I don't see anything new here, just the same old credo objections rehashed.

Note that the same old credo hermeneutic is at work, where the New Testament is the exclusive starting point (almost to the denigration of the OT), and any continuity among the signs within the Covenant of Grace is disparaged.

Note that the string of texts listed up front are not exegeted, but merely cited as proof of his position (and I can think of at least one of them which, when the relationship of the governing imperative to the explanatory participles has been correctly understood, takes the legs out from under the typical Baptist understanding of the issue).

Note the citation of a Baptist theologian making a dispensational redefinition of circumcision as a mere national sign (when Paul specifically states that it _was_ both a sign and a seal, in Romans 4), or the limiting of it's significance strictly to Abraham. 

For what it's worth, the connection between circumcision and baptism did not begin with Calvin as he states, but goes at least back to Martin Luther (and probably further in the theology of the church, if the issue were to be traced), from whom I read great sermon just last week regarding this very issue - the meaning of circumcision and its connection with baptism as a sign of God's covenant faithfulness in Christ. 

If any of you want to read it, and I would say that it is a very edifying sermon regardless of one's baptismal position, it is his New Year's Day sermon from volume 1 of his published sermons. The text is from the Gospel of St. Luke 2:21.


(Sorry. I remain a convinced paedo.)


----------



## Pilgrim (Sep 27, 2007)

Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."


----------



## reformedman (Sep 27, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."



Paedobaptists do not disagree that persons of age that are converts may also be baptized.
I honestly hope that everyone will look to love their heaven bound brethren with the posts in this thread because so far I have seen that these types of well meaning conversations many times turn into a heated argument.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 27, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."



sure, those who receive the word should be baptized.

Can we get a credo interaction with this:

Where is the word "only" in that text?

Example:

All those who were president of the USA were white men.

So, *only* those who are white men should be president???

And with this:



> 22"*Men* of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



There were only mature males there. Probably because only adult or chatechized males at the Jewish feasts (i.e., think of the 12 male disciples at passover. They didn't think it odd to be away from family. Think of cleanliness rules for males in thr OT, but not for females. Think of how many women would have not been allowed to eat because they were on their period. Think of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the passover when he was 12. Think of the Talmud saying that only males and chatechized children ate the passover, etc., etc., etc.,)


The Baptist system, for all the rigerous argumentation and erudite scholarship, suffers from fundamental and irrepairable historical, exegetical, hermeneutical, and logical problems.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 27, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Note that the same old credo hermeneutic is at work, where the New Testament is the exclusive starting point (almost to the denigration of the OT), and any continuity among the signs within the Covenant of Grace is disparaged.


Yes, except I've noticed some inconsistencies here. It's a pick and choose approach as to when we should be authoratatively going to the New Testament.

For instance you note:



> Note the citation of a Baptist theologian making a dispensational redefinition of circumcision as a mere national sign (when Paul specifically states that it _was_ both a sign and a seal, in Romans 4), or the limiting of it's significance strictly to Abraham.


But, when faced with this point, the Baptists then go and camp out in Genesis to develop the meaning and to overthrow what Paul says is the meaning of circumcision. I've noticed that there is an eclectic and convenient jumping back and forth in this hermaneutic.

Typically they'll scold the paedobaptist for not developing their theology by using the New to shed light on the Old. Yet, when it suits, the Old sheds light on the New - that is, the meaning of circumcision and the "four nations" is developed from the Old and Romans 4 is then reinterpreted to suit what they bring from the Old into the New.

Frankly, this issue of the way they interact with Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is what I find to be the most damaging to the credibility of their argument - especially when they then turn around and have a Gospel-believing Abraham willy-nilly circumcising folks he knows are God haters and keeping them in his household. I love my Baptist brothers but I'll never understand how they will use the fathers of our faith in such a way as to shore up their position.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 27, 2007)

"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

First, it’s simply natural language and natural grammatical sense (like water always flowing down hill and the necessity to locally speak “going down into”). This has been pointed out before and quite old, the credo paradigm imposes a very un-natural way of speaking here to support the doctrine. E.g. A man goes to house of four a husband, wife, teenager and one infant. He convinces the family of a good life saving thing. How does he record the response this joyful response for the record? A. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined.” (meaning whole family, the natural and plain speech) Or B. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined, except for the infant of course who was clueless to all that was going on.” We have first against the Credo paradigm, 1. The very natural flow of language which is of course “A”; unless, 2., you actually meant to make a point of excluding the infant, then of course “B” would be correct. But “B” is not what we find and thus the credo argument is against itself here in the written text.

Of course the other is old hat argument too:



> There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible.[\quote]
> 
> There is no command to give the Lord’s Supper to women in the Bible; there is no instance of giving the Lord’s Supper to women in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the giving of the Lord’s Supper to women to be found in the Bible.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 28, 2007)

> There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible.



There is no command for non- apostles, prophets, or miracle workers to administer baptism; there is no instance of a non- apostles, prophets, or miracle worker administering baptism; there are no regulations governing how non- apostles, prophets, or miracle workers are to administer baptism.

Where do baptists get their idea that any ole preacher, pastor, reverand, &c are "the proper administers of Christian baptism?" Perhaps the pentecostalist/charasmatic baptists, with their "apostles," are the more consistent of the bunch?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 28, 2007)

> there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible;



Wrong. Israel had their equivalent of baptism and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:1-4). The Lord's Supper ("the same spiritual food") was the manna feedings (1 Cor. 10:3-4) which taught them "not to live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3).

And Israel's baptism occurred in the Exodus (1 Cor. 10:1-2). It was a sign of the exodus from slavery to sin that Christ would win on the cross. And there were, naturally, babies who were in Israel's Exodus, and thus had the sign of baptism applied to them.

Yes, babies *are *baptized in the bible.


----------



## AV1611 (Sep 28, 2007)

What amazes me is the obvious fact that God deals with the human race organically and this is seem explicitly in the Old Testament. This continues through the NT:

*And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.*

God has promised to be the God of our seed! Let us rejoice!!


----------



## Robert Truelove (Sep 28, 2007)

I intend no offense but when I hear my Baptist friends camp on Acts 2:41 as the defacto answer to the entire debate (and in my experience this is commonly done), I cannot help but think they have not come to grasp the paedo-baptist arguments to a sufficient point to even begin grappling with them.

I am currently delivering a series of lectures on the sacraments. These lectures include the following...

1. The nature of the sacraments and the importance of a proper understanding of the doctrine 'Sacramental Union" which is vital at a foundational level to the right understanding of ANY sacrament in the Bible whether in the Old Testament or New Testament. That is, one's understanding the doctrine of what a sacrament is (big picture), will effect ones entire approach to the subject.

2. How to properly answer the question "What is Baptism?". In this lecture I go through the problems with the simplistic proof-texting approach that some employ in defining baptism. I employ a broad range of texts on the subject as found in the New Testament and demonstrate why the Westminster Confession's definition of baptism is scriptural to the core.

3. Who are the proper subjects of baptism and why? At the foundation, is the basis for baptism a profession of faith (even in the case of an adult convert) or the covenant itself (I argue the later)? 

4. What is the efficay of Baptism? What exactly does it do to the one baptized?

5. Regarding the Lord's Supper...how from the broader few of Sacraments as a whole it relates to baptism, and how it differs (active versus passive sacrament).

6. Who are the proper subjects of the Lord's Supper (a critique of paedo-communion.)

7. What is the efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What exactly does it do for the faithful participant? For the unfaithful participant?

When I have completed my series, I will be posting it on the Christ Reformed Church Web site. If there is interest here, I'll let you know when it is available.





Pilgrim said:


> Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> sure, those who receive the word should be baptized.
> 
> Can we get a credo interaction with this:
> 
> ...


All those who were president of the USA were white men.

So, *only* those who are white men should be president??? hummm?


Well as we have discussed before that the word only is not in the text but the people baptised that day were people who continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and prayers. (v.42) You also want to argue from what is not in the text when you say infants were baptized. But I want to discuss what has been written.

Concerning the reference or premise concerning men who were President.... there is another text (the constitution) that says who can possess that job. And the prerequisite to being baptised according to Peter and the word is repent and believe. Every recorded person baptised in the New Testament is someone who is cognizant of what is going on. Unless you are arguing from silence. I don't think I am. 

Sorry I posted and have not taken time to discuss this more. The end of the week is not a time I should have done this. But I will get back. 

I would like to discuss the signs of the Covenant of Grace. I am not sure the CoA is purely one of the CoG. Nor the Mosaic Covenant. I do believe these covenants administer the Covenant of Grace but I also believe they administer the Covenant of Works. Reverend Winzer and I discussed this earlier in an earlier thread. http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/


Sorry for being so scattered. Rich and I discuss Romans 4 and Galatians here. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/case-believers-only-baptism-23640/index3.html


And I discuss Children and the Covenant of Grace here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/covenant-grace-children-24488/

Have a great weekend and we shall continue on.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I intend no offense but when I hear my Baptist friends camp on Acts 2:41 as the defacto answer to the entire debate (and in my experience this is commonly done), I cannot help but think they have not come to grasp the paedo-baptist arguments to a sufficient point to even begin grappling with them.
> 
> I am currently delivering a series of lectures on the sacraments. These lectures include the following...
> 
> ...



Read the above post and links. I am not one to just camp on a verse. You know me not Prepastor. BTW you can do much good to reveal the FV in your series. I also recommend listening to Dr. R. Scott Clark's audio on the efficacy of baptism. Go to his site here.Westminster Seminary California clark and right click on this..."My lecture (MP3) on the Federal Vision doctrine of baptism" and click on save target as.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> > there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not New Covenant water baptism. And it was not a baptism that signified the forgiveness of sin. It was a baptism into Moses. The fact that they all were baptised in the cloud and sea into Moses is not the same thing as being baptised into Christ. They were indeed fed by the Spiritual Rock but that does not necessarily imply that the feeding was necessarily spiritual. The feeding was very physical in nature to feed their flesh and not necessarily their souls. For God was not pleased with most of them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Typically they'll scold the paedobaptist for not developing their theology by using the New to shed light on the Old. Yet, when it suits, the Old sheds light on the New - that is, the meaning of circumcision and the "four nations" is developed from the Old and Romans 4 is then reinterpreted to suit what they bring from the Old into the New.
> 
> Frankly, this issue of the way they interact with Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is what I find to be the most damaging to the credibility of their argument - especially when they then turn around and have a Gospel-believing Abraham willy-nilly circumcising folks he knows are God haters and keeping them in his household. I love my Baptist brothers but I'll never understand how they will use the fathers of our faith in such a way as to shore up their position.




As I noted before Rich and I discussed Romans 4 and Galatians here.http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/case-believers-only-baptism-23640/index3.html
I don't use the hermeneutic that uses the new to explain the old only. Are you mischaracterizing my approach Rich?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> There were only mature males there. Probably because only adult or chatechized males at the Jewish feasts (i.e., think of the 12 male disciples at passover. They didn't think it odd to be away from family. Think of cleanliness rules for males in thr OT, but not for females. Think of how many women would have not been allowed to eat because they were on their period. Think of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the passover when he was 12. Think of the Talmud saying that only males and chatechized children ate the passover, etc., etc., etc.,)



I'm going to stay out of the paedo/credo part of the discussion because we have been down this road a thousand time and we are still taking different forks in the road.

BTW, Tom Bombadill, glad to hear from you again. I had been missing your posts recently.

As to what you said up above, you're kidding right? No females went to Jerusalem during feast time? No kids would have been there? "Think of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the passover when he was 12." OK, since you mention it...



> Luke 2:41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.



Seems both parents (male AND female) were there.



> Luke 2:44 But supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day's journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances.



Gee, seems there were other relatives (any female amongst them?) along for the ride in the huge company. Probably other young children as well, although that is an assumption.



> Luke 2:48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously."



Mother went into the temple just after Passover feast time. Keep in mind Act 2 took place 40 days after Passover.

Now, as to who was there in Acts 2...



> Acts 1:13-14 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.



Gee, looks like some women were with the company in the Upper Room that then went and began speaking in tongues...



> Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.



Are we to assume that this is a different group from the one in the last chapter? I doubt it.



> Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words.



Peter doesn't seem to be limiting the crowd to just some men. He says "All" who dwell in Jerusalem, which would certainly include women (and even the children there).



> Acts 2:16-18 But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy.



Forget the age argument here or the covenant children promise (because that is not my focus). Notice that there are daughters prophesying and there are maidservants on whom the Spirit was poured out. Definitely appeared to be women involved.

Please do not suggest to us that there were only mature males present. The passage clearly argues against that idea.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

Larry Hughes said:


> "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."
> 
> First, it’s simply natural language and natural grammatical sense (like water always flowing down hill and the necessity to locally speak “going down into”). This has been pointed out before and quite old, the credo paradigm imposes a very un-natural way of speaking here to support the doctrine. E.g. A man goes to house of four a husband, wife, teenager and one infant. He convinces the family of a good life saving thing. How does he record the response this joyful response for the record? A. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined.” (meaning whole family, the natural and plain speech) Or B. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined, except for the infant of course who was clueless to all that was going on.” We have first against the Credo paradigm, 1. The very natural flow of language which is of course “A”; unless, 2., you actually meant to make a point of excluding the infant, then of course “B” would be correct. But “B” is not what we find and thus the credo argument is against itself here in the written text.



What in the world kind of nonsense is this? "Those who gladly received his word" is a group of people that necessarily precludes those who didn't.

John 3:16 says that "whosoever believes in him will have everlasting life." Here the group is "whosoever believes in him." So, take your logic up above and apply it to that statement. A. "Whosoever believes in him has everlasting life." (meaning whole family, the natural and plain speech) Or B. "Whosoever believe in him will have everlasting life, except for those who didn't or couldn't believe in him."

Gee, it looks like B makes more sense than A. Where is the grammar rule that states that when a phrase is limited to a group it necessarily also means their family is included? I missed that one in English 101 (or Greek 1 for that matter).


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> > There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, who did baptize those in Corinth?



> 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.



Please, I don't buy that credo argument either, and I'm a credo! But, let's not be ridiculous in trying to refute it with things that make no sense.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> > there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, if baptism already occurred, why is anyone being re-baptized? Also, apparently, unbelieving adults were baptized in the Exodus, so why won't you baptized unbelieving adults? Why just unbelieving infants? Let's be consistent if we are going to make this argument.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> What amazes me is the obvious fact that God deals with the human race organically and this is seem explicitly in the Old Testament. This continues through the NT:
> 
> *And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.*
> 
> God has promised to be the God of our seed! Let us rejoice!!



So, all of our seed (every child and grandchild and great grandchild, etc) is promised the New Covenant blessing (first stated to Abraham) of having God as their God forever? What about those who reject Christ? How does this promise play out to them?

This promise is interpreted for us in Galatians as talking about Christ. Let's not forget that He is THE Seed, not individual kids. So, only those attached to Christ (that would be the elect) receive the benefits of this promise.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Larry Hughes said:
> 
> 
> > "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."
> ...




It's not actually as nonsensical as you may think, and it is a sound argument that has been discussed before in these debates. I think that a passage to which this principle may more clearly apply is that of the conversion and baptism of the Philippian jailer's household in Acts 16, specifically in vv.31-34. 

I have heard baptists argue that there were no children involved, because the text states that the word was preached "to the whole house", and that since "the whole house" is seen rejoicing and believing, actions which necessarily exclude infants, there could not have been any infants or young children in the house.

Is not that position the truly nonsensical position? I mean, if you have a family of ten (as do I), and someone were to ask me how our family felt when my eldest daughter aced her piano recital (which she has yet to accomplish), and I were to say, "Man, it was great. Our whole family was so happy for her, we all went out and partied afterwards!" would I be guilty of a lie? Would I be misrepresenting truth? Should I rather have said, "Well, I would say that it was great, and that our whole family rejoiced and went out and partied with her, but you know we have this kid who is just a couple of weeks old, and that kid just doesn't get it yet. She didn't know the significance of what was taking place, she didn't burst out in praise when all of us did, and she didn't do anything at the party but lie there on her back being a party-pooper. So, no. I'd really like to say that my whole family had a great time, but we just had a problem with that one kid...." 

Of course not! Everybody who has any familiarity with the use of human speech would immediately understand that I am speaking of the whole household in a real sense (as a single family unit - a way in which Baptists often fail to view their "unregenerate kids" as I know from even my own Baptist brother's current position), without having to be so pedantic as to always make exception in my speech for the youngest ones in the household.

So there is more to grammatical interpretation than a stilted "DTS 101" view of exegetical procedure and sentence diagramming (charts of which I have also seen produced from DTS students). 

Would you apply your view of linguistic interpretation given here to understanding the daily discourse of those within your congregation? I am uncertain that you would.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 28, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> I would like to discuss the signs of the Covenant of Grace. I am not sure the CoA is purely one of the CoG. Nor the Mosaic Covenant. I do believe these covenants administer the Covenant of Grace but I also believe they administer the Covenant of Works.



Just as a friendly aside, I'd be careful about pressing on with this trajectory too far, Ralph. I have a good friend from my time at WSC, who happens to be an ARBCA Reformed Baptist, who upon seeing his dilemma with the Abrahamic Covenant and the continuity of the signs within the Covenant of Grace, has resolutely established with himself that the Abrahamic Covenant must have been primarily (if not exclusively) a covenant of works , since that is the only way in which he can avoid the weight of the paedo position in his mind. He never failed to stupify every other student and prof at that institution with his extreme position (including Dr. Renihan, if my memory serves me correctly). I am unsure that there are any other in RB circles who take this extreme, but then again, I don't hear many of them discussing the issue either.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

Something I find incredible is the assumption that infants are in the house. Depending on the natural family size how many years of infancy does a family or household have. I have 3 sons. If I were to add up all the years of my kids being infants and unresponsive to anything I would say there may be five or six years total. Therefore my household has already experienced at least 8 years without a child from under the age of three. And my household has quite a few years to go still. We know nothing of how old the Jailer is. We know nothing of whether or not he even had children still in his house if he ever had any children. So the push to say there are infants in the house is from desire instead of exegesis or sound interpretation. Eisegesis is playing a roll here when inserting infants into the text in my opinion.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Larry Hughes said:
> ...



Your illustration would be exactly right in the case of the Philippian jailer. In fact, I don't like the Credo argument that no children are mentioned in that passage. I think it doesn't work there, but it is because it is an argument from silence, which is typically weak.

But when a group of people is mentioned such as "everyone who believed" (as in John 3) it necessarily excludes anyone else like "those who didn't believe." What about "all those who were appointed unto eternal life?" That phrase designates a group out of a larger mass of people, thus excluding anyone not in that group. So, those who weren't appointed unto eternal life did not believe.

We Calvinists use this argument all the time when talking about election and effectual calling. So, why can't Baptists apply the same argument to the same language in Acts 2?



> Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized;



There is a group designated here out of the mass of people who were gathered for the feast. The requirement for being included in this group is pretty clear - you must "gladly receive his word." The results of being in this group are pretty clear - "were baptized." Any one who did not receive his word would not have gotten the results.

This has nothing to do with "DTS" as you want to make it. And of course I would apply this type of linguistic interpretation in absolutely every situation because it is natural usage of a phrase.

For instance, my son is sitting in his 1st grade classroom and the teacher says, "Everyone who brought their homework back this morning gets an extra 10 minutes of recess." What do you expect the students to discern from that sentence? Of course you expect them to understand that those who did not bring their homework don't get the extra 10 minutes of recess.

I am reading the newspaper and I see that the Baltimore Orioles are playing at home against the Yankees this weekend. The last sentence says, "Come on out to the ballpark! Everyone who has a ticket receives a coupon for a free pizza at Papa John's." Should I expect that I can walk into Papa John's tomorrow and get a free pizza even though I didn't have a ticket to the previous night's game? Of course not, because by forming a group in that sentence, some people from the mass of humanity are necessarily left out.

Honestly, you paedo's even know that the phrase, "those who gladly received his word were baptized" is limited in scope by very definition. You limit it to those who gladly received his word and their children. You don't expect me to believe that it is unlimited and everyone there got baptized, do you? Credos limit that phrase to exactly who it says. You want to without exegetical warrant widen the meaning of the phrase to include a group of people that aren't even mentioned. You do it because your theology demands you do it. I limit it because the language and context demand I limit it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

Archlute said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to discuss the signs of the Covenant of Grace. I am not sure the CoA is purely one of the CoG. Nor the Mosaic Covenant. I do believe these covenants administer the Covenant of Grace but I also believe they administer the Covenant of Works.
> ...



Something a lot of people need to do is read Nehemiah Coxe on this. He was one of the framers of the 1689. If you can find a copy of 'Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ' read his teaching on the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the bomb.

BTW, my name is Randy.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Sep 28, 2007)

Adam, that was interesting. I have a friend studying at WSC who is struggling with the republication of CoW in the Mosaic covenant idea. I think this idea might also lead to categorizing the Abrahamic covenant as a typological covenant (although I don't think WSC is teaching that), and then a denial of circumcision as sign of covenant of grace, as we have seen in recent threads.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 28, 2007)

Greetings:

I have to admit I was a bit deceived by the title of this thread. I was hoping to read some *positive* evidence for the credo position. What I did read was an attack on the paedo-baptist position. In essence saying: "The credo position is right because the paedo position is wrong"?

Is that a credible argument?

-CH


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> I have to admit I was a bit deceived by the title of this thread. I was hoping to read some *positive* evidence for the credo position. What I did read was an attack on the paedo-baptist position. In essence saying: "The credo position is right because the paedo position is wrong"?
> 
> ...



Are we going to argue over titles of threads now? Is that what this has devolved into?


----------



## Archlute (Sep 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Your illustration would be exactly right in the case of the Philippian jailer. In fact, I don't like the Credo argument that no children are mentioned in that passage. I think it doesn't work there, but it is because it is an argument from silence, which is typically weak.
> 
> But when a group of people is mentioned such as "everyone who believed" (as in John 3) it necessarily excludes anyone else like "those who didn't believe." What about "all those who were appointed unto eternal life?" That phrase designates a group out of a larger mass of people, thus excluding anyone not in that group. So, those who weren't appointed unto eternal life did not believe.
> 
> ...



There are several illustrations above that cannot rightly be applied, or appealed to, regarding the discussion at hand.

First, the passages regarding faith in John 3 and elsewhere are speaking of the requirement of faith in salvation, not of the the significance of the sacraments, baptism in particular, or the ecclesiology to which they point. Nobody that I know of in Christian circles will deny the necessity of faith in salvation, but the issue at hand is rather who should (or would have been in this case) baptized. That involves a whole load of factors, not just proof texts. Proof texting is the easy way to prove a point, arguing from the broader categories of Biblical and Systematic theology is much more difficult for many, and yet also much more effective in proving one's case. This is why the Baptist tries to stick to prooftexting, and avoids broader sacramental discussion, because (as I saw when once a Baptist floundering in the sea of Reformed scholarship on the issue) once you get out of the prooftexting mode, and begin dealing with weightier issues of a unified covenantal hermeneutic, all your arguments will seem impoverished, and really to be missing the point, and they will seem so even to yourself (although you will try and convince yourself otherwise for as long as you can!).

Second, your illustrations of homework and coupons are really a different argument than what I gave for the family unit. Here, like with the passages on faith that you listed, you are dealing with a one for one, homogenous unit. That is not the case with families, which is the very issue at stake with sacramental administration. Is the administration to be given to one type of person based upon something that they all do, or is it to be applied to a mixed group, based upon the reality of Christian parents in the home, and the sanctity which this brings upon the children? You say to your homogenous groups, "if you do X, you'll get X" (kind of Covenant of Works like, eh?). God says to families, "I'll do X for you, and you all will receive my sign based upon my work in your family, even those for whom X will not ultimately hold true" (kind of Covenant of Grace like, eh? Sort of exactly like what we see with Abraham and Romans 4, eh?) Which is exactly the difference between Baptist and Reformed views of sacramental administration, one wants to deny the seal of the church (yes, the visible church - a distinction that my cousin, the Baptist minister, hates) to all of her members, while the other takes the whole of the Scriptures into account on the issue.

And actually this has a lot to do with DTS. You say that we are driven by a theology, and you are merely a cool handed exegete who properly limits the context, etc. within its natural bounds. Well, that is the very point at stake in exegesis, isn't it? Who are you to say that your DTS/Baptist theology is not driving your exegetical presuppositions? Are your "natural" understandings really that natural, or are they naturalistic, and shaped more by enlightenment views of historical-grammatical interpretation than apostolic principles of interpretation (if you are kicking against this, I would highly recommend that you pick up a copy of Dennis Johnson's _Him We Proclaim_, as well as read Greg Beale's essays in _The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?_)? 

Maybe you could have charged me with just taking the WSC/Reformed line had I always been a Paedo, but remember, I was a Baptist who began his studies at a Baptist institution, began reading the writings of the Reformers, saw the flaws in Baptist thought, and their complete lack of substantive theological argumentation against any of Luther's, Calvin's, Turretin's, etc. positions, and _willingly_ went to a Reformed institution in order that I might more properly understand the language and theology of the Scriptures (the two of which cannot be divided one from the other).

On that note, I would encourage you to be a little more hesitant in charging Reformed churches with merely reading their theological presuppositions into their exegesis. There is a lot more history, and scholarship behind them than with what you may be familiar.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 28, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > CredoCovenanter said:
> ...



D'oh! I knew that... (sorry)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > Typically they'll scold the paedobaptist for not developing their theology by using the New to shed light on the Old. Yet, when it suits, the Old sheds light on the New - that is, the meaning of circumcision and the "four nations" is developed from the Old and Romans 4 is then reinterpreted to suit what they bring from the Old into the New.
> ...



Yes you do. In the specific discussion as to what circumcision signified, I was taking issue with your improper utilization of Galatians and so you would consistently return to a refrain such as this to establish the "multi-Covenant" schema and signification in Genesis 17:


CredoCovenanter said:


> Let me ask you a question Rich. In Genesis 17 does God establish his Everlasting Covenant with Ishmael whom Abraham petitioned God for? Does God make promises to Abraham (outside of this everlasting Covenant that is in Isaac) within the covenant of circumcision that allowed Ismael to live with Abraham and be blessed that didn't pertain to the Everlasting Covenant that Ismael was not a part of? I didn't mix Sinia with Abraham. I was mentioning Genesis 17:14 concerning being cut off as opposed to an unconditional covenant which we find in the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. By circumcision one was permitted to dwell with Abraham even if he was not a descedant of his. Circumcision had promises of land and inhabitation of the land that were not necessarily spiritual. The promises of inhabitation of the land and prosperity did not necessarily grant any spiritual inclusion except that God was God over the people, unrighteous and righteous alike. Baptism is no where spoken of like this. It is always spoken of in a way that points to the forgiveness of sin and union with Christ.


In our interaction, I was noting the plain teaching of Romans 4 and how a physical signification of circumcision would completely overthrow Paul's entire train of thought. I also noted how Galatians 3, 4, and 5 were being used to repudiate a misapprehension of the significance of circumcision. Genesis 17 was a controlling argument for you on more than one occassion.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 28, 2007)

Archlute said:


> On that note, I would encourage you to be a little more hesitant in charging Reformed churches with merely reading their theological presuppositions into their exegesis. There is a lot more history, and scholarship behind them than with what you may be familiar.



I never charge you with reading theological presuppositions into your whole view. I charged you with making your theological presuppositions force the way you read one particular phrase. If you noticed, I said your argument is perfectly fine in dealing with the passage on the Philippian jailer. 

The passage at hand doesn't even mention households. It is a concept you bring into the text because of your presuppositions. It simply mentions "those who gladly received his words." The only thing that can be argued from this passage is that those who received his words were baptized. You simply cannot argue from this passage that children are baptized. NOW, PAY ATTENTION: You cannot argue that they weren't either. All you can say FROM THIS PASSAGE is what happened here.

I jumped into this discussion on this particular point because Larry said, "those who gladly received his words" naturally means "and all their kids, too." Now, while Larry could have said that the natural understanding of "household" would include children (yes, even infants), he simply cannot make the case in any language in any society that "those who gladly received his words" NATURALLY means "and all their kids, too."

My post had nothing to do with theology either of paedos or credos. It had nothing to do with the Philippian jailer. It had nothing to do with the "requirement of faith in salvation" compared to "the significance of the sacraments." It only had to do with the natural use of language in Acts 2.

Instead of answering my objection based on the natural use of a phrase, you have resorted to mis-characterizing my post on theological grounds. Look, I respect the paedo theological argument. I think it has a lot of merit. I think I need to do a lot more study on the subject before I would try to argue with anyone over it. But, I do know grammar pretty well. My argument was a grammatical one, not a theological one.

I, personally, don't like these threads on baptism any more because no one really listens to the point that is being made. When I tried to interact with a specific point, you tell me I don't understand the "broader sacramental discussion." But my point really had nothing to do with the "broader sacramental discussion."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 28, 2007)

Rich go back and read my words a little slower. 



> I don't use the hermeneutic that uses the new to explain the old *only*.



In otherwords I use the New and old both to interpret. In some places the new explains things in the old. And frankly you couldn't understand the New without the old to define it. 

And I was not going against the plain teaching in Romans 4. I was also saying that it was not an full exposition of circumcision as far as Isreal was concerned. Paul was speaking about an aspect of circumcision that applied to Abraham in relation to his justification by faith alone. There is a lot more the scriptures say about the covenant of circumcision that is not explained in Romans 4. 

I am headed out to a football game and a busy weekend. 

Be Encouraged.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

Incidentally, I want to point out one other thing that causes me to find credo-Baptist arguments. It's always this:



> Those who baptize babies...



If you follow in this thread, children are almost always spoken of in the third person when Baptists argue this point. They have an ability to detach themselves theoretically from their own families in the discussion of Covenant Theology that I lack.

In fact, what normally causes Baptists to get angry with me is when I actually start to apply the very things they are saying about children to _their_ children. They then start accusing me of saying they are bad parents and the like. They're shocked that anyone would accuse them of not praying and training their children and "...don't I understand that Baptists care for children too...?"

Of course from the above article one would think they do not for children are presumed reprobate and unable to discern spiritual things. I have a running joke with a close friend who's a Baptist. Every time their kid's cry while I'm teaching I'll quip: "Keep that little heathen quiet!" He laughs because I've lamented the use of that term that is used regularly by Baptists talking about children in the third person. The joke, for me, is a way to add humor to something I consider very sad.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Rich go back and read my words a little slower.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't use the word *only* in the original criticism Randy. How could your response have been critical of mine? I missed the use of the word only in your reply because I only noted that the controlling hermaneutic for the signification of circumcision for you guys is typically the Old and not the New. Yet, Baptists typically scold paedobaptists for not having a proper controlling hermaneutic. Listen to Gene Cook's opening argument again. Even Galatians 3, 4, and 5 undermines the Credo- argument for the two Covenant schema except that Genesis 17 is brought to bear improperly (in my mind of course, I know you believe you're using it properly).

I think the most telling defect of the Baptist argument is that they overthrow Galatians 3 and Romans 4 noting that Abraham had a New Covenant faith and will even argue that the Abrahamic Covenant was, fundamentally, about building a nation on the basis of Gen 17 and the book of Joshua.


----------



## Archlute (Sep 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > On that note, I would encourage you to be a little more hesitant in charging Reformed churches with merely reading their theological presuppositions into their exegesis. There is a lot more history, and scholarship behind them than with what you may be familiar.
> ...



Hey, Doug. Just to let you know, I'm not upset, and I hope that you won't feel upset yourself if I press you on a few more points. If you really dislike this discussion, I'll let you "tap out" if you would like  (although I'll probably be off for the weekend after this post).

I would like to challenge your assumption that language and theological pre-understanding can be seperated from one another in exegesis, or as you put it that "my point was a grammatical one, not a theological one". I believe that this is germane to Larry's assertion as well. You are saying, "Hey, I'm just taking the words and grammar at face value, and in _my_ understanding (which looks at it strictly apart from theological intrusion) they mean this, but Larry is coming at it from his theological presuppositions." That may be true, but presuppositions are not a bad thing where they are biblical. This comes down to a theology of certain terms, such as, when the Scriptures speak of a family (many of whom could have been in attendance in Acts 2). What is the Scriptures usual understanding of that term, how does it bear out in God's covenantal dealings, and is there a carry over from the OT to the NT in those relationships? 

The Baptist hermeneutic loves to say - let's just take this phrase apart all by itself, it means something all on its own, and we can say that it simply means this. 

The Reformed hermeneutic says - phrases always have a context in the canon of Scripture, not just immediate, but also the whole scope of Scripture; its meaning is always tied up with other things that are going on, have gone on, or will go on, and the most simple understanding of a phrase may miss some of its OT allusions of which Luke, Paul, or James may have been making reference.

Likewise, one cannot detach a discussion of the meaning of the Word from theology, for every doctrinal discussion (of which this is one) necessarily involves theology, as Scriptural/doctrinal debates are always about our knowledge of God (including a knowledge of His covenantal and "sacramental" dealings with his church).

Sometimes a refusal to admit or address any broader meaning or theological significance outside of the barest understanding of a phrase such as "those who gladly received his words", is just an indication that the individual knows where he must go if the broader significance is discussed, and he himself refuses to go there.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > There were only mature males there. Probably because only adult or chatechized males at the Jewish feasts (i.e., think of the 12 male disciples at passover. They didn't think it odd to be away from family. Think of cleanliness rules for males in thr OT, but not for females. Think of how many women would have not been allowed to eat because they were on their period. Think of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the passover when he was 12. Think of the Talmud saying that only males and chatechized children ate the passover, etc., etc., etc.,)
> ...



Sorry, but your "gee" counter argument is a bit pompous, and your examples are dealt with in the literature discussing OT feasts. You're simply ignorant of the responses to your off-the-handle responses.

Anyway, what does the TEXT tell us? It only tells us "MEN" were addressed? Why not women? Are we now making *inferences* from stuff that is not in the text? isn't this what paedos get chided fro all the time?

But, in any event, Doug, yes, that is what I am saying. That Mary accompanied them to the feast doesn't counter my point. I know that verse, and have read the arguments pro and con. you should familiarize yourself before jumping into a firefight. I'm sure Rich could testify to that!

Gill writes: "Joseph was obliged to go three times a year, as were all males in Israel, at the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, Deut. XVI.16. The first of these is expressed here, at the feast of the Passover; but the women were not obliged to go up: for so it is said by the Jews [T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 61.3.]...the Passover of women is voluntary." 

David A. Bass writes: 

That this was Jesus first trip to Passover is manifest from the context, and in this most commentators agree. J. Jeremias, in his landmark Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, throws some valuable light on this custom. He says, "...we may conclude (from Luke 2:41) that it was custom among people from a distance to bring their children when they reached twelve years of age" (p. 76). Before twelve years of age, they remained at home. The Talmud records a priest named Joseph (not the NT Joseph of the Holy Family) as full of excessive zeal for bringing his entire oikos (household), children and all, to the second Passover, held on e month later in provision for those who were unclean at the first or otherwise unable to attend it (he would not have dared to have brought them to the Passover in the month of Abib). The Pesshita records that he was turned back (M.Pes.IX) that he might not set a precedent for such behavior! If, indeed, the Passover was instituted for the whole family-- women and children, as the paedocommunionist maintain--how Joseph and Mary and the pious Jews were misguided! But, it seems, the paedocommunionists are now here to set the test and tradition straight.

Hendriksen writes: "Jewish sources reveal no unanimity with respect to the exact age when a boy became a 'bar mitzvah' (son of the law), that is, when he attained the age of maturity and responsibility with respect to the keeping of God's commandments. The prevailing opinion may have been that at the age of 13 a boy should fully shoulder that responsibility but that in order to become prepared to do this it would be wise for the parents to take him along to the temple even earlier. We know at least that when Jesus became 12 years of age Joseph and Mary took him along to Jerusalem in order to attend the Passover festival. Though it is not stated in so many words that this was the first time he went along, is not this a reasonable inference?" 

The above fits in with the OT data indicating that passover and other feasts were FOR MALES ONLY.

Furthermore, you argue from Acts 1 to the day of Pentecost. You're not serious, right? Furthermore, the women in Atcs 1 were believers, the MEn addressed in Acts 2 were not. And, they were different days. I mean, you're not even offering exegesis. "Gee whiz," and "Hmmmm" isn't good exegesis. it's a fallacious argument from incredulity.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > > There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible.
> ...



The text doesn;t explicitly say. You're making inferences. *That's* my point.

The credo argument from example is met by my counter example, no one has refuted it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 28, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings:
> ...



Hi:

I don't think so. But I would like to see some *positive* evidence for Believers only rather than the old, "Let's trash the paedo-baptist argument to prove our own postion" type of theme.

Is it too much to ask credo-baptists to posit a positive Biblical/Covenantal argument on the subject of Baptism?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 28, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Well as we have discussed before that the word only is not in the text but the people baptised that day were people who continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and prayers. (v.42) You also want to argue from what is not in the text when you say infants were baptized. But I want to discuss what has been written.



Wait a second Randy, this is just as bad as your "unbiased" "review" of my debate. Enough with the "intentional fallacy," already. I never said anything about arguing from what is not in the text when I say infants were baptized. I agree adults and those who repent should be baptized. I question your logical inferences. Your position is not *merely* that professing adults should be baptized. It is that *only* those should be baptized. I ask, "How do you figure." You then give me *descriptions* and try to prove a *prescription* (btw, this is one of the many areas you botched on your "review.") So, yes, by all means, let's stick to the text. And, what do we find when we examine the text? That adults who professed received the sign. Okay. Big deal. Who ever disputed that. Adults who professed received circumcision in the OT too. 



> Concerning the reference or premise concerning men who were President.... there is another text (the constitution) that says who can possess that job. And the prerequisite to being baptised according to Peter and the word is repent and believe. Every recorded person baptised in the New Testament is someone who is cognizant of what is going on. Unless you are arguing from silence. I don't think I am.



Here's where your logic is off. Yes, the constitution says that men other than whites, who meet such and such criteria, and *only* them, can hold the office of the presidency.

So, here's your big chance to make your argument analogous. Show me where the Bible says that *only* those who meet certain qualifications can be baptized?

The "every recorded person" argument suffers from my presidency example. Guess what, every recorded person who administered baptism (that the text *explicitly* tells us) was either an apostle, a prophet, or a miracle worker. Now, if you're going to be consistent, why do you allow non - apostles, prophets, or miracle workers to administer baptism?

Furthermore, the claim is FLAT OUT FALSE that "every person recorded as baptized is cognizant of what is going on." The household baptisms do not tell us of EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S cognative ability. So, again, the baptist can't hold to his own standards he places on others. he frequently demands and required the paedobaptist to give *explicit* verses proving their point, to show where "infants" occur in the baptism passages, but then when I apply the same maneuvers on them, they have a failure of nerve. Let's at least be honest in our argumentation.




> I would like to discuss the signs of the Covenant of Grace. I am not sure the CoA is purely one of the CoG. Nor the Mosaic Covenant. I do believe these covenants administer the Covenant of Grace but I also believe they administer the Covenant of Works. Reverend Winzer and I discussed this earlier in an earlier thread. http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/



None of that affects my arguments for infant baptism, anyway.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 28, 2007)

Above Randy had argued that the information contained in the household examples lead us to reasonably conclude that no infants were present. I think the baptists arguments are insufficient in this regard. Below is related to the above and is not an off-topic comment. If my below argumentation is correct, then the arguments which try to show that infants were not included in the househodls because of the information revealed therein are found to be wanting. If they are found to be wanting, then the baptist cannot argue that "every single cause of baptism is a case where the baptized was cognizant." If the baptist cannot argue that, then his case is in trouble. Here's some of my thoughts:

*B. The Information Contained in the Household Passages Lead to the Assumption that No Infants Were Present:*

Response:

This objection proceeds this way: Because the household passages tell us that (a) the whole household believed, or (b) the whole household served the saints, or (c) the whole household had the word preached to them, it is thus reasonable to conclude that no infants were present. The implicit assumption is that these things could not be said of entire households if the households had infants included as members among them. But this is Vulcanizing the New Testament. That is, these objections treat the biblical writers as if they were inhuman robots, making sure to be as precise as a Mr. Spock or a Lt. Data. But, when we look at how the Bible applies these terms, as well as how normal humans talk this way, we can see that the objection is a paper tiger.

For example, in answering the first criticism, take the case of the Philippian jailer. The grammar of the Greek in that passage only tells us that the jailer believed. It is going beyond what is exegetically demonstrable to say that every single person made an intelligent profession of faith. In fact, the great precisionist, Dr. Luke, could have easily used just one Greek word to make Acts 16:34 say that the believing was done by all the members of the household. The language here thus makes the baptism of a Christian family, including an infant, in the 2,000nds totally compatible with what happened in the Jailer’s house. 

Moreover, I would point out what appears to be an inconsistency in the application of Federalistic ideas ascribed to the people in the New Testament. Take the local commission in Matthew 10. Jesus tells his disciples to go out to all of Judea. To go and preach the good news to the “towns and households.” Jesus says that if anyone in that “town or household” rejects the word of the disciples, then the disciples are to leave that “town or household” and it would thus be more terrible for that “town or household” then it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, New Testament scholar (and baptist) Craig Blomberg notes that in “Treating an entire home or town on the basis of the actions of one person within it reflects the corporate solidarity common in much of antiquity and in many parts of the world today, in which the decisions of a key individual are owned by the entire community” (p.173). But apparently “corporate solidarity” is “out the window” when it comes to “treating an entire home on the basis of the actions of one” believer.

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

The next objection, that it is said that the households baptized “served” the people of God and so infants couldn’t have been among them, is easily seen as imputing a robotic mindset on to the biblical writers. If consistent, would these people tell me that I am wrong to say that my family “celebrated” Christmas in Grand Rapids Michigan if I had a two-month old? Would they call me a liar for saying that my family “watched” a movie together? In fact, we talk this way all the time, don’t we? At our churches don’t we say that the “Jones family is always helping out with things at the church?” Do we seriously think that we should not talk this way about the Joneses because they have two-month old twin daughters? What about Joshua? Could he say that he and his house serve the Lord only when he had no infants? If his wife gave birth to a baby boy 9 months after his great statement to the Israelites, could an Israelite have went up to him and said, “Well, what about now Joshua, you’re not so cool as you thought you were 9 months ago, are you? Now you have to say, ‘But as for me and some of my house, we will serve the Lord.’”

The last objection is that we read that the word was preached to some of these households, and thus there couldn’t have been infants there, or present, or taking part in the reading. But the Bible doesn’t see things this way. We read in Joshua 8:35 that “There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded that Joshua did not read to the whole assembly of Israel, including the women and children, and the aliens who lived among them.” Thus, all of the above objections rest upon a rejection of the corporate ideas running through the conceptual and linguistic milieu of the day, and hence constitute a begging of the very question up for debate, i.e., has Federalistic attitudes been done away with due to the inauguration of the New Covenant? It seems the biblical and common sensical evidence militates against this view.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 28, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Calvibaptist said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 29, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Furthermore, the claim is FLAT OUT FALSE that "every person recorded as baptized is cognizant of what is going on." The household baptisms do not tell us of EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S cognative ability.





I really wish our non-paedo friends would note this point and deal with it honestly and fairly. There are baptisms of persons in the NT where we are not told anything concerning their consciousness as to the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. One of many examples is Lydia's household, Acts 16:15. The non-paedo might be able to offer an explanation of this point from their distinct perspective, but could they at least acknowledge that there are examples of persons being baptised in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 29, 2007)

CredoCovenanter said:


> Not New Covenant water baptism. And it was not a baptism that signified the forgiveness of sin. It was a baptism into Moses. The fact that they all were baptised in the cloud and sea into Moses is not the same thing as being baptised into Christ.



Well Paul is about to say that they had the "*same *spiritual food [and] drink]". In other words, wilderness Israel had the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper just like the New Covenant church does. Why is their baptism (and Noah's baptism 1 Peter 3:21) like our baptism? It is because baptism is a _sign of the gospel_. So why is the Exodus a sign? Because the Exodus is a type (sign) of the gospel (our freedom from slavery to sin).



CredoCovenanter said:


> They were indeed fed by the Spiritual Rock but that does not necessarily imply that the feeding was necessarily spiritual.



The passage says they had the "*same *spiritual food" and "spiritual drink". "Spiritual" (_pneumatikos_) regularly means to impart a spiritual blessing. The reason why the manner feeding and rock drinking were not simply physical, but also spiritual was because God used it as an educational advice to teach Israel, "man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3). That is, precisely what the Lord's supper teaches us in the New Covenant community.



CredoCovenanter said:


> The feeding was very physical in nature to feed their flesh and not necessarily their souls. For God was not pleased with most of them.



Yes, the point of Paul's argument is to use Israel in the wilderness as an "example" (_tupos_) for the Corinthians. Israel had baptism and the Lord's Supper, just like the Corinthians, but it didn't mean that they were guaranteed against idolatry. We know that people can be baptised and have the Lord's Supper (and look like Christians) but eventually fall into idolatry.

God bless brother.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 29, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> So, if baptism already occurred, why is anyone being re-baptized?



I'm not sure what you mean?



Calvibaptist said:


> Also, apparently, unbelieving adults were baptized in the Exodus, so why won't you baptized unbelieving adults? Why just unbelieving infants? Let's be consistent if we are going to make this argument.



Well the community certainly looked (from a human perspective) as if they all had faith. They trusted God enough (through Moses) to actually walk on dry ground to the other side.

However, their faith was seen to be inadequate _later_ in the story when they perished in the wilderness. This is what we find taught in Deut. 8. God tested them to "see what was in their hearts" (i.e. was their faith true or temporary/spurious). It was only later in the story we find that they didn't have true faith.

This is precisely the point of the parable of the sower. People from a human perspective look like they have faith (by their words and works) but we discover later when they depart from the community of faith they never had a true faith in the first place. But we couldn't tell that at first because we can't look into their hearts like God.

This is exactly how baptism functions in the New Covenant. Think of Simon Magus. He was baptized. But very quickly the apostles discovered that he was no Christian at all. He was like the seed that immediately received the word positively, and then (from a human perspective) fell away. His baptism thus becomes a sign of judgment.

God bless you Calvi.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 29, 2007)

Originally Posted by Larry Hughes 
"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

First, it’s simply natural language and natural grammatical sense (like water always flowing down hill and the necessity to locally speak “going down into”). This has been pointed out before and quite old, the credo paradigm imposes a very un-natural way of speaking here to support the doctrine. E.g. A man goes to house of four a husband, wife, teenager and one infant. He convinces the family of a good life saving thing. How does he record the response this joyful response for the record? A. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined.” (meaning whole family, the natural and plain speech) Or B. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined, except for the infant of course who was clueless to all that was going on.” We have first against the Credo paradigm, 1. The very natural flow of language which is of course “A”; unless, 2., you actually meant to make a point of excluding the infant, then of course “B” would be correct. But “B” is not what we find and thus the credo argument is against itself here in the written text.



> What in the world kind of nonsense is this? "Those who gladly received his word" is a group of people that necessarily precludes those who didn't.
> 
> John 3:16 says that "whosoever believes in him will have everlasting life." Here the group is "whosoever believes in him." So, take your logic up above and apply it to that statement. A. "Whosoever believes in him has everlasting life." (meaning whole family, the natural and plain speech) Or B. "Whosoever believe in him will have everlasting life, except for those who didn't or couldn't believe in him."
> 
> ...




"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized." Speaks plainly of those baptized. John 3:16, "whosoever believes in him will have everlasting life." Speaks plainly of those who believe and have everlasting life. These two sentences are not saying the same thing, as you make them say. Unless of course “those who gladly received his word” are “whosoever believes in him” and then the predicates are exactly the same such that “were baptized” = “have everlasting life”. I suppose that would mean that Simon the Soc. was saved ex opera operato? These two passages simply are not the same, unless one confuses the sign with the thing signified. This is a point a Jewish rabbi convert once made, namely that baptistic thought, along with Roman catholic thought, as well as Jewish thought all make one fundamental mistake concerning the signs, circumcision and baptism, namely that underlying ALL the rest of their thought concerning this is a one to one relationship with the sign/seal and the reality. All assume this then set forth their doctrine. Rome of course with ‘ex opera operato’ and the later times NT Judaism confused this same exact thing concerning circumcision and lineage or incorporation into Judaism, as does the baptistic doctrine (regenerate church only), the one to one sign to reality and the church/Israel formed in the here and now. The real killer to this is that in baptism there is a curse, for despising it and rejecting it, even after having received it. That reality more than any kills baptistic doctrine on the subject. Just as Jews in circumcision could reject it. Paul answers this, “What if some were unfaithful, the unfaithfulness of men does not nullify the faithfulness of God” (paraphrased). Those who are baptized and believe, that is trust into Christ and this means His seal as well are saved. But those who do not believe or trust, be they baptized or not are not saved.

Unfortunately, even me, when we talk past each other miss things. And you missed that I very CLEARLY SAID, “UNLESS, 2., you actually meant TO MAKE A POINT OF EXCLUDING THE INFANT, then of course “B” would be correct. Why did I say that? If that was said here, then the Baptist would have his doctrine explicitly and 100% correct. That’s the entire point concerning this verse and all similar verses.

I’m going to say something shocking next. The Baptist would be 100% correct concerning this verse if children were never in the covenant of grace explicitly in the OT OR they had been explicitly removed in the NT. Then, and only then could one read OUT OF those Acts texts, which are manifestly not explicit, that meaning. In short either you have to have an explicit throw out, somewhere and not implied, since they were in, in order to read that out of the Acts passages; OR the Acts passages THEMSELVES must be the explicit throw out. Neither exists. And we mean explicit, a, “I’ve now removed the children from the covenant who where before in, so don’t mark them.” or equivalent explicit statement. We find ZERO. For the implicit is interpreted by the explicit, not vice versa.

Here’s the situation from 50,000 feet: God put children, namely infants into the covenant of grace EXPLICITLY (Gen., Exodus and others for example), VERY EXPLICITLY. However, God, not Baptist, but God has NEVER explicitly removed them from said covenant. And reading INTO by inference the requirement of active confession to receive the sign/seal is NOT in ANY WAY AN explicit command to throw them out, but is rather anachronistically and doctrinally reading INTO such statements what is NOT really there at all, namely a new religious idea not there and not founded. That’s reading INTO the scriptures what is not there explicitly. Sans an explicit verse throwing them out, by the voice of Christ the Lord of the Covenant, new and old testament, one has nothing. No amount of bending verses to “wring out” an explicit command or implicit extraction of principles unto such makes this anything but shifting sands and opinions of men. There exist NO explicit verse removing the children from the covenant. The Acts verses for example which are not explicit, thus, must be rendered in light of the explicit and natural flow of grammar. If you say they imply this, which is what you are saying, then the question is from where else did you read explicitly that God threw them out in order to be able to read into such verses, interpretation?

If for example, hypothetically thinking from the baptistic side of the issue, putting that temporarily on the shelf intellectually if you will, God has never thrown them out; then the perfectly natural flow of the grammar is simply as I said. That would be a very NATURAL way of speaking of the situation and not some “new doctrine”. It’s simply used EVERY day in life. When a family joins a country or group (non-religious), way of thinking it is very natural to speak that way and NOT exclude the infants who “don’t understand”. UNLESS of course you mean to actually exclude them (make the statement its self the explicit) OR it is understood at the base of an issue that they should be excluded (elsewhere spelled out explicitly). But the later requires a prerequisite explicit reality of excluding them before such a sentence could be “read that way” that is itself before that very statement. This we do not find any where. Similarly, hypothetically thinking from the reformed side of the issue, putting that temporarily on the shelf intellectually if you will, IF God has thrown them out then the perfectly natural flow of the grammar is simply as I said and that would be assumed into that statement. Either way it depends upon a presupposition, the statement itself is merely natural grammatical flow of language. For it to be an explicit command now, as baptistic thinking uses it, it would have to be explicit itself, which it is not. The statement is simply natural grammatical speaking, what underlay it is what need be explicit elsewhere.

The statement itself cannot be the THING that sets forth the doctrine EITHER WAY, which was the ENTIRE point being made. A presupposition fronts it either way, it itself cannot set forth the presupposition since it is not explicit itself. In other words its own stating forth doesn’t make itself valid (which is what the Baptist uses it for, THAT part is false and unattainable, Malone particularly uses this bad and blind approach). Because IF, again from the baptistic side shelfed but thinking-about-it-point-of-view, God has not removed them explicitly, because that verse is not such, then the natural flow of language easily is as I stated. It’s not a proof for infant inclusion but a natural outflow of that which already IS.

FOR that verse to be an explicit statement to “throw them out”, as it is used by baptistic doctrine, like Malone for example, it would have to be, well, explicit, which it is not. One has to “read into” what is not there, the explicit ‘throw out’. The idea of an infant being not able to ‘have faith’ alone, the idea itself, is not enough because that existed in the OT and infants where “in covenant” and received the sign of faith. That’s why an explicit “throw out” is necessary, because salvation has always been by the instrumental means of faith/trust alone. That’s never been different from Gen. 3:15 on. This is why the issue at its root level is not the possession of faith before the sign or not. The sign if for faith in the here and now unrealized tension of that faith of the militant church under suffering and persecution of not being finally into the Kingdom, so we will bodly march forward in bold faith. The signs are not and will not be necessary when that Kingdom consummates for the reality will be here, that is realized. This is the same confusion various groups within the faith have had, Rome, Israel and doctrinally Baptist with its idea of “regenerate” church only. The attempt to bring the kingdom into full reality NOW, which can only happen when Christ returns. All such attempts to do otherwise lead ultimately away from the true faith at length. We won’t need the signs for faith because we will BE there and faith gives way to realization. That’s the ONLY and REAL 100% regenerate church. And baptism will not be necessary then.

Blessings, 

Larry


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2007)

Archlute said:


> Hey, Doug. Just to let you know, I'm not upset, and I hope that you won't feel upset yourself if I press you on a few more points. If you really dislike this discussion, I'll let you "tap out" if you would like  (although I'll probably be off for the weekend after this post).



Press on! 



Archlute said:


> I would like to challenge your assumption that language and theological pre-understanding can be seperated from one another in exegesis, or as you put it that "my point was a grammatical one, not a theological one". I believe that this is germane to Larry's assertion as well.



Actually, the only reason I responded to the original post by Larry was that he quoted Acts 2:41 ("those who gladly received his words were baptized") and said the "natural language and natural grammatical sense" to take this particular phrase to mean "those who gladly receive his words and everyone else in their household were baptized."

I reject that argument. The "natural language and natural grammatical sense" of that phrase is "those who gladly received his words and only those." I took the construction of that phrase (those who did 'X') and put it in other contexts like John 3:16 and normal societal usage and it never means any other than who is mentioned in the phrase.



Archlute said:


> You are saying, "Hey, I'm just taking the words and grammar at face value, and in _my_ understanding (which looks at it strictly apart from theological intrusion) they mean this, but Larry is coming at it from his theological presuppositions." That may be true, but presuppositions are not a bad thing where they are biblical.



I agree that theological presuppositions are not a bad thing when they are biblical. However, he brought in these presuppositions while claiming that he was only talking about grammar.



Archlute said:


> This comes down to a theology of certain terms, such as, when the Scriptures speak of a family (many of whom could have been in attendance in Acts 2). What is the Scriptures usual understanding of that term, how does it bear out in God's covenantal dealings, and is there a carry over from the OT to the NT in those relationships?



It would be great if any family was mentioned. I agree that you can do this when a "household" is mentioned as in the story of the Philippian Jailer, but there is not a hint of a family being mentioned. In fact, both Tom Bombadil and Rich (in a later response) go to great lengths to try to prove that there were no children or women there because only the adult Hebrew males were required to go to the feasts. How can one of you argue that this phrase necessarily (because of covenantal dealings) means that the entire household (including women and children) were baptized and others of you argue that necessarily (because of Jewish religious practices) no women or children would have been there? Which is it?



Archlute said:


> The Baptist hermeneutic loves to say - let's just take this phrase apart all by itself, it means something all on its own, and we can say that it simply means this.



Again, just responding to a point made by someone that was incorrect. Natural language and natural grammatical sense" should be able to be seen outside of a theological context. If it is "natural" it should be seen in the secular world that way as well.



Archlute said:


> The Reformed hermeneutic says - phrases always have a context in the canon of Scripture, not just immediate, but also the whole scope of Scripture; its meaning is always tied up with other things that are going on, have gone on, or will go on, and the most simple understanding of a phrase may miss some of its OT allusions of which Luke, Paul, or James may have been making reference.



If you can show me anywhere in the whole scope of Scripture where a phrase that says, "those who did 'X'" has anything to do with anyone other than those who did 'X' I will be happy to oblige you.



Archlute said:


> Likewise, one cannot detach a discussion of the meaning of the Word from theology, for every doctrinal discussion (of which this is one) necessarily involves theology, as Scriptural/doctrinal debates are always about our knowledge of God (including a knowledge of His covenantal and "sacramental" dealings with his church).
> 
> Sometimes a refusal to admit or address any broader meaning or theological significance outside of the barest understanding of a phrase such as "those who gladly received his words", is just an indication that the individual knows where he must go if the broader significance is discussed, and he himself refuses to go there.



Personally, I like to just read and learn from the covenantal discussions on these threads, because, I confess, I have not encountered them before a year or so ago. I only jumped in because I saw a grammatical argument that didn't hold water. I showed multiple examples from the Bible and from real life where the argument had a logical flaw. If any part of the passage had said anything about households or families being there, I would not have made the argument.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> The above fits in with the OT data indicating that passover and other feasts were FOR MALES ONLY.
> 
> Furthermore, you argue from Acts 1 to the day of Pentecost. You're not serious, right? Furthermore, the women in Atcs 1 were believers, the MEn addressed in Acts 2 were not. And, they were different days. I mean, you're not even offering exegesis. "Gee whiz," and "Hmmmm" isn't good exegesis. it's a fallacious argument from incredulity.



I was only responding to you positive assertion that there were definitely no women or children there. I, personally, don't have any problem with that. But you mentioned Jesus going when he was 12 as an example that no children or women would be there. I quoted verses to prove your assertion in *that example* wrong. Jesus' mother was there and in the temple. Was it the norm that women went? Of course not, the feasts were for men.

Does Peter address the audience in Acts 2 as "men" and "brothers?" Absolutely, which is why I think that the men were, at the least, the majority if not the only ones there. I am sorry if I sounded pompous. It was not my intention. Sarcastic, yes, because that is my nature! Pompous, not my intention.

As far as exegesis is concerned, just how much do I need to get into word studies and all that to show that Mary went when Jesus was 12 and that there were women in the company in the beginning of Acts 2? I thought pretty much quoting the verses that used women's names in that context would be enough.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, the claim is FLAT OUT FALSE that "every person recorded as baptized is cognizant of what is going on." The household baptisms do not tell us of EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S cognative ability.
> ...



OK, I'll bite! I acknowledge that in the example of Lydia, it is clear that she believed, but says nothing about her household believing. And it does show her household getting baptized. Thus there is at least one example of persons being baptized in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.

I'll also acknowledge that it proves absolutely nothing either way. There are a lot of things both in the gospels and in the book of Acts that are not recorded. In fact, the baptism of the 12 Apostles is never recorded. Do we assume that they were not baptized? Of course not. The Bible never claims to record every event that happened, only those that God wanted us to know about...maybe so we could have fruitful discussions like these!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 29, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I was only responding to you positive assertion that there were definitely no women or children there. I, personally, don't have any problem with that. But you mentioned Jesus going when he was 12 as an example that no children or women would be there. I quoted verses to prove your assertion in *that example* wrong. Jesus' mother was there and in the temple. Was it the norm that women went? Of course not, the feasts were for men.



Excuse me? Where does it say that Mary was at the temple for the feat???? You're off by 11 years and 347 days! She was at the temple for his *presentation,* not for the feast. So, you've not "proved my assertion wrong." nice try, though.



> Does Peter address the audience in Acts 2 as "men" and "brothers?" Absolutely, which is why I think that the men were, at the least, the majority if not the only ones there. I am sorry if I sounded pompous. It was not my intention. Sarcastic, yes, because that is my nature! Pompous, not my intention.



Yes, and so a story that talks about "those who received the word were baptized" has no bearing on the question of infant baptism. That's my point.



> As far as exegesis is concerned, just how much do I need to get into word studies and all that to show that Mary went when Jesus was 12 and that there were women in the company in the beginning of Acts 2? I thought pretty much quoting the verses that used women's names in that context would be enough.



Um, I don't deny that Mary *went* with them to the feast. That she participated is another matter all together. The feasts were for males.

And, you've not shown that women were present in acts 2, you showed that they were in Acts 1!! Those two events were not at the same time.

So, my original argument stands. I frankly wonder why you're debating it. Most scholars accept my interpretation, even baptistic ones.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 29, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



The baptist makes this claim: "Every example of someone baptized is an example of someone who professed faith." 

He concludes, "so we shouldn't baptize infants, they're not proper subjects."

Not only is the above fallacious reasoning, the first premise is flat out false.

So, to grant my point knocks a whole lot of baptist arguments out of the water.

So, not only is it false that "every example of a baptism is of someone who professes faith," we also have examples that do not contradict federalist assumptions, and we have the notion of federal headship continuing in NT times. Infants are counted as Christ rejecters in Matt 10. So, I'd say that the household arguments don't *demonstrate* the paedo case, but the evidence is certainly on the paedo side of things. An abductive case can be presented, with the paedo position representing an infrence to the best explanation of the data.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > The above fits in with the OT data indicating that passover and other feasts were FOR MALES ONLY.
> ...



I think the primary point was that men would have predominated the feast with women and children largely being left behind. There likely would have been _some_ present. Either way, for me, it would have been natural Biblical language for the Scriptures to only identify the men that were present. If one consistently applied the "seems to me" hermaneutic that is applied to NT historical narratives upon the rest of Scripture it would be an absolute disaster to theology and common sense. There are several examples in Exodus where only the number of adult males are counted to number the nation of Israel in the desert. Consistently applying this hermaneutic there were no women and children in the desert whatsoever.

In fact, as the author of the article in the OP is insisting that there must be a _record_ of something in the Scriptures for it to be so, and that this is a "credible" Credo argument (see title of thread), then *you* must insist that no women or children were present. Why? Because they are not mentioned. Peter only addresses "men and brethren" and Acts doesn't say any women and children are present. If you want to retain the argument about Acts 2:41 being convincing on the basis of "example" then you're going to have to eat your own dog food in this case.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 29, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Tom Bombadil said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, the claim is FLAT OUT FALSE that "every person recorded as baptized is cognizant of what is going on." The household baptisms do not tell us of EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S cognative ability.
> ...



"And the oikos rejoiced with her" Yes, they were cognizant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 29, 2007)

reformedman said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...



I agree. In fact, here is a picture of my daughter Sophia rejoicing at a friend's 2 year old Birthday Party. She was even cognizant of the fact that others were clapping and joined in the joy of the celebration.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2007)

Tom Bombadil said:


> Excuse me? Where does it say that Mary was at the temple for the feat???? You're off by 11 years and 347 days! She was at the temple for his *presentation,* not for the feast. So, you've not "proved my assertion wrong." nice try, though.



You've obviously missed my point and the verses I quoted in my original post. Yes, Mary and other relatives were there when Jesus was 12 at the temple during (or at least immediately after) the Passover. And they went up every year as a family according to Luke 2. Let me quote my original post about this so you can re-read it.



> As to what you said up above, you're kidding right? No females went to Jerusalem during feast time? No kids would have been there? "Think of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the passover when he was 12." OK, since you mention it...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Tom Bombadil said:


> Yes, and so a story that talks about "those who received the word were baptized" has no bearing on the question of infant baptism. That's my point.



I never argued that it did. My only point in this passage is that the phrase "those who gladly received his word" refers specifically to the group of "those who gladly received his word." You can argue that no children or women would be there all you want. But please don't be like the others here who have tried to argue that the phrase naturally means "those who gladly received his word..........andalltheirchildrentoo."



Tom Bombadil said:


> Um, I don't deny that Mary *went* with them to the feast. That she participated is another matter all together. The feasts were for males.



Your whole argument has been that on the Day of Pentecost (40 days after the feast of Passover) no women would have been in the temple since they didn't come to the feast. Now, you are backing off that statement and saying that they didn't participate in the feast. What does participation in the feast have to do with the price of tea in China?



Tom Bombadil said:


> And, you've not shown that women were present in acts 2, you showed that they were in Acts 1!! Those two events were not at the same time.
> 
> So, my original argument stands. I frankly wonder why you're debating it. Most scholars accept my interpretation, even baptistic ones.



Acts 2 begins "When the day of Pentecost had fully come, *they* were all in one accord in one place." "They" is a pronoun that requires an antecedent to determine who "they" is. So, you have to go backwards to find out. The last place that a group of people is named is in chapter 1, verse 14:



> Acts 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.



So, you have to have a good theological or linguistic reason to say that it is clear that the women that are called the "they" in the end of chapter 1 are necessarily dropped out of the "they" in the first verse of chapter 2. (Wow! That sounds like a paedo argument for including children in baptism, doesn't it!)

I don't argue against any theologian that says that no women or children would have been participating in the feast of Passover or Pentecost. Only the men participated. I get it. I knew that. But to argue from that fact that no women were present at all in the temple is crazy.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think the primary point was that men would have predominated the feast with women and children largely being left behind. There likely would have been _some_ present. Either way, for me, it would have been natural Biblical language for the Scriptures to only identify the men that were present. If one consistently applied the "seems to me" hermaneutic that is applied to NT historical narratives upon the rest of Scripture it would be an absolute disaster to theology and common sense. There are several examples in Exodus where only the number of adult males are counted to number the nation of Israel in the desert. Consistently applying this hermaneutic there were no women and children in the desert whatsoever.
> 
> In fact, as the author of the article in the OP is insisting that there must be a _record_ of something in the Scriptures for it to be so, and that this is a "credible" Credo argument (see title of thread), then *you* must insist that no women or children were present. Why? Because they are not mentioned. Peter only addresses "men and brethren" and Acts doesn't say any women and children are present. If you want to retain the argument about Acts 2:41 being convincing on the basis of "example" then you're going to have to eat your own dog food in this case.



Rich, honestly, I wasn't trying to get into a paedo/credo debate. I find that we talk past each other. I was simply responding to a specific assertion that was false (that Mary didn't go up to Jerusalem for the feast when Jesus was 12). I was trying to correct that statement.

I don't really care if women and children were there or not. It doesn't add or take away from the argument of either side. Acts 2 says nothing about households. Paedos in this thread have given 2 arguments: 1) The households were not there, so the omission is irrelevant, and 2) the phrase "those who gladly received his words" includes children who did not. I give more credence to the first argument because the second one is impossible in the natural use of language.

Credos, on the other hand, have argued that since Acts 2 limits the baptisms to "those who gladly received his words" that this is normative. I'm not sure that holds water either because it bases an entire belief system on one verse, a dangerous thing to do. Honestly, even if only those who received his words were baptized in Acts 2, this does not say that when those people got home, an apostle or elder didn't baptize their entire family. It would have to be an argument from silence.

I don't think either side can use Acts 2 as a major "credible" argument for or against their position. And I'm not trying to argue a credo position from the passage. I am merely responding to bad arguments from people who are trying to insert a paedo view into this passage that simply has nothing to do with it. It's like trying to use John 3:16 to either prove or disprove election. John 3:16 says absolutely nothing about who will believe. It only says that those who do believe receive everlasting life. Acts 2 says nothing about whether infants were or were not baptized. It only says that those who gladly received his words were baptized.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 29, 2007)

reformedman said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Bombadil said:
> ...




I addressed that line of argumentation in my first post on p. 2. That's why I posted it. You should familiarize yourself with the counter arguments before posting refuted points.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 29, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> You've obviously missed my point and the verses I quoted in my original post. Yes, Mary and other relatives were there when Jesus was 12 at the temple during (or at least immediately after) the Passover. And they went up every year as a family according to Luke 2. Let me quote my original post about this so you can re-read it.



I don't need to re-read it. I already admitted that they "went to Jersualem" together. That mary went to the temple and ate the passover is something you have not proved. Indeed, you have not interacted with my arguments against a woman's participation. In fact, it says that "only the circumcised may eat of it." Don't baptists say that "women were not circumcised in the OT, so why give them baptism in the NT?" Indeed, how come allowances are made for MEN who are away during the passover, or who have become defiled, but not for women???? Surely they would be. Indeed, roughly25%of the women in a town would have been menstrating during the feast. Surely they couldn't have eaten the meal. Why was there no rules for their cleanliness? How come the Talmud agrees with me? How come the disicples didn't act like it was "odd" to just be with a bunch of men when they celebrated the passover with Jesus? How come Moses only took males up to the mountain to eat? How come the Bible tells us that "three times a year your *males* will travel to Jerusalem" to partake in the feast? You're not arguing here, Doug. You're simply repeating refuted arguments.





> Seems both parents (male AND female) were there.



In Jerusalem, not at the temple eating the passover.






> I never argued that it did. My only point in this passage is that the phrase "those who gladly received his word" refers specifically to the group of "those who gladly received his word." You can argue that no children or women would be there all you want. But please don't be like the others here who have tried to argue that the phrase naturally means "those who gladly received his word..........andalltheirchildrentoo."



I've always agreed. So what. That adults have to profess faith isn't anything new! So, your verse can't be used against paedobaptism.





> Your whole argument has been that on the Day of Pentecost (40 days after the feast of Passover) no women would have been in the temple since they didn't come to the feast. Now, you are backing off that statement and saying that they didn't participate in the feast. What does participation in the feast have to do with the price of tea in China?



No, I argued that as a sub argument. I also made the EXEGETICAL point that we can only show that "men" were there. Your inclusion of women is SPECULATION.




> Acts 2 begins "When the day of Pentecost had fully come, *they* were all in one accord in one place." "They" is a pronoun that requires an antecedent to determine who "they" is. So, you have to go backwards to find out. The last place that a group of people is named is in chapter 1, verse 14:



Actualy, it's in ch. 1 v.23, and before that in 15 it says Peter stood up among "brothers." Sorry, you can't exegetically demonstrate your point from v. 14.

And, even granting the point, I was referring to the PEOPLE ADDRESSED, which were "men," as the Biblle tells us. I mean, using your reasoning, I'm just gonna assume that infants were in the households even though it doesn't mention them! You want your cake and you want to eat it too.



> So, you have to have a good theological or linguistic reason to say that it is clear that the women that are called the "they" in the end of chapter 1 are necessarily dropped out of the "they" in the first verse of chapter 2. (Wow! That sounds like a paedo argument for including children in baptism, doesn't it!)



I've already shown a "they" before Acts 1:14 Furthermore, the "they" could be the "they" in v. 13 who "arrived." THIS "they" was made up of "men." So, your argument is pretty poor, exegetically. 



> I don't argue against any theologian that says that no women or children would have been participating in the feast of Passover or Pentecost. Only the men participated. I get it. I knew that. But to argue from that fact that no women were present at all in the temple is crazy.




I'm arguing from what the TEXT says. You're making INFERENCES and then calling me "crazy." Hey, whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Sep 29, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I was simply responding to a specific assertion that was false (that Mary didn't go up to Jerusalem for the feast when Jesus was 12).



Show me where I said otherwise...

That was what you said I said. I never denied that their families traveled with them. As far as being in the temple and eating, that's another matter, and it's one you haven't proven yet. It would be nice if you tried, though.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 29, 2007)

> I jumped into this discussion on this particular point because Larry said, "those who gladly received his words" naturally means "and all their kids, too." Now, while Larry could have said that the natural understanding of "household" would include children (yes, even infants), he simply cannot make the case in any language in any society that "those who gladly received his words" NATURALLY means "and all their kids, too."



Doug just to let you know I’m in no way angry or upset, I learned a long time ago to let things slide off of my back concerning baptism. At least on this issue, others, eh I’m still working and have buttons that can be pushed, don’t we all!

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear enough about what I was saying, of which the second time I posted I’d hoped I was more clear. The question with that text is always set forth as a “proof” text that it cannot mean “and the children too” and hence for the “credistic idea” concerning baptism, who is baptized. It necessarily excludes them, so it is said numerously by baptist, which was what was questioned here on this posting, which you yourself use it as. That’s the “soil” within which I responded. 

Thus, all I was pointing out was that the natural use of language flows quite naturally with the inclusion of the children which doctrine of baptism, that is infant baptism/covenant inclusion is derived elsewhere. IN other words it’s not against it, infant baptism, as Baptist think and use it, nor is it FOR the credo position, as Baptist thinkers think. The point IS it is NOT a “proof text” in and of itself either way, credo (which the baptistic doctrine always uses it, as you yourself were using it) nor paedeo. Covenant speaking, it’s not a problem, “all who gladly received his words”, easily includes the entire family, infants included. But, AND HERE’S THE BIG DIFFERENCE, I’m not using it as a “proof or a necessary support text”. HUGE difference! To put it another way so that we might better understand this; IF this and similar texts were absent from Scripture, never penned, it would not hurt the paedeo position one bit, yet if it was not there and all its similar forms in Acts, hypothetically, it would destroy the Baptist doctrine it is so depended upon to support it. That’s why when a Baptist uses this as a “proof text” or strong necessary support, and I did this myself when I was Baptist, it’s really an eye roller. But what one cannot derive from this text is an explicit doctrine and then build it up upon it, nor can this be a “key stone” in the doctrine. It would be just as absurd if a paedeo used this as a primary text to prove their doctrine or hold it up (as it is written), it would be the same “eye roller”.

To put it another way: In order for that text and those like it to be real texts proving ANY doctrine on baptism it would have to say something explicit like, "those who gladly received his words except of course for infants who couldn’t understand a thing…" (proving a baptistic doctrine, which is why I gave the initial example). OR "those who gladly received his words including infants who couldn’t understand a thing, just in case you are confused on this issue…” (proving the reformed doctrine). That’s the ONLY way this verse could be a “proof for” or even major piece of the pie of any doctrine on baptism.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## reformedman (Sep 29, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> reformedman said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



That is an adorable baby Rich, but your argument is weak on a few accounts.
First and formost, 
1. Lydia's house is not said to have infants. 
2. I went through a few different versions for verse 15 and I don't see that it indicates "whole" household. It is possible (granted probable), that perhaps it was her "whole" household, but it could also have been that people "of" her household were baptized. This second argument is not strong in either side; yours nor mine.
3. The adorable baby in your picture is happy because:

she's recieving the undivided attention of all people
she's realizes this is gift, cake, and picture time with song
everyon is smiling.

But please say you agree with me that the poor child, further, YOU AND I, at the age of 2 weeks had no concept or clue about our aunt being saved and being able to rejoice with her. Can you rejoice over a soteriological issue at 2 weeks? No, I'm sure you will agree.

And infact, can simply not be soteriologically cognizant to be able to rejoice and therefore, indicate or manifest the fruit of saving belief and repentance which were identity markers for those who were to partake of baptism. To be baptized, you must be able to "consider" things that an infant child simply cannot. 

1. Acts 8:38, 39- "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39- Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way *rejoicing*."​ Here's an old guy rejoicing. 

2. Acts 16:33, 34- "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34- Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he *rejoiced*, having believed in God with all his household."​ Again, we don't see proof that there were infants here, but the point is, it takes soteriological understanding to truly rejoice in the right way, not just a happy fluffy way of everyone smiling therefore the childs smiles also, no, I'm sure you'd agree, those that rejoiced concerning the BELIEF and CONVERSION is what is called to question here, not that he was smiling.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 30, 2007)

Frank,

Your argument above may lead you to believe that you have dealt with what you wrote and what my response to your assertion was. Let us back up, shall we?

You wrote:


> "And the oikos rejoiced with her" Yes, they were cognizant.



To which I displayed a picture of my child at another child's birthday party _rejoicing_ with her friend.

Now, you may desire to read more into the term rejoicing because you are pre-conditioned to believe, perhaps, that infants are incapable of rejoicing. There is nothing in the word rejoice, however, that requires the recipients to all have the same degree of understanding about what they are rejoicing about.

The argument about Lydia or the jailer or anybody else that states there were no infants present is interesting but: So what if it states that no infants were present? _It also doesn't say that adults were present either!_ I must, therefore, conclude by your logic that no adults were present. In fact, I know nothing about the age, sex, or composition of Lydia's or the jailer's household other than, presumably, they were people. But, since by your assertion I cannot state that human beings were present unless it says "...human beings were present...", then I'm only reasonable confident of that.

I am not postively asserting that infants or adults or teenagers were present in any of these houses but:

a. You cannot exclude infants merely on the basis that those in the household rejoiced.
b. You cannot even use your own "explicit rule" to establish that adults are present.

In other words, you cannot use the narratives as a support for the claim that all those baptized believed in and professed Christ at an adult level. You may wish to _read that into_ the passages but the weakness of an argument on the basis of historical narrative has been shown for what it is.



> 2. I went through a few different versions for verse 15 and I don't see that it indicates "whole" household. It is possible (granted probable), that perhaps it was her "whole" household, but it could also have been that people "of" her household were baptized. This second argument is not strong in either side; yours nor mine.


As your theology requires you to do. Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are searching the Scriptures, hoping that, just maybe, the whole household didn't believe. "Phew! Good, the whole household didn't believe."


> 3. The adorable baby in your picture is happy because:
> 
> she's recieving the undivided attention of all people
> she's realizes this is gift, cake, and picture time with song
> everyon is smiling.


Note what I stated earlier about Baptists writing about children in the third person. Do you have any children Frank? Perhaps I could write some stories about what your children are thinking. Do you have some sort of mind reading device?

1. It was not Sophia's birthday. It was her friend's birthday.
2. She was rejoicing with the other child.
3. She hugs and kisses people that are not smiling.

I've seen my 1.5 year old little girl express remorse and hug her sister and say "I'm sorry." She certainly knows what it means to be happy with another - just not at an adult level.



> But please say you agree with me that the poor child, further, YOU AND I, at the age of 2 weeks had no concept or clue about our aunt being saved and being able to rejoice with her. Can you rejoice over a soteriological issue at 2 weeks? No, I'm sure you will agree.


What 2 week old are we referring to Frank? What difference does that make to the narrative we were speaking about?



> 1. Acts 8:38, 39- "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39- Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way *rejoicing*."​ Here's an old guy rejoicing.


Remember the story of David and Saul? Remember that story where Saul went to relieve himself in the cave? That was an old guy relieving himself. Ergo, only old people relieve themselves.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 30, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> So what if it states that no infants were present? _It also doesn't say that adults were present either!_
> You are sliding out of the point at hand. The point of this thread is infant baptism. Whether there were other adults present in the house is a moot point and we don't care because we both agree that if they converted they should be baptized. The point in fact is--we don't see whether there were children present, we both agree; but more, the verse says that her house rejoiced. My point in my previous point was entirely that infants, 2 week old (I'm assuming that's about when you baptize children in the paedobaptist faith), could not rejoice. If you do a peekaboo or a happy happy dance with a garnish of "A-Goo A-Goo" I can get almost any infant to laugh and rejoice--BUT this is not the contextual rejoice that is being referred to here.
> There must be a certain regard toward depravity to understand what I mean in this case. If a person in your family says that he has embraced the Jehovah's Witness faith, you CANNOT rejoice, why? because you have the truth and JW'S and their faith are heresy. To an infidel, the Christian faith is heresy to their depraved godless faith. One of my three children demonstrates a desire toward God and His will, he has professed salvation in Christ, the other two don't affirm nor deny, therefore, I cannot baptize them. To set your mind at ease with your incorrect generalization, you may with my permission and the permission of the bible say that my other two children are heathen unbelievers, just as you and I were.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> OK, I'll bite! I acknowledge that in the example of Lydia, it is clear that she believed, but says nothing about her household believing. And it does show her household getting baptized. Thus there is at least one example of persons being baptized in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.
> 
> I'll also acknowledge that it proves absolutely nothing either way. There are a lot of things both in the gospels and in the book of Acts that are not recorded. In fact, the baptism of the 12 Apostles is never recorded. Do we assume that they were not baptized? Of course not. The Bible never claims to record every event that happened, only those that God wanted us to know about...maybe so we could have fruitful discussions like these!



Thankyou for the candid acknowledgment. To proceed -- the non-paedo is unable to point to any passage of Scripture which says that ONLY those who profess faith for themselves ought to be baptised. His position is built entirely on the basis of NT example. He usually says, we ONLY have examples of people being baptised in the NT who profess faith; and consequently he will usually ask the paedo to provide just one example of infants being baptised. The paedo responds, it is not necessary, seeing it is not infants as infants who are baptised, but infants who are unable to make a profession for themselves. The paedo insists that he only needs to provide examples of persons being baptised without making a personal profession of faith. Here, however, as you have acknowledged, we have a NT example of people being baptised without a recorded profession of faith.


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2007)

reformedman said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish our non-paedo friends would note this point and deal with it honestly and fairly. There are baptisms of persons in the NT where we are not told anything concerning their consciousness as to the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. One of many examples is Lydia's household, Acts 16:15. The non-paedo might be able to offer an explanation of this point from their distinct perspective, but could they at least acknowledge that there are examples of persons being baptised in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.
> ...



Here is the passage:

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

I do not see, "and the oikos rejoiced with her." Perhaps you are conflating this narrative with another.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 30, 2007)

Again, Frank, you are missing the essence of the discussion. You stated, without Scriptural support, that the _rejoicing_ spoken of was merely an adult rejoicing. You claimed that, on the basis of the word rejoice, that the household could not contain any young children.

You keep getting distracted by ages of children and perhaps misunderstand that I am positing that the entire corpus of Covenant theology has to rest on this verse. I would not go to this verse to establish to Baptism of an infant. Yet, in contrast, you utilize verses like these to establish that infants should not be.

My only point was to show that no ages can, at all, be determined by the verse. You can read into it but it would be irresponsible exegesis to conclude, on the basis of the word "rejoice", that no infants were present. I demonstrated that fact by displaying a rejoicing infant. Whether or not she is rejoicing with the full blown understanding that you believe rejoicing must entail is not the issue. It is irresponsible to say that the Eunuch's rejoicing, as an adult, is what rejoicing means in the Scriptures.

Frankly, if you were to extend your exegetical methodology to the Scriptures at large it would be a complete disaster. I tried to show, in a different post, how if we woodenly apply this methodology that we could insist that no human beings were present because we don't have human beings identified in the household explicitly. Further, I could more easily establish the fact that only adults relieve themselves because the Scriptures give us no example of children relieving themselves. It makes for nice "hand waving" to distract from the issue but it is a completely pointless thing to examine.

In the end, you _cannot_, as much as you would like to argue for it, use the mere use of the word "rejoice" to claim that only adults were present in the household. It could have been a house full of adults, a house full of teens, a house full of sectagenarians - who knows - but it is simply irresponsible to _read into_ a single verb everything that you attempted to establish.


----------



## reformedman (Sep 30, 2007)

Again, Semper you are missing the essence of the discussion, I was responding to the OP with respect to the fact that infants do not typically have the ability nor capability of understanding to a right degree the necessary things needed to identify themselves as "considering" what they need to in order to qualify for baptism.


SemperFideles said:


> Again, Frank, you are missing the essence of the discussion. You stated, without Scriptural support, that the _rejoicing_ spoken of was merely an adult rejoicing. You claimed that, on the basis of the word rejoice, that the household could not contain any young children.


The point I raise with the word "rejoice" has to do with the necessity of maturity to understand at the most basic level; a soteriological understanding of the conversion of the family member that was converted. To rejoice necessarily requires a person to understand the joy that one feels but more than that, it is a deeper joy in that both recipient and the person have an intimate, personal knowledge and experience of this joy.



Semper said:


> My only point was to show that no ages can, at all, be determined by the verse.


I understand brother and to some extent and impartially I can agree with you in most cases and although the following is not a defense, it is something to consider. I will try to be blunt:

When a person "C" defends a doctrine because he sees a command given to certain people, he uses that instant as an example to similarly apply it as far and to the extent that it is used biblically. Regulative principle is to do only what is seen biblically and not do anything that is not seen biblically.
When a person "P" defends a doctrine because he doesn't see a negation for it, it (in my eyes at least) is a weaker argument.
You see, part of the Paedo's defense, as we have been discussing it (you and I), has been in your position that "We do not see anything against this position". You are right my brother, we do not see by the verses shown that a baby has not been baptized. BUT,
the Credo's defense of his position, as we have been discussing it (you and I), has been that we never see a baby baptized. The language throughout indicates that you must "*Believe* and be baptized for the remission of sins". A recently born fertilized embryo conceived 9 months prior, and born 2 weeks ago, cannot understand the most basic requirements to qualify for 'Believing for Baptism'. You must then disregard the 'Believe' part of that verse and paraphrase it to say, "Peter said to them, 'be baptized for the remission of sins'. 



Semper said:


> In the end, you _cannot_, as much as you would like to argue for it, use the mere use of the word "rejoice" to claim that only adults were present in the household.



Has any of the infants you have baptized, been seen to rejoice at the announcement of anyone's conversion?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 30, 2007)

Are you saved by Christ's active and passive work alone?

Or

Are you saved by Christ's active and passive work alone + faith and/or a certain intellecual grasp?

Never forget faith is nothing more than an instrument and a gift at that, not something we produce in the least. In fact saving faith works against and in spite of us.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 30, 2007)

Another big difference concerning so called “professions of faith”. In baptism, even in baptistic baptisms the note, as it were, does not ring on “one’s profession of faith”. Think about that for a minute (and I’m sure exceptions exist) but what did you DO when you WERE baptized. Go back to your baptism if you were baptized as adults or youth and just recall it for a minute, the details. Keep that in your mind of a bit. What did YOU DO? 

You stood there silent, maybe at best a quick nod of the head or at best an inaudible or low audible affirmation of some kind. But where does the “note” sound in the ENTIRE ceremony? On you? Not at all. God’s officer takes water (another’s action) and dips/places it on you (another’s action) (you are utterly passive) and he says (another’s action) in the place of God as called minister for God (another’s action), “I baptize you (another’s action) in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (another’s action)” (You are, oddly, still very passive). Where does the note sound, where does the glory ring? In your “profession of faith”? Not at all, but in God’s doing and name where it belongs.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## tellville (Sep 30, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Thankyou for the candid acknowledgment. To proceed -- the non-paedo is unable to point to any passage of Scripture which says that ONLY those who profess faith for themselves ought to be baptised.



I haven't really thought this out, but how is this different from the Roman Catholic who says the words "faith alone" are not found in Scripture, and that actually, the only time they are found together is with the word "not"? 

While we would "candidly acknowledge" that this is the case, wouldn't we say that Scripture still teaches faith alone? 

So how is the Baptist saying that adults alone is the valid form of Baptism even though scripture doesn't say "adult's only" a different hermeneutic? At least we don't have the word "not" in front of the adults!


----------



## MW (Sep 30, 2007)

tellville said:


> I haven't really thought this out, but how is this different from the Roman Catholic who says the words "faith alone" are not found in Scripture, and that actually, the only time they are found together is with the word "not"?



Rom. 4:6, the equivalent of an exclusive argument is made when the imputation of righteousness is claimed to be "without works" -- xwris ergwn.

The NT nowhere specifies that profession of faith is a pre-requisite for baptism. The fact that some of the baptisms of the NT took place after profession of faith was made, is no indication that such is an absolute qualification for baptism.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Sep 30, 2007)

tellville said:


> I haven't really thought this out, but how is this different from the Roman Catholic who says the words "faith alone" are not found in Scripture, and that actually, the only time they are found together is with the word "not"?
> 
> While we would "candidly acknowledge" that this is the case, wouldn't we say that Scripture still teaches faith alone?



Scripture clearly teaches the _concept _ of faith alone without using the words "faith alone". For example, Eph. 2:8-9 pits "faith" on one side against "works" on the other. Sure, it doesn't use the words "faith alone" but the _concept_ is clearly there. To demand that "faith alone" has to be used for the doctrine to exist is to put illegitimate rules on language. If at dinner I ask for the "salt", I don't _have to_ ask for the "salt alone" for people to know that I don't want the "pepper". One doesn't have to use "alone" to _mean _alone.



tellville said:


> So how is the Baptist saying that adults alone is the valid form of Baptism even though scripture doesn't say "adult's only" a different hermeneutic? At least we don't have the word "not" in front of the adults!



Paedos would teach that the _concept_ is not taught in Scripture as well as the words. Matthew's point is that the non-paedo's can't build a doctrine on simply example (description). The fact of the matter: there is a description of children being baptized in the Bible (1 Cor. 10:1-2).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 1, 2007)

reformedman said:


> Again, Semper you are missing the essence of the discussion, I was responding to the OP with respect to the fact that infants do not typically have the ability nor capability of understanding to a right degree the necessary things needed to identify themselves as "considering" what they need to in order to qualify for baptism.
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> ...



Frank,

All you proved again, is how much you are able to "read into" a passage and assert theology that is not present. As I stated, it does not state the nature of their rejoicing, it simply says that they rejoiced. I have proven definitively the case of an infant rejoicing with adults for another child without necessarily fully grasping what she is rejoicing about. Now you might want to assert that more is in the text but you cannot argue it from the text itself but are forced to import the entire "back story".

As I have repeatedly stated, if a Baptist consistently applied the "example" methodology then the theology would be monstrous. Let me ask you a simple question Frank, and think carefully before you answer because I will press you on it: Do you think that the _examples_ we see in the New Testament narratives should be the basis for our theology? Again, be careful before you answer because I'm going to list the doctrines that will flow from that assertion. I do want an answer to the question, however, as you are insisting that example is the normative method for doctrine in this case.


----------



## reformedman (Oct 1, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Frank,
> 
> All you proved again, is how much you are able to "read into" a passage and assert theology that is not present. As I stated, it does not state the nature of their rejoicing, it simply says that they rejoiced. I have proven definitively the case of an infant rejoicing with adults for another child without necessarily fully grasping what she is rejoicing about.


Sorry, no you haven't, you showed a child rejoicing which I never denied is possible for comprehension. You still have not shown an infant comprehending.



> As I have repeatedly stated, if a Baptist consistently applied the "example" methodology then the theology would be monstrous. Let me ask you a simple question Frank, and think carefully before you answer because I will press you on it: Do you think that the _examples_ we see in the New Testament narratives should be the basis for our theology? Again, be careful before you answer because I'm going to list the doctrines that will flow from that assertion. I do want an answer to the question, however, as you are insisting that example is the normative method for doctrine in this case.


Sorry brother, even though it looks like I'm wimping out, this post is not about me, it's about credible arguments for credo-baptism. This is not a debate, this is a post about believer baptism. Also, I am not a proper representative of 1689, but if you state a thread on a discrepancy that you find in it, you can create a thread and get better answers from mature cred0-baptists, of which I am not.


----------



## JM (Oct 1, 2007)

I find them credible, thanks brother for posting them.



CredoCovenanter said:


> This is a blog entry from someone who use to belong to the board but is no longer with us.
> He is not allowed here but these thoughts are I am sure. So have at it.
> 
> 
> ...


----------

