# Reformed Baptists: What arguments am I missing or trivializing?



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

I was going to answer this from a long thread that had gone far afield. I think this post sums up where I believe Reformed Baptist argumentation for professor-only baptism is weak....




> Your earlier premise doesn't logically lead to the right conclusion here Rich. You're going in circles and contradicting yourself in the end. I thought it was implicit in statement "they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration." But anyway I submit that baptist article is not well though-out objection anyway. So, why trivialize the Baptist argument by entertaining and dwelling on a weak argument, and imputing it to all Baptists?



I'm sorry but I missed where my circle was and where I contradicted myself. Can you point this out, please?

Also, could you point out the strong credo-Baptist arguments that don't rely on the historical narrative argument alone to make the case if you grant that the argument from the inviolability of the New Covenant does not make the case? I expect people to call me on things if I'm mistating the case. I really would like the strong arguments because these were all that James White had to offer Shishko and I've never seen anything else offered here over two years.

It is interesting that you believe I'm trivializing the strength of the Baptist argument by pointing out their insistence on the perfection of the New Covenant. James White and I became friends about 8 years ago and I asked him at the time: "Why are you a Baptist and not a paedo-baptist like everyone else?"

He was very busy to have to answer a relatively novice Presbyterian on that question. He probably gets tired of being asked it. He was patient, though, and pointed me to two sermons on the subject.

What were they on? The unbreakability of the New Covenant and how only the elect are in the New Covenant.

It was the first time I had been exposed to the argument. It was simply a sermon from Hebrews that pointed to the Jeremiah 31 passage to insist this was the case. I wasn't necessarily against the idea at the time but, frankly, my first thought was: "What does that have to do with Baptism?"

I've been asking that question ever since.

If you wanted to categorize most of the debates on this forum on the issue of Baptism and who are the proper recipients, I am quite certain you will find all your best and brightest arguing this point: the NC is perfect, with the elect alone, therefore we baptize professors only.

I'm not pointing this out to beat people up but I do think that this is an accurate representation of where Baptists spend the lion's share of their theological argumentation.

Now, as I've said, when I press them on this, they will always admit that they do not baptize on the basis of election but profession. That is when the question arises: OK, why baptize on profession alone? _Then_, the argument will transition to the historical narrative - "Oh, but you see all the examples in the New Testament are of professors only...." As I've noted, Pentecostals use the same logic to argue for the continuity of tongues. Inevitably, when I point that out, Baptists think I'm saying that merely to be mean or get a dig in. Not at all! I'm only trying to show them that their means to establishing their doctrine has the same weak foundation. It should give them pause. Rather than react in anger to this problem at me, why not go back and make sure your foundation isn't built on something weak like narrative.

Thus, in summary:

1. Baptists usually try to argue for the perfection of the New Covenant and that its membership is the Elect alone.
2. Even if point 1 is granted, Baptists then must admit that Election is not the basis of who they baptize at all. Why? Election is not something that can be detected by men.
3. Asked what the basis for baptism is - the basis is profession.
4. Asked why only profession - the basis is historical narrative.

Thus, the Baptism of professors alone rests upon historical narrative alone.

If I've left out an argument, I invite any Baptist to add the strong argument I've missed.


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2007)

> the argument will transition to the historical narrative - "Oh, but you see all the examples in the New Testament are of professors only...." As I've noted, Pentecostals use the same logic to argue for the continuity of tongues. Inevitably, when I point that out, Baptists think I'm saying that merely to be mean or get a dig in. Not at all! I'm only trying to show them that their means to establishing their doctrine has the same weak foundation. It should give them pause. Rather than react in anger to this problem at me, why not go back and make sure your foundation isn't built on something weak like narrative.



I really don't like these threads, and I've learned that arguing these points divides us more than it unites us. However, I want to address this specific point: 

Rich, have you considered that you may be making a categorical error in drawing an analogy between tongues and Baptism with regard to historic interpretation? Would you not agree that Baptism is a thing of an entirely different importance than tongues?


----------



## Puritanhead (May 28, 2007)

I think you took my critique too seriously Rich to start a separate thread about it. But I am flattered. I should have made it more succinct to marginalize its significance since its not worth blowing out of proportion.

I withdraw my objection. It's not worth hair-splitting over.

I'm a spectator on rest of these baptismal debates, if I even follow them anymore. I would like to hear the clarion case for both sides and appreciate book recommendations.


----------



## satz (May 28, 2007)

I don't know if you consider this a 'strong' argument, but this is how I see it;

I think 1 Peter 3:21 is a definitive verse on baptism because it actually tells us _what_ baptism is.



> 1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, *but the answer of a good conscience toward God*,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:



As I see it, this verse tells us that baptism is the _answer of a good conscience toward God._ Someone cannot answer God with a conscience cleansed by the gospel though baptism until he understands that gospel. He also has to understand the basic concept of baptism - ie how getting wet is doing anything toward God. This applies whether the person is regenerate or not. 

As for the use of historical narrative, I would justify it this way. Regardless of the answer you come to on whether children are in the Covenant or not in the NT, or whether baptism is the new sign as a replacement to circumcision, I think you have to admit that the sign has _changed_. Circumcision was surgery performed on males only. Baptism is something you do with water to both males and females. There has been a change in the sign, so even if you think baptism is the new circumcision, it is not wrong to question if other specifics of the sign have changed. And with that in mind we look at the narrative passages that show baptism taking place. In that sense, how different is drawning 'believers-only' from the narrative passages from drawing 'women may now be baptised' from them?

Finally, regarding the argument that paedobaptists sometimes make regarding the fact that their children are disadvantaged by being denied the sign, I would say that if the baptist position is true, than how can there be any disadvantage? If God himself chose to delay the giving of the sign, than the children would not be disadvantaged anymore than they are because they do not partake of the Lord's Supper yet.


----------



## Ivan (May 28, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> I would like to hear the clarion case for both sides and appreciate book recommendations.


----------



## AV1611 (May 28, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> I would like to hear the clarion case for both sides and appreciate book recommendations.



http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=15
http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=79

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_7.html

http://www.prca.org/sermons/acts2.39.html

See also http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=271642&postcount=22


----------



## reformedman (May 28, 2007)

Both paedo and credo believe that the nc security is for the elect alone, but the biblical example of that ordinance has always been done to confessors only. 
Are all confessors, elect? NO
Are all believers infants, elect? NO

Which is the biblical example? confessors or infants?

also, and this is my dumb point, please don't debate this part since I just enjoy rambling and I like to look at these reasoning for my own enjoyment. Its just dumb statistics:
which has a stronger filtering process of true elect?
confessors or believer's infants

In other words, both of them may not be saved, but which of the two has more likelyhood to be telling the truth? The 25 year old that goes against his peers to be baptized in front of 150 of his peers against the worlds wishes and trends? or every single baby without exclusion from the paedobaptist world. 

To me it seems that the ratio is clearly pb infants will not be elect rather than the few of the 25 year old adults who went against the world and professed Christ.

Similar ratio:
People professing Christ in Iraq
People professing Christ in Malibu California.

There more probability that more people in Iraq will be the truer Christians than the ones in the US.
Again, please disregard this last part because it's just something I have in my head and it's not a good defense, just something I think about.


----------



## Ivan (May 28, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=15
> http://www.rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=79
> 
> http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html
> ...



Thank you, Richard.


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2007)

> Again, please disregard this last part because it's just something I have in my head and it's not a good defense, just something I think about.



I genuinely wish there was a forum where we could bounce ideas off of each other without having them attacked. A 'thinking out loud' forum, so to speak. 

In a similar vein, I've often wondered what % of kids baptised either as infants or as children making a forced/emotional/strained/questionable confession of faith actually remain in the faith, versus those who make a credeible profession of faith at a mature age. I'd love to have some honest discussion of those statistics without either side feeling the need to build a defense of their theology into the discussion, but I fear that it won't ever happen.


----------



## non dignus (May 28, 2007)

> 1. Baptists usually try to argue for the perfection of the New Covenant and that its membership is the Elect alone.
> 2. Even if point 1 is granted, Baptists then must admit that Election is not the basis of who they baptize at all. Why? Election is not something that can be detected by men.
> 3. Asked what the basis for baptism is - the basis is profession.
> 4. Asked why only profession - the basis is historical narrative.
> ...



Quite right. The credo' basis for baptism is _credible _profession of faith. 

However, they don't do full justice to assessing the credibility of a profession of faith. 

In order to fully assess the credibility of a believer, one must examine the entire life of the believer and baptize him at the end of his life. So it IS by narrative alone, _and that with a radical disjunct from narratives of the OT._


How are death-bed baptisms not the logical outcome of strict adherence to the necessity of credible profession?


----------



## reformedman (May 28, 2007)

@Chris:
good point brother, a bounce idea off each other's head without the attacks would be great!

The second part of your post, not sure if that can be done, 
on the credo side:you'd need people willing to be a part of the poll who turned from the faith after believing. 
But on the paedo side: you'd more easily see that by the age of 20 or so, they are pastoring a church without any conviction or outrightly rebelling. Either case, you'd need a time factor, 10 20 30 years? how do you choose. 
I like your thoughts though Chris.

@nondignus


> one must examine the entire life of the believer and baptize him at the end of his life


Did the apostles wait?
Credible profession was biblical, its as far as we can know. You are right that it shouldnt be done the next day, but I'd say 
after discipleship time, which is biblical, 
test the spirit, which is biblical, 
and seeing fruits meet (proving) repentance, which is biblical, 
is good enough.

Anything beyond that, is probably in danger of being legalism.

But baptizing an infant would probably have different factors, not sure I could name any, it's hard to find.


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

reformedman said:


> Both paedo and credo believe that the nc security is for the elect alone, but the biblical example of that ordinance has always been done to confessors only.
> Are all confessors, elect? NO
> Are all believers infants, elect? NO
> 
> ...



You are still asserting that Baptist ministers have to be a filter at all. Rich has shown clearly that you do not keep the CoG pure. God does. We are supposed to obey and that means baptizing everyone promiscuously wether you just met them on the road to Ephesus or whatever and let God sort them out.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2007)

Augusta said:


> You are still asserting that Baptist ministers have to be a filter at all. Rich has shown clearly that you do not keep the CoG pure. God does. We are supposed to obey and that means baptizing everyone promiscuously wether you just met them on the road to Ephesus or whatever and let God sort them out.



?? That confuses me. I thought even the Paedobaptists would not baptize an adult convert without a profession of faith.

But I agree the statistical method, while interesting for kicking around, isn't dispositive.


----------



## Augusta (May 28, 2007)

I wasn't specific enough. Baptizing all that responded to their preaching in faith. Philip and the eunuch had just met and he showed faith and was baptized on the spot.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Chris said:


> I really don't like these threads, and I've learned that arguing these points divides us more than it unites us. However, I want to address this specific point:
> 
> Rich, have you considered that you may be making a categorical error in drawing an analogy between tongues and Baptism with regard to historic interpretation? Would you not agree that Baptism is a thing of an entirely different importance than tongues?



I never equated them Chris. I simply pointed out that the doctrines are argued for with the same argumentation.

If you ask a Pentecostal the reason he believes all Christians are supposed to speak in tongues then he'll point to the fact that every example we have in Acts, the laying on of hands caused all to speak in tongues.

Yes, the doctrines are different. No, it is not a categorical error, it is illustrative.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> I think you took my critique too seriously Rich to start a separate thread about it. But I am flattered. I should have made it more succinct to marginalize its significance since its not worth blowing out of proportion.



I wasn't placing a great deal of worth on your objection. It merely helped me illustrate a point that I've been making for some time. You need not participate if you do not wish to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

satz said:


> I don't know if you consider this a 'strong' argument, but this is how I see it;
> 
> I think 1 Peter 3:21 is a definitive verse on baptism because it actually tells us _what_ baptism is.
> 
> ...


Interesting choice of passages. What do you make of the fact that the baptism spoken of corresponds to Noah and the eighteen who were brought alive through the judgment.

The portion about "...answering God with a conscience...understand the gospel...understand the basic concept of baptism...." are not in the passage. You have to admit that those are ideas you already have formed somewhere else. If this is a foundational argument for believers baptism then you need to exegete precisely what it says.

The problem it has as well for you is that Peter is speaking of benefits of baptism in this passage in a sense that is only applied to the elect.



> As for the use of historical narrative, I would justify it this way. Regardless of the answer you come to on whether children are in the Covenant or not in the NT, or whether baptism is the new sign as a replacement to circumcision, I think you have to admit that the sign has _changed_. Circumcision was surgery performed on males only. Baptism is something you do with water to both males and females. There has been a change in the sign, so even if you think baptism is the new circumcision, it is not wrong to question if other specifics of the sign have changed. And with that in mind we look at the narrative passages that show baptism taking place. In that sense, how different is drawning 'believers-only' from the narrative passages from drawing 'women may now be baptised' from them?


I'm not stating that narrative is of no use. I'm asking Baptists to provide me with the basis for their doctrine. If you agree that the basis for your doctrine is historical narrative then that is what we need to establish here.

I have arguments for my position but I'm keeping the thread focused.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

OK, for the rest, it looks like:

1. The Baptists acknowledge that point 1 - the fact that the NC is only with the elect cannot provide a basis for election.
2. Historical narrative undergirds the argument for the most part.
3. We may have a didactic argument from 1 Peter 3:21 but not to be forced to say more than it says and the connection to Noah needs to be resolved for those who would use it as well as the fact that the benefits spoken of are to the elect.

A few admin notes:

- I don't want Paedobaptists bringing in any arguments into this passage against Credo-baptism. I'm trying to focus this discussion.
- I don't understand why this is not useful for credo-Baptists. If you have arguments then present them. If I've presented what your arguments are then why is that not useful? There is a strange sense in which, if I lay out your arguments, tell you I think they are weak and ask you to convince me that your basis is strong then I'm somehow doing all a dis-service by allowing you to articulate and defend yourselves.

Incidentally, thank you Reformedman for your arguments.


----------



## reformedman (May 28, 2007)

@semperfi
No problem semper

@augusta


Augusta said:


> You are still asserting that Baptist ministers have to be a filter at all. Rich has shown clearly that you do not keep the CoG pure. God does. We are supposed to obey and that means baptizing everyone promiscuously wether you just met them on the road to Ephesus or whatever and let God sort them out.


They don't have to be a filter, they should be. Test the spirit.
A baptist minister nor a paedo minister keeps the CoG pure.
I hope you don't mean that you'd baptize anyone at all without speaking at length with them? You then should therefore, not warn anyone before the Lord's Supper. It should be a good thing to make people aware before the Lord's Supper, that their thoughts should be directed to inner evaluation and awareness that they should not partake if they are not right with their neighbors or theirselves. in my opinion



Augusta said:


> I wasn't specific enough. Baptizing all that responded to their preaching in faith. Philip and the eunuch had just met and he showed faith and was baptized on the spot.



Would you baptize anyone that walked through the door and didn't have any obvious desire? the eunuch demonstrated enough desire and fervency and who knows what else, in their private conversations, that Philip was led to baptize him. We cannot say.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2007)

If the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by a believing spouse in the way Covenant theology suggests, shouldn’t we baptize the unbelieving spouse based upon the Covenant promises? Same with live in help or staff, shouldn’t they be baptized?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 28, 2007)

Short answer: No. The question assumes certain things about how a paedo-baptist understands 1 Cor. 7:14. We don't baptize children _because_ (in the sense that the one entails the other) they are holy. They are holy, and in that sense are fit subjects for baptism. But just being "holy" is an insufficient condition (alone) to entail baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

Gentlemen, gentlemen...

One of the reasons Baptism threads are not useful is that they lose focus quickly.

I'm trying to keep this thread focused on Credo-Baptist arguments in favor of professor-only baptism.

Please help me....


----------



## JM (May 28, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Short answer: No. The question assumes certain things about how a paedo-baptist understands 1 Cor. 7:14. We don't baptize children _because_ (in the sense that the one entails the other) they are holy. They are holy, and in that sense are fit subjects for baptism. But just being "holy" is an insufficient condition (alone) to entail baptism.



Thanks, I think I posted it in the wrong thread anyways.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Thus, in summary:
> 
> 1. Baptists usually try to argue for the perfection of the New Covenant and that its membership is the Elect alone.
> 2. Even if point 1 is granted, Baptists then must admit that Election is not the basis of who they baptize at all. Why? Election is not something that can be detected by men.
> ...



I think this is a fair summary, provided that historical narrative includes some of the texts like 1 Peter 3 already mentioned.

Rich, I'm following the thread from time to time and wish I could participate more. I am swamped with other work. From my perspective the one thing I just can't see is that circumcision is replaced by baptism. I've seen the verses used by Paedos (at least I think I have), but they don't persuade me.

So the net effect to me is, if we have at least a hint from the narratives suggesting credobaptism and little else to go on but a strained and (at least for me) difficult exegesis of verses regarding the covenant as it relates to Israel, I find it easier to believe credobaptism.

Nevertheless, I appreciate what you are trying to do, even if you perceive some of us as shirking our responsibilities to defend the position. I just don't have time.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2007)

reformedman said:


> Both paedo and credo believe that the nc security is for the elect alone, but the biblical example of that ordinance has always been done to confessors only.
> Are all confessors, elect? NO
> Are all believers infants, elect? NO
> 
> ...



Thank you for posting this.


----------



## JM (May 28, 2007)

Any thoughts on Gill's arguments?



> Firstly, The baptism of all nations is not commanded; but the baptism only of those who are taught. If infants, as a part of all nations are to be baptised because they are "of all nations", then the infants of unbelievers ought to be baptised as well as the infants of Christians
> 
> First they teach all nations, then dip those that are taught in water, for it cannot be that the body should receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul has before received the truth of faith." And so says Athanasius, " Wherefore the Saviour does not simply command to baptize; but first says, teach, and then baptize thus, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; that faith might come of teaching, and baptism be perfected."
> 
> ...


 BAPTISM. From " A Body of Divinity" Pub 1770.

rest is here


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

victorbravo said:


> I think this is a fair summary, provided that historical narrative includes some of the texts like 1 Peter 3 already mentioned.
> 
> Rich, I'm following the thread from time to time and wish I could participate more. I am swamped with other work. From my perspective the one thing I just can't see is that circumcision is replaced by baptism. I've seen the verses used by Paedos (at least I think I have), but they don't persuade me.
> 
> ...


Thanks Vic. No rule that says you can't come back to this thread later. There's a part of me that wants to answer your objection but it's not the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 28, 2007)

JM said:


> Any thoughts on Gill's arguments?
> 
> BAPTISM. From " A Body of Divinity" Pub 1770.
> 
> rest is here



An argument from historical narrative...

I'm not denying that historical narrative has some force to it. I'm simply looking for more than: "From all appearances, we can conclude they're doing this because...."


----------

