# Question for Paedo Baptists



## timmopussycat

An interesting discussion on another thread led me to the following thoughts. 

John 1:12 tells me that it is those "who received Christ and believed in his name" who have the right to become children of God. When Rom. 10:14 asks me "...how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" it would seem to indicate that hearing with understanding necessarily atedates believing, unless you can show by GNC from other Scriptures that this conclusion is not "necessary". And hearing with understanding certainly involves "verbal" as a precondition for faith.

Gal 3:7 tells me that it is "those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Hebrews 11:1 tells me that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen". For someone to have the right to be recognized as a child of Abraham, he or she must be hoping for some things and be certain of things he or she cannot see. How can you hope for something that you cannot articulate or be certain of the realities of things not seen unless those concepts have been explained verbally or in writing? 

It seems to me that a GNC consequence of these Scriptures, unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary by GNC deduction from other Scriptures, is that understanding is a prerequisite for recognizing the existance of faith, (an exception of course may be made for those beyond infancy who are incapable of responding to the preached or written word OLC 10:3) and how else is that understanding to be recognized unless that understanding can be communicated verbally or in writing?

If the above paragraphs put forward a necessary conclusion reached from Scriptural premises, it would seem that credo-baptism must be seen as the only biblical mode of Baptism. 

Now for this conclusion to be proven incorrect, two of two things must happen. 
1) The conclusion reached in the above paragraphs must be shown to be illogical and 
2) It must be shown by GNC from other Scriptures that IB is biblically justifiable.

Note: establishing point 2) without establishing point 1) won't prove the matter.

If any PB would like to establish either points 1) or 2) go ahead.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Can credo-baptists claim to baptize only those who have saving faith and are infallibly regenerate and in union with Christ?

If one received believer’s baptism and subsequently is discovered not to have had saving faith, must he be baptized again?

Credo-baptists are not recognizing the distinction between the visible and invisible church; and seem to claim to know more than they can possibly know about the spiritual state of the candidate for baptism.

And, when Jesus says of infants, “Of such is the kingdom of God” (or “kingdom of heaven”), what is the kingdom of which he speaks?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

From the London *Baptist* Confession of Faith:


> Paragraph 3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit;10 who works when, and where, and how He pleases;11 so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 10 John 3:3, 5, 6
> 11 John 3:8


----------



## Poimen

Re: John 1:12

This has been discussed before (and the last thread is still open). 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f17/john-1-11-13-infant-baptism-9434/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/how...e-teaching-john-1-12-13-infant-baptism-37785/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-1-12-13-baptism-revisited-38633/


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Try putting your claims/conclusion made in your paragraphs into a syllogism. How can your view be "shown" to be illogical when not a single premise in your text even uses the term "baptism"? You've made a conclusion drawn from unstated premises smuggled in.

I'm not playing. I don't see why it should be requisite on any paedo-baptist to show:

HOW *you* arrive at credo-baptism, something you don't argue for, and then work to refute it.

And since you've already stated that you don't care if I CAN demonstrate #2 by GNC, I won't waste your time on that either.


----------



## Whitefield

Ok, I just did a search on what GNC is an acronym for, I wonder if any of these would apply:
Guidance, Navigation, and Control	
Graduated Non-Convexity 
Graph-Node Coloring	
Generalized Nyquist Criterion

What in world does GNC mean?


----------



## LawrenceU

Good and Necessary Consequence


----------



## Seb

GNC = Good and Necessary Consequence.

oops parallel posted. Missed it by that much.


----------



## A.J.

timmopussycat said:


> If any PB would like to establish either points 1) or 2) go ahead.



Tim, these are texts worthy of discussion. But I agree with Rev. Buchanan that you have not established your premises. I am not yet a full-blown Reformed Paedo-Baptist, but as I have mentioned in the other baptism threads, I am more comfortable with being one than being a Baptist. Here is how I would see those texts. 

Reformed Paedo-Baptists would emphasize the distinction between those who are in the covenant narrowly, and those who are in it broadly (Rom. 2:28-29, 9:6; Rom. 11, etc.). It is true that God's Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only. That is in fact the confessional Reformed position. 



> The Larger Catechism
> 
> Q31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[1]
> 
> 1. Gal. 3:16; Rom. 5:15-21; Isa. 53:10-11



The texts you quoted emphasize this. But when God administers his grace, he does not just embrace individuals. He embraces confessors and their families. That was his pattern in the OT (Gen. 7:1, 17:9-14; Deut. 29:10-14). And whatever changes the New Covenant has brought, it is this household principle that was _never_ abrogated. The NT pattern in administering the sign remains the same. It is given to confessors and their families (Acts 2:38-39, 11:14-15, 16:14-15, 31:31-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). It is _not_ the case that the Bible teaches that _only believers_ are baptized. The apostolic example is that entire _households are baptized_. 

Reformed Paedo-Baptists are not surprised to read that the NT Church itself is called by Scripture as God's household (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17; cf. Heb. 3). The Apostle Paul is also clear that this community of faith includes children (Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20). Reformed theologians have asked this question again and again: if the Baptist understanding of the New Covenant, the nature of the Church, and the subjects (or objects) of baptism is true, why does the NT speak of households in the receiving of the covenant sign of baptism _at all_? Why is the Church called the _household_ of God? 

What often gets lost in discussions about the nature of the New Covenant is that other OT prophecies (aside from Jer. 31:31-34) that speak of it are usually left out, probably unintentionally. What is amazing about these texts is that they specifically and explicitly include the children of believers. Examples include but are not limited to Ps. 103:17-18; Isa. 44:3, 59:20-21, 61:9, 65:23; Ezek. 37:24-28. (I am indebted to what Puritan John Owen, Prof. Samuel Miller, and Rev. Bill Shishko of the OPC have written on these wonderful texts.) The Bible reader need not even leave the book of Jeremiah. The prophet was not ambiguous when he wrote, 



> *And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.* I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for *their own good and the good of their children after them*. I will make with them an *everlasting covenant*, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. - Jer. 32:38-40 (ESV emphasis added)



With this in mind, it is perfectly understandable why the New Covenant prophecy in the previous chapter was stated in the way it was stated. 



> “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a *new covenant* with the *house of Israel* and the *house of Judah*, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the *house of Israel* after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. *And I will be their God, and they shall be my people*. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” - Jer. 31:31-34 (ESV emphasis added)



The New Covenant is made with the _house_ of Israel and with _house_ of Judah, and this is for the good of God's people and _their children_ with them! Given this broader OT redemptive-historical context, I still do not see why texts like Luke 18:15-17, Acts 2:38-39, 1 Cor. 7:14, etc., and the examples of household baptisms in the NT should be interpreted in the way the Baptist insists that they should be interpreted. 

Like Rom. 9:6, the texts you quoted simply say that no one is saved by being born as Abraham's physical descendant. The Reformed Paedo-Baptist must ask: But how do these texts refute infant baptism? The lesson we learn from verses like these is that person is a true seed of Abraham and therefore a child of God only by faith in the Lord Jesus. Anathema to Reformed Paedo-Baptists if they teach otherwise. Being born into a believing family never guaranteed salvation. Ishmael and Esau were born to believing families, and yet they were reprobates. This was true in the OT, and is still true in the NT. There _are_ Ishmaels and Esaus among the children of many believers. And Reformed Paedo-Baptists will be quick to point that out. But this Biblical truth does not do away with the equally Biblical truth that God works through families and uses them as a means in calling his elect to repentance and faith. It is for this reason entire households in both the OT and the NT are embraced as members of God's covenant community. OT Israel was God's house, and the NT Church is God's house (see texts above). God deals with families so that there will be a people for Himself acknowledging His Lordship and His faithfulness to His covenant promise from generation to generation (Deut. 7:9; Ps. 79:13; Luke 1:50-55). 

These two Biblical truths therefore co-exist: No one is saved by being born into a believing family, but God uses the family as a means of converting His people. The Christian family after all is the place where people from their infancy or childhood are taught to obey their parents _in the Lord_, and are brought up in the discipline and instruction _of the Lord_ (Eph. 6:1-4). The problem I see with much of Baptist polemics against infant baptism is that it tends to pit individual responsibility against family solidarity when the Bible does not require us to choose one and reject the other. God's demands have always been the same: repentance and faith in Him. Family solidarity does not undermine that. God will hold every individual responsible for what he has done here on earth. But in His excellent plan, God is pleased to use families to teach people about Who He is and what the gospel of His Son is all about. Prof. John Murray's words are helpful here. 



> There is ... the representative principle which is embedded in the Scripture and is woven into the warp and woof of the administration of grace in the world. When we appreciate this we can understand how readily the apostles would apply this principle in the dispensing of the ordinances of grace.
> 
> - John Murray, _Christian Baptism_, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980), 66



I am not yet totally convinced of infant baptism, but this is how I presently see the nature of the paedo-credo debate. His covenant community, the Church, is a family of families, not a family of individuals whose children are excluded from God's household of faith until after these little ones profess faith for themselves. I agree with my Reformed Paedo-Baptist brethren that in all of this, it is the Baptist who must assume the burden of proof. _Where has God abrogated this household principle?_ The Baptist answers to this question unfortunately have not satisfied me. Thanks for asking.


----------



## semperveritas

Paedo-baptists seek to defend the unity of the covenant in their arguments against baptists. But baptists embrace the covenant of grace in its proper unfolding and development in redemptive history and its relationship to Jesus Christ.

We affirm with paedo-baptists the sign of the covenant in the OT was circumcision and the sign of the covenant in the NT is baptism. We also affirm they both signify regeneration.

WE part ways there. 
Regeneration is the fulfillment of circumcision not baptism-baptism is only it's NT counterpart.
The covenant of grace unfolded over redemptive history to reveal more and more of the same truth, namely salvation in Christ. Those covenant embraced types and shadows, promise and fulfillment-all culminating and fulfilled in the finished work of Christ in the New Covenant, the types and shadows being no more.

Circumcision while signifying regeneration by faith in Christ also had types and shadows associated with it which passed away with Christ. There were nationalistic and ethnic ties associated with it which were not spiritual. God told Abraham he would be the father of many nations and he was to set them apart by circumcision. He was also told that the spiritual promise of the seed was only in Isaac-meaning the promises were NOT to all the seed, but the nationalistic promises of a people and land were for all the circumcised.
In the NT Christ was THE SEED and fulfilled all of the promises including spiritual and physical. Yet now the only remaining in their fulness is Christ and union with Him-the temple, land and people are done away with as are their relationships with the carnal, non-believing offspring.
We know that because all of the passages dealing with Christian baptism in their context deal with repentant believers. No promises are forfeited to children of believers as even in the OT only the elect were given the promise of salvation so to say all children of believers have Gods promise is false. 
The nature of the sign of circumcision in its relation to redemptive history looked forward to redemption at the cross(yes people were still saved by Christ ) Baptism looks backward to a redemption already professed to be attained by believers. There is no forward looking language to the baptized community in the NT calling them to baptize their hearts etc as the OT did becuase the nationalistic land and people aspects have been done away and now only those who profess are given the sign (per NT texts) Baptists nowhere claim their churches are perfect as its very possible for hypocrites and false professors to fool the elect. But we baptize based upon the context of NT texts associated with baptism. 
The texts which explain the significance of baptism ONLY speak in the past tense with the assumption the receipient has made a credible profession of faith. Rom 6, Gal 3, 1 Pet 3, etc,etc. They never(like circumcision) speak in an anticipatory manner encouraging the recipient to attain the thing signified! That is a linchpin argument no paedo baptist can refute. 
The arguments from household baptism seem tenous at best and exegesis of each instance yields much less in favor for the paedo position and should not be used as to build a doctrine of extreme importance upon.
Children who do not receive baptism in infancy miss absolutely nothing of the grace of God. Not only are they in harmony with NT baptismal texts, they still are raised in godly homes, preached the gosple promise that all who believe will be justified and have union with Christ-and then be given the sign that they are assumed to posses said union(based upon a profession which could be false)
The arguments that how could God narrow the scope of his covenantal grace is moot. Nothing is narrowed. SO they dont have the sign. What is the sign a presbyterian child has-Does he have a sort of half way salvation or guarantee of salvation that a baptist child does not have? Only the elect throughout the ages were promised they would be saved. The nationalistic, forward looking apects of the convenantal sign in the OT were done away with-now in the NT it is only the spiritual significance that is paramount as the covenant of grace has been fulfilled in Christ and the language of the NT is only those in Christ are heirs and have right to the sign for no national significance is tied to it. Let us leave all dispensational baggage(types and shadows-i.e land, temple, Jerusalem, circumcision, ethnic and lineal membership in external national covenants behind) and let the fulfillment of the New Covenant, its people, its signs and their significance be united as they are in the NT.


----------



## Jon 316

Is it not the case that infant baptism is 'read into' the scriptures rather than drawn out from the scriptures? Not to mention the fact church history taints our interpretation. The process in scripture seems to be repent, believe and be baptised.


----------



## Prufrock

Jon 316 said:


> Is it not the case that infant baptism is 'read into' the scriptures rather than drawn out from the scriptures?



Nope.


----------



## Rocketeer

A.J., that was one great post.



Semperveritas said:


> He was also told that the spiritual promise of the seed was only in Isaac-meaning the promises were NOT to all the seed, but the nationalistic promises of a people and land were for all the circumcised.



You are supposing, then, that Esau was not circumcised? I am sure he was, and he still did not belong to the Lord's people, nor was his offspring with Jacob's, nor did he receive the spiritual promises: yet, he was of the seed of Isaac, and he was circumcised (like Ishmael was, Genesis 17:26).

Also, Paul, at least, had a clear family/covenant view:



1 Corinthians 7:12-16 said:


> To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. *Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. *15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?



The underlying assumption very clearly is that the children of two believers are holy, and the text states that even the children of one believer and an unbeliever are holy, because they are the children of a believer, whereas other children are unclean. If Paul calls them holy, that is to say, set apart from the world, how would he not affirm that by the sign of the covenant, I wonder?

Note that either man or wife being a believer sanctifies the entire family(!). That sounds like a powerful statement in favor of the view that the covenant and its sign extends to the children.


----------



## Hippo

Jon 316 said:


> Is it not the case that infant baptism is 'read into' the scriptures rather than drawn out from the scriptures? Not to mention the fact church history taints our interpretation. The process in scripture seems to be repent, believe and be baptised.



Only if you take the extreme position that households which were the subject of recorded baptisms did not contain infants. Of course when baptism was first instituted the pattern had to be that the head of the household had to repent, believe and be baptised, but when he was baptised he was baptised with his household. 

I am always glad when Church history "taints" my interpretation, it is the Church that interprets scriptures.


----------



## MW

John 1:12 and Gal. 3:7 certainly speak to the point as to the grace signified by baptism, but they are not regulative of the administration of the sign itself. Only the sacerdotal methodology finds the sacraments in every reference to grace. Rom. 10:14 is obviously applicable to those who can actually hear, just as the command to work in order to eat is applicable to those who can work. And the best commentators on Heb. 11:1 are at pains to point out that the words used to describe faith are objective in nature, and should not be translated with subjective terms like "assurance."


----------



## toddpedlar

Jon 316 said:


> Is it not the case that infant baptism is 'read into' the scriptures rather than drawn out from the scriptures? Not to mention the fact church history taints our interpretation. The process in scripture seems to be repent, believe and be baptised.



Every example of a baptism on profession of belief that we find in the Bible came in a period of time that is minuscule in the history of the church - and in every single case are "missionary baptisms" - that is baptisms of people to whom the gospel was brought for the first time. That's really all we have.

Now in my opinion, the  exclusive credobaptist practice cannot properly be argued based on those exclusive examples. Both credo and paedo argue that when a person learns of the gospel and professes faith, he should be baptized. The question becomes do you stop there, or not. Credos say yes. Paedos say that the household baptism narratives give examples of whole houses being baptized, and the continuity with the covenant of grace's sign of circumcision (which was given to whole families also, as well as children born into households of faith) is strong evidence for baptism of infants born into professing homes. 

The Bible offers a very small slice of history - and its explicit teaching is that 1) professing believers are to be baptized and b) households under those that professed also were baptized. What we do with that explicit teaching is what divides.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Todd,
It is also the case that these kinds of example-appeals are to narrative portions of Scripture. It really doesn't matter which side of the debate claims what as to example. Both sides must appeal to a wider range of Scripture-teaching, particularly didactic portions, to establish the meaning and proper subjects of baptism.


----------



## MW

toddpedlar said:


> Every example of a baptism on profession of belief that we find in the Bible came in a period of time that is minuscule in the history of the church - and in every single case are "missionary baptisms" - that is baptisms of people to whom the gospel was brought for the first time. That's really all we have.



That is true; and of the facts we do possess there is not one example of the child of a believer being baptised on his own profession of faith. So the antipaedobaptist burden of proof so far as examples are concerned cannot be met in favour of their distinctive position. Further, it requires one to reject the NT testimony concerning OT baptisms in which children are explicitly stated to be baptised on the basis of household acceptance into covenant with God, e.g., Noah's family in the ark and the families of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea. It is simply a false presumption of the antipaedobaptist that the NT alone is our rule of faith and life, especially considering that the NT expressly refers back to the OT to substantiate its teaching on the significance of baptism.


----------



## A.J.

Jon 316 said:


> Is it not the case that infant baptism is 'read into' the scriptures rather than drawn out from the scriptures? Not to mention the fact church history taints our interpretation. *The process in scripture seems to be repent, believe and be baptised*.



Brother, that's absolutely true. Converts from Judaism and paganism would have to repent and believe _before_ they can be baptized. But what do we do with their children? Should we apply God's initiatory sign on them because they are under the covenant authority of the believing heads of their respective households (the Reformed view) or do we exclude them from God's community of faith until they themselves can profess repentance and faith in the Lord (the Baptist view)?

In the OT, there was a distinction between the terms of admission of a pagan convert to Judaism, and the terms of admission for his children. The pagan would have to profess repentance and faith in the God of Abraham before he was to receive circumcision. But his children despite their young age would be circumcised along with him. In short, there was a household circumcision. This was done because of God's promise (Gen. 17:7) and His command (Gen. 17:9-14; Gen. 18:19). 

The question we now have to consider is: _Where is this distinction removed in the NT?_ Don't we read the same promise (Luke 18:15-17; Acts 2:38-39; 1 Cor. 7:14; cf. Jer. 32:38-40) and the same household pattern (Acts 3:25; Acts 10:44-48 with 11:14-15; Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16: 31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16; cf. Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17) in the pages *of the NT* in the early days of the *New Covenant* which is the fulfillment of the *Abrahamic Covenant* itself (Rom. 4; Gal. 3)? 

Membership in God's covenant community was something the Jews and the early Christians took seriously. To fail to have the Christ-appointed initiatory ordinance is to be considered seperate from Christ, to be outside the commonwealth of Israel, and to be a stranger from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12; cf. 1 Tim. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:12). Are the children of believers now excluded from God's covenant community? The Apostle Paul doesn't seem to share that opinion. He in fact addresses children (Eph. 6:1-14; Col. 3:23) as included among the *(visible) saints* (Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1), and as members of *God's household* (Eph. 2:19) which he indicates elsewhere as *the church* itself (1 Tim. 3:15; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). If we consider the NT evidence, it becomes clear that nowhere in its pages do we find any example of children born of believing families being baptized only later in life (i.e., when they become adults) after a profession of faith. If the Baptist position is true, this should have been the standard practice for the children of the early Christians. But the testimony of the early church says that it isn't. 

Last night, I was amazed to find out in my Bible study that Scripture seems to use the words *families* and *nations* interchangeably (Gen. 10:5; Gen. 10:32). Notice how this is also seen in the transtion from OT promise to NT fulfillment. 

The *Promise*



> And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse and in you *all the families* of the earth will be blessed. - Gen. 12:3 (NASB emphasis mine)



The *Fulfillment*



> The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the *gospel* beforehand to Abraham, saying, "*ALL THE NATIONS* WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU."
> - Gal. 3:8 (NASB emphasis mine)



The point is that these texts are important in understanding what the Lord Jesus meant in His Great Commission where he instituted the sacrament of baptism. 



> And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of *all the nations*, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
> - Matt. 28:18-20 (NASB emphasis mine)



This is echoed in the Acts of the Apostles as the gospel was preached to the Jews (cf. Rom. 4:17-18).



> It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED *ALL THE FAMILIES* OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' - Acts 3:26 (NASB emphasis mine)



As the gospel spread to the Gentiles, the faithful apostles obeyed the Lord by administering the covenant sign and initiatory rite of baptism to *families* (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 10:44-48 with 11:14-15; Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16: 31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16; cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-4 w/ Deut. 29:10-15; 2 Peter 3:19-22). These families are from the *nations* as prophesied in the OT (Psa. 22:27; Isa. 52:15 [Isaiah prophesied that the Lord Jesus would _sprinkle_ the *nations*) and as confirmed by the NT (1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 12:5; Rev. 15:3-4). They together compose the NT church which Scripture calls as a holy *nation* (1 Peter 2:9), a designation which God originally used for OT Israel (Exodus 19:6). As mentioned already, this church is God's household of faith (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17), that is, His *family*. I am convinced that a covenantal theme such as this one is more consistent with the Reformed model than with the Baptist one. 

Also, I agree that church history _does_ taint our interpretation of Scripture. That is one of the primary reasons many believers reject infant baptism. They wonder how brilliant people like the Church Fathers, the Protestant Reformers, the Dutch Reformed theologians, the Scottish Presbyterians, the English Puritans, the Princeton Seminary professors, the American Southern Presbyterians, etc., indeed historic Christianity itself could have believed in such a "Romish tradition" like "baby sprinkling."


----------



## semperveritas

Rocketeer said:


> A.J., that was one great post.
> 
> 
> 
> Semperveritas said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was also told that the spiritual promise of the seed was only in Isaac-meaning the promises were NOT to all the seed, but the nationalistic promises of a people and land were for all the circumcised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are supposing, then, that Esau was not circumcised? I am sure he was, and he still did not belong to the Lord's people, nor was his offspring with Jacob's, nor did he receive the spiritual promises: yet, he was of the seed of Isaac, and he was circumcised (like Ishmael was, Genesis 17:26).
> 
> Also, Paul, at least, had a clear family/covenant view:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. *Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. *15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The underlying assumption very clearly is that the children of two believers are holy, and the text states that even the children of one believer and an unbeliever are holy, because they are the children of a believer, whereas other children are unclean. If Paul calls them holy, that is to say, set apart from the world, how would he not affirm that by the sign of the covenant, I wonder?
> 
> Note that either man or wife being a believer sanctifies the entire family(!). That sounds like a powerful statement in favor of the view that the covenant and its sign extends to the children.
Click to expand...


I think you miss the entire point of my quote about Isaac. Yes all the seed owned the nationalistic ethnic promises God gave to Abraham which were tied to circumcision(hence Esau's reception of the sign) but only through Isaac shall thy SEED be called-the regenerative lineage only passed through the Divine choice. But in the NT all the national, ethnic land and people associations of the covenant(which were shadowy) passed away and were fulfilled in Christ-so yes in the OT all the children(even the ones Abraham knew God would not pass his salvation onto were given the sign of the covenant-but not so in the New Covenant. To find that datum you must look in the NT. The NT speaks nothing of nations or land or people or physical lineage now that THE SEED has come in the fullness of time. The only reference point of continuity between the New and Old is Christ and regeneration by faith alone. The OT is replete with admonitions to the unbelieving offspring to repent and be circumcised in heart(to attaai the significance of the the sign they were given at birth)but the new is oddly absent with that. Quite odd. Not really. The NT baptismal passages only say the regenerate, those who have received the the thing signified(the fulfillment of the New Covenant)are given baptism. I challenge any paedo baptist to exegete any baptismal text in context showing that its significance reaches to the unregenerate as the sign of the covenant did in the OT. It cannot be done. 

Since you quote 1 cor 7 tell me of the holiness of which Paul speaks. Is it the hagios of the believer as opposed to the infidel? Is it a secondary tier denoting regeneration for the husband has the same attribute? So are there two levels of hagios? Since I have a 6 year old, and both my wife and I are believers does that mean he is holy and regenerate and in no need of redemption, or was he born that way or given that staus through being born of the flesh or the will of man(contra John 1:12-13)? Were the pots and utensils of the sanctuary regenerate or merely separate and used for holy purposes? I would say the latter as are my children until they profess and posses faith in Yeshua. All children of believers are set apart from the wicked influences of the unregenerate. They have godly parents who raise them in the Lord, they hear the word, take them to church, etc-which doesnt mean they are saved but only raised under the teachings of our Lord. The same is true of the unbelieving spouse. These individuals are hagios(separated unto the influences of the working of the SPirit in the word,etc._NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH as there is no faith implied, and salvation is always and only by faith)Esau and Ishmael were hagios-they were not raised in a philistine or canaanite home with moon gods, but were instructed in the faith of Yahweh-but Esau and Ishmael's hagios was not the same as Isaac and Jacobs-they were regenerate(though all received the sign because the sign of the covenant in its OT phase of redemptive history not only spoke of regeneration but had to have nationalistic and ethnic ties with a land, people and temple to be able to bring about THE SEED and fulfillment of the covenant(OF which baptism IS the sign) and therefore only those IN CHIRST are to have the sign of union with Him!


----------



## Rocketeer

A.J., that was another great post. Really, semperveritas, you should try and refute him, not me...



semperveritas said:


> I think you miss the entire point of my quote about Isaac. Yes all the seed owned the nationalistic ethnic promises God gave to Abraham which were tied to circumcision(hence Esau's reception of the sign) but only through Isaac shall thy SEED be called-the regenerative lineage only passed through the Divine choice.



Yes, I think I do, then. So what is your point? Because it looks an awful lot like _my point_, namely, that under the old covenant, all were circumcised, and all received the promise, but not all were saved; they were only saved through faith (as Paul argues in his letter to the Hebrews). Therefore, by analogy, the children under the new covenant are baptized, and all receive the promises of the covenant, but not all are saved; they are only saved through faith.



semperveritas said:


> The NT speaks nothing of nations or land or people or physical lineage now that THE SEED has come in the fullness of time.



False.



Acts 2:38-39 (ESV said:


> 38 And Peter said to them, “*Repent and be baptized* every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 *For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off*, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”



Paul also affirms this when he speaks of the new covenant and quotes one of the prophets:



Hebrews 8:6-13 said:


> 6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says:http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Hebrews+8#f3
> “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
> when I will establish *a new covenant with the house of Israel
> and with the house of Judah* ,
> 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
> on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
> For they did not continue in my covenant,
> and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
> 10 For this is *the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
> * after those days, declares the Lord:
> I will put my laws into their minds,
> and write them on their hearts,
> and I will be their God,
> and they shall be my people.
> 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
> and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
> for they shall all know me,
> from the least of them to the greatest.
> 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
> and I will remember their sins no more.”
> 
> 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.





semperveritas said:


> The NT baptismal passages only say the regenerate, those who have received the the thing signified (the fulfillment of the New Covenant) are given baptism.



Scriptures, please. Where?



semperveritas said:


> I challenge any paedo baptist to exegete any baptismal text in context showing that its significance reaches to the unregenerate as the sign of the covenant did in the OT. It cannot be done.



Which baptismal texts? Scriptures, please.



semperveritas said:


> Since you quote 1 cor 7 tell me of the holiness of which Paul speaks. Is it the hagios of the believer as opposed to the infidel? Is it a secondary tier denoting regeneration for the husband has the same attribute? So are there two levels of hagios? Since I have a 6 year old, and both my wife and I are believers does that mean he is holy and regenerate and in no need of redemption, or was he born that way or given that staus through being born of the flesh or the will of man(contra John 1:12-13)? Were the pots and utensils of the sanctuary regenerate or merely separate and used for holy purposes? I would say the latter as are my children until they profess and posses faith in Yeshua. All children of believers are set apart from the wicked influences of the unregenerate. They have godly parents who raise them in the Lord, they hear the word, take them to church, etc-which doesnt mean they are saved but only raised under the teachings of our Lord. The same is true of the unbelieving spouse.



How very noble: to set up a straw man and proceed to beat it down. I will quote myself, then:



Rocketeer said:


> If Paul calls them holy, that is to say, set apart from the world...



Set apart. As in, set apart in the covenant, just like the children were in OT times. Find me one text that excludes children from the new covenant. 



semperveritas said:


> These individuals are hagios(separated unto the influences of the working of the SPirit in the word,etc._NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH as there is no faith implied, and salvation is always and only by faith)Esau and Ishmael were hagios-they were not raised in a philistine or canaanite home with moon gods, but were instructed in the faith of Yahweh-but Esau and Ishmael's hagios was not the same as Isaac and Jacobs-they were regenerate(though all received the sign because the sign of the covenant in its OT phase of redemptive history not only spoke of regeneration but had to have nationalistic and ethnic ties with a land, people and temple to be able to bring about THE SEED and fulfillment of the covenant(OF which baptism IS the sign) and therefore only those IN CHIRST are to have the sign of union with Him!



You argue my case almost eloquently. Indeed, there is a difference in the holiness of the unbelieving husband and that of the believing wife, and you nailed that perfectly well. So the logical next step is then not to exclude the children from, but to include them in the covenant by baptizing them.

Also, you say that the new covenant has nothing to do with a land and a city and a nation and all the rest, but I suggest that is most wrong. We have a heavenly Canaan and a heavenly Jerusalem, with a perfect sacrifice and a heavenly King, Prophet and High Priest.

The one thing sadly lacking in your entire post is the Scripture. You are just arguing off the top of your head, where you should find Scriptures to explicitly support the exclusion of the children from the covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

semperveritas,
Please fix your signature so that it is compliant with the board-standards. Thank you.



semperveritas said:


> I challenge any paedo baptist to exegete any baptismal text in context showing that its significance reaches to the unregenerate as the sign of the covenant did in the OT. It cannot be done.


Brother, what do *YOU* mean by "significance"? It plain from what you wrote elsewhere that you recognize that there is _spiritual_ as well as merely _formal_ significance to such things.

Name me ONE Reformed theologian who teaches that the spiritual realities of the covenant sign attach to the reprobate, or have any efficacy toward the elect apart from faith's personal apprehension. As for elect but as yet unregenerate, do you claim that such spiritual truth has NO bearing on him? How can you say that, given what you've admitted already about the OT covenant sign?

I am constantly surprised at the unblushing confidence by which these assertions are made. It is _painfully_ clear that you have never troubled yourself to read any treatments of such passages by those with whom you disagree. 

Let me just offer you one instance. I'm not asking you to agree with it, just pointing out that it is NOT an _unreasonable_ or _illogical_ conclusion from the language of the passage.

This is from the ASV, which I've chosen because of it's "literalness" as well as for the fact that it retains (in v34) the Greek word-order of the original.Act 16:29 And *he* called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, 
Act 16:30 and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must *I* do to be saved? 
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and *thou* shalt be saved, thou and thy house. 
Act 16:32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house. 
Act 16:33 And *he* took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately. 
Act 16:34 And *he* brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God. ​Now let's look at the passage. The subject (or object) is the Jailer, through the entire passage, where it isn't Paul&Silas. That is to say, the EVERY action of this passage--expressed in either VERB or PARTICIPLE--if it isn't Paul&Silas, it is the Jailer, alone or with "his".v29
He called (participle--Nominative,Masculine, Singular, NMS)
He sprang in (verb--3rd Person Singular, 3PS)
He _being_ trembling (participle--NMS)
He fell down (verb--3MS)
v30
He brought out (participle--NMS)
He said (verb--3MS)
I might be saved (verb--1st Person Singular, 1PS)
v31
You believe (verb--2nd Person Singular, 2PS)
You will be saved (verb--2PS)
v32
No action except for Paul&Silas
v33
He took (participle--NMS)
He washed (verb--3MS)
He was baptized (verb--3MS)
v34
He brought up (participle--NMS)
He set before (verb--3MS)
He rejoiced (verb--3MS)
He having believed (participle--NMS)​Now, can you understand why folks on our side of the aisle might take this passage as a great example of the principle of *federalism* at work? How it's just possible that maybe we've actually done a little bit of exegesis in our time?


What about the references to OTHERS in this passage?
Well, how are they referred to, and what is said about them?v31
You and the house of You (believe and will be saved)
v32
to Him and to all those in the house of Him (had the word of the Lord spoken to them)
v33
He and all those of Him (were baptized)
v34
He rejoiced {with his house} (panoike)​If we look at the four references to OTHERS see how they are invariably spoken of always in reference to the Jailer. Again, representation (covenant-language) is writ large.

What is said of them?1) individual faith is necessary for the salvation of anyone.
2) all were gathered for the preaching of the Lord
3) all were baptized
4) all rejoiced with the head of house​Every single one of these items we paedo-baptists believe, AND we apply them to EVERY SINGLE one of our homes.

I have 6 children *in my house*. The oldest is 8. I have followed this pattern, as has every *household* in my church.

Is every person in our church a "regenerate" person? Since we can't read hearts, and we don't think God has asked us to read the unreadable, that question isn't even important to us, since we don't baptize anyone on the basis of "regeneration". If my child is elect, then even if at this instant he is unregenerate, the promise is still for him, because he is one of those "...as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts: 2:39).

So, there's one passage exegeted, in context. You can disagree with it, but please don't make an _ignorant claim_ that we CAN'T do it. It doesn't have to be to your satisfaction.


----------



## OPC'n

A Puritan's Mind site here has a really good article on paedobaptism. I think it's really good because the writer of that article use to be credo baptist and knows from where the credo baptists come in their thinking. He is then able to show the down falls of both the credo and paedo's arguments, correct them, and lead people to sound doctrine concerning baptism which is naturally paedobaptism...


----------



## Mushroom

Albert, I've run out of thanks for today on PB, but man, do I want to thank you for your posts here! Excellent, accurate exegesis, brother. Others, like Rev. Buchanan, have done a fine job, too, but they're probably tired of me singing their praises - I've had so many occasions to do so. But it just truly encourages my heart to know that the Lord has planted men of such sound doctrine in those islands so dear to me.

Praise God!


----------



## discipulo




----------



## A.J.

I love all my Reformed Baptist brethren. When I left my Pentecostal church, Reformed Baptist pastors, and laymen and laywomen were the ones who encouraged me, and accepted me into their fellowship. They gave me books and tracts, preached sermons in my presence, allowed me to attend theology classes and a pastoral conference (I'm not a pastor) and answered all my questions. Reformed Baptist Dr. James White's work was instrumental in my discovery of Reformed Theology. (Thank you, Dr. White!) I emailed him to say thank you, and he was gracious enough to post my letter on his blog. But on the topic of baptism, however, I would have to disagree with them. 

The arguments used by semperveritas are the same ones that kept me baptistic. Here are my reasons why I disagree with him.

1) We must not confuse Moses with Abraham. The typological and therefore temporal role of ethnic Israel is one thing, the command to initiate children is another. If Peter meant something totally Baptist in Acts 2:38-39 in a day when God was making a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, I cannot imagine why he was so careless in the use of his words. Wouldn't the Jews be reminded of Gen. 17:7 (cf. Jer. 32:38-40)? 

2) As I study the doctrine of baptism, I have come to appreciate the Reformed distinction between the church invisible, and the church visible. This distinction is important since the Reformed view of the nature of the church is what the Baptist is _essentially_ attempting to refute. God does establish His Covenant of Grace with the elect. But when He administers His grace, the pattern He has set is that his initiatory sign be administered to families, not to isolated individuals (as Rev. Buchanan convincingly argues). That was His pattern in the OT (Gen. 17:9-14), and is still His pattern in the NT (Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16: 31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). 

3) There is also a tendency for the Baptist to pit individual responsibility against family solidarity. But as I have mentioned, the Bible does not require us to choose one and reject the other. Both are all over the Old and New Testaments. This is not an either-or thing, but a both-and. God will hold every individual accountable for his sins, and yet the Lord is pleased to use families in the history of redemption (even when some of the members of these families would later turn out to be reprobates, e.g., Ishmael and Esau). In both testaments, God embraced entire families as members of His covenant community. Households were circumcised, and households are baptized! 

4) Not all Baptists do this. But many Baptists do confuse the attitude of the unbelieving Israelites in their covenant with God, with God's original demands in that covenant. I think this is much more evident in dispensational literature, but even Reformed Baptists fall into the same error. A single example would suffice. 



> The first difference is found in verse 33 of Jeremiah 31. The Old Covenant was characterized by outward formalism. The New would be marked by inward spiritual life. This is not an absolute distinction but it is a marked contrast. Of course, there was spiritual religion and heart commitment to God in the Old Testament. Abraham's faith would put ours to shame. We must wonder if any but Christ Himself ever equaled the prayer life of David addressed in the Psalms. Moses spoke to God as face to face. Yet, these are refreshing streams in the midst of Old Testament attention to outward, formal, national religion. There is a mass of outward rules, a history of formal religion, a ponderous identification of church and nation. *Relatively little attention is given to inward life. If a man is circumcised, he is counted a Jew. If he is conformed to outward practices, he is called clean and welcome at the ceremonies of worship.* Paul tells us that this system of religion was like the strict tutor who tells a child what to do at every turn.
> 
> - Walter Chantry in Baptism and Covenant Theology (emphasis mine)



I don't have anything against Pastor Chantry at all. His works on soteriology are excellent. He is a gift to Christ's church. He was instrumental in the planting of many Reformed Baptist churches across North America in the previous decades. He was in many ways influential also in the growth of the now vibrant Reformed Baptist community in Southeast Asia (especially in The Philippines). 

Pastor Chantry's online article/booklet was re-published in a local Reformed Baptist church here. And as I read it again and again, I am dismayed to find that his statements are not what the Scriptures teach. *Deuteronomy 4-30* (cf. the entire book of Hebrews) refutes his assertion. This series of chapters detailing God's demands in His covenant with the nation of Israel ends with these words.



> “See, I have set before you [Israel] today life and good, death and evil. *If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply*, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. *But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear*, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that *I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him*, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.” - Deut. 30:15-20 (ESV emphasis added)



Don't we read the first and greatest commandment (Matt. 22:37-38) here? Moses told the Israelites to love the LORD their God with all of their being, but "relatively little attention is given to inward life" in the Old Covenant? I cannot accept such a low view of God's dealings with His OT people. 

5) The idea of sacramental union. I now see that it is impossible to do justice to the Bible's language of the sacraments if we deny the union between the sign and the thing signified. The sacraments are signs and seals of the _covenant_ of grace. What is often left out in discussions is the indispensable covenantal context of Scripture. Again, this is not true of all Reformed Baptists. But even some commit the error of failing to consider the broader redemptive-historical backdrop of the OT necessary in understanding the covenantal language of the NT. Thanks to Rich, and Rev. Matthew Winzer on this.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree A.J. In their zeal to establish the Baptistic position, I fear too many go out of their way to create an extremely low view of what Abraham and his posterity were essentially about. The Covenant sign of circumcision is fundamentally turned into a mere ethnic mark contra all the repeated admonitions in the OT Scriptures (not to mention the clear NT teachings) that it is so much more. 

Thus, when someting as crystal clear as Romans 4:11 arises, theological commitment forces them to even note that circumcision only signified and sealed Christ's righteousness to Abraham alone - forget federal identification everywhere else in the text. Abraham is father of the faithful but not with respect to what circumcision signified!

Anything to avoid allowing circumcision to signify and seal what the Scriptures state it does (or for that matter Baptism!). For if it does and it was applied to infants, then it completely destroys the ground on which Baptist theology stands.

Thus, even though Hebrews 11 puts our forefathers in the same pattern of salvation by faith that we find ourselves, they seemed to pursue this quite accidentally and _in spite of_ the "distractions" of circumcision and the Law. God, it seems, didn't give these to His people to direct them toward Christ but either visibly confused them or, worse, pointed them in the wrong direction altogether.


----------



## semperveritas

Assuming you all are correct can you tell all of your children after they are baptized in infancy, and while they still are infants, what St. Paul told the Romans and the Galatians?



> 3Do you not know that all of us(C) who have been baptized(D) into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were(E) buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as(F) Christ was raised from the dead by(G) the glory of the Father, we too might walk in(H) newness of life.





> 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.



As a baptist what can you do to convince me to become a paedobaptist. These passages link faith and baptism very closely. Colossians 2 makes the link of faith and baptism inseparable.



> In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.



This is the only imagery attached to baptism apart from washing in Acts 22, Eph 5, Tit 3:5. What language does the NT employ when speaking of baptisms significance for the infant. Was he buried and raised and clothed and washed? If not what. It seems the Catholics and Lutherans may at least take the passages literally and have them make sense for the infant. They are saved they say-look at the text. To the reformed they are in a covenant. What covenant? As far as I read in the Bible there are saved and unsaved, not a third group in some external covenant. Are children of believers in some halfway covenant witha bit more grace than unbelievers based upon birthright? To the reformed they are wet and have a promise. What promise? What promise do they have more than the child of a baptist? Again does the water wash, clothe, and unite the infant with Christ? If the children of believers are holy are they holy by birth or the water? The baptismal texts I quoted above speak the symbolism of washing, uniting, clothing. I know that is true of the believer who is baptised I can them what their baptism signified based upon acual Bible texts. The paedobaptist has no texts to explain what their baptism signified to them. What do you say, "Well Johnny if you believe your baptism is symbolic of your washing, clothing, and uniting with Jesus, your Savior-I mean, He;s not your savior yet because you are not saved yet so, but because Iam you have Gods promise He will save you if you believe and then baptism will mean something..?" Well as a baptist I told my son the gospel just like you tell your covenant children. My son believed at 4 and is a Christian by faith alone. He is baptised and his baptism is symbolic of the saving work God already wrought in him. I told him repent and believe and then be baptised because the promise was for me and my children. My son is in the New Covenant. He is in Christ by faith alone. He was not before he was saved. He was unsaved before he was saved as Paul said all are who are not in Christ-without hope and Christ, lost. But Gods promise of John 3:16 extended to my Son. Whoever believes includes my son



> Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
> 17" 'In the last days, God says,
> I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
> Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
> your young men will see visions,
> your old men will dream dreams.
> 18Even on my servants, both men and women,
> I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
> and they will prophesy.
> 19I will show wonders in the heaven above
> and signs on the earth below,
> blood and fire and billows of smoke.
> 20The sun will be turned to darkness
> and the moon to blood
> before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
> 21And everyone who calls
> on the name of the Lord will be saved.


Peter in answering his accusers of his apparent debauchery told them of the Messiah and the promise the "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" That is the only promise in Peters answer. Then later in verse 38 he tells them what to do. 
Repent and be baptized for the PROMISE is for you, and for your children and for all who are far off. What promise? The promise of salvation by calling on the name of the Lord. That promise is true, and the conditions are true as well. The initial hearers repented(implying faith) and were baptised and saved. For their children to be saved they too obey Peter's answer, as well as those who are afar off, and in the same manner and order. Unless that category to "your children" has a different standard and order of salvation as St. Peter commands. Repent and be baptised. 

But the reformed they turn Peters words upside. Notice Peter didnt say-"You guys repent and be baptized, you and those who are afar off. But your children they can do it backwards. For then to be saved they can be baptized first, then repent at some later pont years down the road and believe because they are in the covenant" NO. For them to be saved(the promise in verse 21, which is the same of which he attached to v.39 is attained via Peters instructions in verse 38.) But to just answer and say, "well it didnt work the same way for infant circumcision so its ok to change Peters order for my kids. That is the crux of the matter and where we baptists do not insert our logic into unspoken areas. I will rest with Peters command in the NT. His hearers asked and he answered. Repent and be baptized in that order. Peter also said baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience 1 pet 3:21. How does the infant appeal?
The reformed turn Pauls words upside down to. Romans 4-6 Faith first in chapter 4 and 5 then baptism is mentioned in chapter 6. Galatians 3:27-28 Faith first then baptism. This would make no sense to infants.
The great commision follows the same order. 


> Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


There is an order here. If our Lord speaks an order and He has all authority I for one dont want to assume and let mans logic pervert the word of God.
He says 
make disciples-how do you do that? Conversion/Regeneration! From hearing and believing the gospel one passes from darkness to light(only two categories in the bible)

then baptize them(the disciples who were saved out of all the nations or peoples of the world through the preaching of the gospel). 

then-teach them, feed them the word so they grow up in the faith. and so the cycle goes. 

notice the order Jesus used. He makes no caveats here, "Oh wait, except for your kids-go ahead and baptize them first, teach them everything, and then conversion/regeneration last" no.


We as baptists dont inject mans wisdom of a family solidarity into the doctrine of baptism when all the apostles and Jesus give us our marching orders with minute details as to how and in what order. Infant baptism is so confusing youve got virtually every group who practices it differing with eachother because the bible gives no instructions on it. Youve got dutch reformed with presumptive regeneration, others with no its because God promises all children of believers thay will be saved, others who say a seed of regeneration is planted within them at baptism,etc,etc. WHY because the scriptures say nothing of it. CLing to those household verses though and a cryptic verse in 1 cor 7. to build it on yet it contradicts the order sacred scripture commands of the NT believer.
make disciples-one is made by faith alone=regeneration(there is no such thing as an unregenerate disciple of Chirst) baptise that disciple, and then teach him. that is the order. show me otherwise


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> "show me otherwise"



Mike, brother, with all due respect, you aren't really asking to be *shown* anything.

You've made three lengthy posts in this thread, and in each case have received multiple responses to each one. But you haven't responded to anything that has been offered to your "questions."

You know what you believe, that's cool. But no one here is obliged to "meet" a series of never-ending challenges. You've received a few answers to some of your specific questions; how about interacting with some of them?


Oh, and by the way, Greek grammarian D.B.Wallace (a Baptist I believe) of Dallas Theo. Seminary has one of the standard Advanced Greek Grammar textbooks used in seminaries all across the country, including Reformed Seminaries.

He points out (correctly, in my opinion) that in Mt.28:19-20, the participles "baptizing" and "teaching" are properly classed as _participles of means_. The one actual verb that governs the sentence is "Make Disciples". "Go" is another participle, which is usually treated as _attendant circumstance_ or _temporal_, as some translations give it the sense "as you go...make disciples".

Therefore, the issue in the text is, that the disciples are to "make disciples," and HOW (means) are they to do this? Well, that would be by "baptizing" and "teaching".

"Making disciples" SURELY cannot mean that the APOSTLES are making such through regeneration or as if they were responsible for converting--that's exclusively a Spirit-function.

So, saying "made a disciple" is synonymous with "regeneration" is pretty clearly a reading into this passage a meaning taken from elsewhere. In a sense, that's fine, the whole Bible is a "context" after all, assuming that you are correct (which, of course I do not). But you are just flat out wrong about these verses establishing some sort of process-order.

Naturally, I'm willing to listen to some actual arguments that show why these participles (baptizing & teaching) are unlikely to be "means". But if they are, then this whole line of reasoning is shot. There is no "order"... except for the fact that baptism seems to come _before_ basic Christian doctrinal instruction. Actually I think the union of the two terms speaks more to simultaneity, rather than priority, but there is a basic priority to baptism as the entrance mark into the didactic setting.

But one thing is for sure: teaching Christ certainly doesn't come BEFORE baptism in this text.

Blessings.


----------



## A.J.

Another interesting note about Peter's citation of Joel's prophecy (which Mike/semperveritas quotes in his last post) in Acts 2 as being fulfilled in Christ is that in its orginal context, the people were being called to repent before God. And that is exactly what Peter is exhorting the Jews to do: repent of their sins, and be saved from their perverse generation! 

Peter cites Joel 2:28-32. In that same chapter (Joel 2), here is what we read. 



> “Yet even now,” declares the Lord,
> “*return to me with all your heart*,
> with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning;
> and rend your hearts and not your garments.”
> *Return to the Lord your God*,
> for he is gracious and merciful,
> slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love;
> and he relents over disaster.
> Who knows whether he will not turn and relent,
> and leave a blessing behind him,
> a grain offering and a drink offering
> for the Lord your God?
> 
> Blow the trumpet in Zion;
> consecrate a fast;
> *call a solemn assembly*;
> gather the people.
> Consecrate the congregation;
> assemble the elders;
> *gather the children,
> even nursing infants*.
> Let the bridegroom leave his room,
> and the bride her chamber.
> 
> Joel 2:12-16 (ESV emphasis added)



This is consistent with Peter's words, and the rest of the events in Acts. 



> And Peter said to them, “*Repent and be baptized* every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. *For the promise is for you and for your children* and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” - Acts 2:38-39 (ESV emphasis added)
> 
> “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. *Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out*, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. You are the *sons of the prophets* and of the *covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’* God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, *to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness*. - Acts 3:24-26 (ESV emphasis added)
> 
> And they said, “*Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household*.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and *he was baptized at once, he and all his family*. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. *And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God*. - Acts 16:31-34 (ESV emphasis added)



Both *individual responsibility* and *family solidarity* are at work here. How can we expect otherwise? This is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham! The _same_ promise ("to thee and they seed") is now to go to all the (Gentile) nations!



> And I will establish *my covenant between me and you and your offspring* after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, *to be God to you and to your offspring after you*. - Gen. 17:7 (ESV emphasis added)
> 
> And God said to Abraham, “As for you, *you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring* after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: *Every male among you shall be circumcised*. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. *Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised*. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” - Gen. 17:9-14 (ESV emphasis added)
> 
> For I have chosen him [i.e., Abraham], that *he may command his children and his household* after him *to keep the way of the LORD* by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” - Gen. 18:19 (ESV emphasis added)



All of this makes sense only in a Reformed _oiko_baptist model and its view of the (visible) church, and not with the idea that the local church should have a "(totally) regenerate church membership" or that it should be a "complete manifestation of the invisible church." 



> I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the *household of God*, which is *the church of the living God*, a pillar and buttress of the truth. - 1 Tim. 3:14-15 (ESV emphasis added)



My point is I do not see how texts like *John 1:12* and *Gal. 3:7* as quoted by the thread starter undermine infant baptism. Both the Old and New Testaments put equal emphasis on *individual responsibility* and *family solidarity*.

Mike, your question regarding the Reformed interpretation of Rom. 6:2-3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:11-12 was discussed recently. See the thread here. The answer to your question is found in the Reformed view of the union between the sign and the thing signified (i.e., sacramental union). Rich and Rev. Winzer can explain this better than I do. What is worthy of note is that even texts like these support the Reformed model.



> Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the *saints* and *faithful brothers* in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father....*In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.* And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him...*Wives*, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. *Husbands*, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. *Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord*. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. *Slaves*, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. - Col. 1:1-2, 2:11-12, 3:18-22 (ESV emphasis added)



The Apostle Paul neither separates sign (application of water) from the thing signified (regeneration) nor does he separate *individual responsibility* (to believe in the Lord Jesus [John 1:12] or to have faith in Him [Gal. 3:7]) and *family solidarity* in this Epistle. He does not claim that he knows infallibly that everyone he is addressing is regenerate, but still calls them saints and faithful brothers in Christ. And in this household of faith (Eph. 2:19) which includes husbands, wives, and slaves (during their time), the children of believers are included among the (visible) saints! So the inclusion of children in the covenant community of God does not undermine the necessity of repentance and faith in Him as some Baptist writers suppose. The Scriptures see no inconsistency at all between an individual response and the household principle. And neither should we.

Contary to your claim, family solidarity is not "man's wisdom" read into ("injected" in) Scripture. It is all over Scripture as the texts above testify. As Prof. Murray puts it, 



> There is ... the representative principle which is embedded in the Scripture and is woven into the warp and woof of the administration of grace in the world [i.e, in both the OT and the NT]. When we appreciate this we can understand how readily the apostles would apply this principle in the dispensing of the ordinances of grace. Household baptism would be a perfectly natural application. [Prof. Murray inserts a footnote commenting that there are no examples in the Bible of children of believers being baptized later in life only after a profession of faith, and cites Oscar Cullman for support.] And this would inevitably involve the baptism of infants comprised in the household whenever and wherever there were such.
> 
> - John Murray, Christian Baptism, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980), 66


----------



## nicnap

semperveritas said:


> We as baptists dont inject mans wisdom of a family solidarity into the doctrine of baptism when all the apostles and Jesus give us our marching orders with minute details as to how and in what order. Infant baptism is so confusing youve got virtually every group who practices it differing with eachother because the bible gives no instructions on it. Youve got dutch reformed with presumptive regeneration, others with no its because God promises all children of believers thay will be saved, others who say a seed of regeneration is planted within them at baptism,etc,etc. WHY because the scriptures say nothing of it. CLing to those household verses though and a cryptic verse in 1 cor 7. to build it on yet it contradicts the order sacred scripture commands of the NT believer.
> make disciples-one is made by faith alone=regeneration(there is no such thing as an unregenerate disciple of Chirst) baptise that disciple, and then teach him. that is the order. show me otherwise



With all due respect - as a baptist you inject man's wisdom of dividing God's covenant people. You received no such marching orders. The misunderstanding of what baptism does by some does not make void the call to baptize children. 

As far as baptists go, they have their varying groups as well - The Church of Christ who says you must *profess*, there is your key word as a baptist, and then be baptized, but if you are not baptized you are not saved...you have some baptists that say that immersion is not necessary...we could go on and on, but we won't. Your last portion of your post does nothing to refute covenantal baptism, only stir strife...stick to the texts, and interact with other posts, it might be that you will learn something...or teach someone something.


----------



## Houston E.

semperveritas said:


> Well as a baptist I told my son the gospel just like you tell your covenant children. My son believed at 4 and is a Christian by faith alone. He is baptised and his baptism is symbolic of the saving work God already wrought in him. I told him repent and believe and then be baptised because the promise was for me and my children. My son is in the New Covenant. He is in Christ by faith alone. He was not before he was saved. He was unsaved before he was saved as Paul said all are who are not in Christ-without hope and Christ, lost.



Hmmm...So you know beyond a shadow of doubt when God regenerated your child? You KNOW he is elect?




> To the reformed....
> To the reformed....
> But the reformed....
> The reformed....



Sir, I must ask, are you reformed? This is a reformed board.



> make disciples-one is made by faith alone=regeneration(there is no such thing as an unregenerate disciple of Chirst)



And you have anything to do with this???



> baptise that disciple, and then teach him. that is the order. show me otherwise



Ok, so by this, you acknowledge, you didn't teach your son anything of the scriptures or of God, but can only do such after his conversion.


----------



## toddpedlar

Contra_Mundum said:


> Todd,
> It is also the case that these kinds of example-appeals are to narrative portions of Scripture. It really doesn't matter which side of the debate claims what as to example. Both sides must appeal to a wider range of Scripture-teaching, particularly didactic portions, to establish the meaning and proper subjects of baptism.



Precisely. I should have made more of a positive argument, rather than just arguing that the case for credo-only baptism cannot be made on the basis of these narrative examples.


----------



## semperveritas

no interaction with the order of faith before baptism? So you make a disciple by baptizing THEM and teaching THEM? Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis. NO,baptizing "them" refers to the disciples already made from the nations when they believed the gospel and were saved then you baptise and teach THEM. The THEM are not made by baptism and teaching. They are begotten through the incorruptible word of the gospel. And of course I never said the evangelists DO the regenerating. God does it through the preaching of the gospel. A disciple is NOT made by baptizing, but FIRST by hearing and believing. Eph 1:13 and Romans 1:16; 10:9ff That is how a person becomes a disciple.



> 13In him you also, when you heard(AF) the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him,(AG) were sealed with the(AH) promised Holy Spirit, 14who is(AI) the guarantee[d] of our(AJ) inheritance until(AK) we acquire(AL) possession of it,[e](AM) to the praise of his glory.





> 16For(AC) I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is(AD) the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes





> if(L) you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and(M) believe in your heart(N) that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11For the Scripture says,(O) "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12(P) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek;(Q) for the same Lord is Lord of all,(R) bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13For(S) "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
> 14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him(T) of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear(U) without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written,(V) "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But(W) they have not all obeyed the gospel.



Then after one has become a disciple by monergistic faith giving grace-that new disciple is baptized and taught all the Word of God. 


Paul told the jailer he would be saved if he believed, and his whole household. Meaning his household would be saved if they believed TOO. There is divine monergistic faith given to every relative, slave,and servant in the house just because the leader is regenerated. That is pure eisegesis.


> Sirs,(AW) what must I do to be(AX) saved?" 31And they said,(AY) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you(AZ) and your household." 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.


Belief is the only way to be saved as I quoted in Rom 1:16; 10:9; John 3:16 etc, ad nauseum. Nobody is saved apart from faith and God never promises each and every individual is elect in the family. See Esau and Ishmael. SO how can these texts be twisted to say when the jailor was saved all in his house were without them believeing. But we know that Paul preached the gospel to ALL in the house and they did in fact believe.


> they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to "all who were in his house".


Then they all(the household believed and were baptized)


> And he(BC) rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.


Yes they all rejoiced that he believed in God, but that doesn not say that they di NOT also believe. Because they ALL REJOICED. Unbelievers do not rejoice. THey were all told the gospel, all rejoiced and all were baptized. And yes the focus of the narrative was on the jailor so the emphasis was on his faith but GNC implies they believed. To say otherwise is foolish. Otherwise Pauls words were a lie when he told the jailor his household would be saved. Were they not saved, if they were it wasnt because only the jailor believed but because they did too. Pauls command on how one is saved was "believe" That promise of salvation attached to such God-given faith in Christ is true if he believes and his whole household. There are not two ways of salvation, one for the head and another for the house. To say the house was baptized before they believed is nonsense. Luke spells out the fact the word was preached to ALL IN THE HOUSE(not just the jailor) and according to the order everywhere in the NT the believers were baptized, and they all rejoiced that the jailor believed-why, one reason is because since the jailor believed IN THE PRISON upon the preahcing of the gospel, the jailor invited Paul to his home and household where THEY WERE PREACHED THE GOSPEL TOO and obviously believed because they rejoiced. The natural man does not rejoice in God, but hates the works of God. So they all rejoiced that the jailor believed because the gospel came to the family and they believed and THEN were baptized. That is the order.
Lydia was baptized AFTER she believed. THAT is the pattern for all according to Acts 2:38-39, Matt 28-18-20 and ALL the examples in the bible


> 13And(R) on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate(S) to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we(T) sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods,(U) who was a worshiper of God. The Lord(V) opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15And after she was baptized,(W) and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she(X) prevailed upon us.


To argue her house could be baptized before they believed is reading into the text. Lydia believed first and was baptized. The whole household was baptized-not just infants were in there were there-she just left them there to fend for themselves while at the river. I doubt it. You pleading for household baptism begs too much, otherwise all the servants, and consenting adults too which were in the house must needs be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit without any precondition of faith in God is preposterous. They were baptised obviously because they believed.

The house of Stephanus was baptised. But they must have ALL believed because Paul says the same household(making no exceptions) ...


> You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and "they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints"



They devoted themselves, the entire household. So yes households were baptized but only because the households BELIEVED! To say more is eisegesis.

Jesus healed the mans son in John 4 and he and his household BELIEVED



> The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." And he himself believed, and all his household.



Cornelius' house was saved, but only because they BELIEVED,
They were devout and feared God THEY were, not just Cornelius


> a devout man(A) who feared God "with" all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.


 Acts 10:2

So those devout men who feared God in his House believed the gospel



> 11And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12And the Spirit told me to go with them,(F) making no distinction.(G) These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14(H) he will declare to you a message by which(I) you will be saved, YOU AND ALL YOUR HOUSEHOLD.' 15As I began to speak,(J) the Holy Spirit fell on them(K) just as on us at the beginning



Crispus believed TOGETHER WITH his house. THUS because of their(God given monergistic faith) THEY ALL were baptized, not because only Crispus believed.



> Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together(B) with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.


Acts 18:8

My household has been saved and baptised in that order praise be to God.


----------



## Zenas

Good for you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mike,

Please provide some exegesis as to _what_ a disciple is using the grammatico-historical method. Define the term.


----------



## semperveritas

Sorry to all for hurting anyones feelings. I was given a notification of being churlish. Please forgive.


----------



## Rocketeer

semperveritas said:


> Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis.



That is no argument. We do not disbelieve the Virgin Birth of the Christ because the Lutherans and the Catholics believe it. Neither do we disbelieve the divine Creation of the Earth because the Catholics and the Mohammedans hold to that tenet, too. It is possible for someone who is wrong in many ways, to be right in some. Indeed, either the orthodox credo- or the orthodox paedo-baptists must be in error in only one way, and right in all the others. Consider: if this type of argument holds true, you should renounce all your beliefs because I, who am a peado-baptist, hold them as well, and obviously I am wrong. This merely is a variation on what is called in dog Latin _Reductio ad Nazium_ or _ad Hitlerum_, that is to say, the argument that a position must be invalid because Hitler and/or the Nazis held it. Wikipedia has a great article on that: Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Secondly, you tell us we are reading things into texts. We could accuse you of the very same thing. Nothing is said *explicitly* about the faith of the household in those texts, yet you assume there is, and why? Because you think they could not have been baptized without having believed. I, on the other hand, think nothing is said explicitly, and, nothing is said implicitly either, because I, too, have my bias.

The question then is the same as that which was earlier asked of you: where do you find the doctrine that the as yet or forever unregenerate infants are excluded from the new covenant? The reason for this is, that, for all the other changes in the new vs. the old covenant there is some pretty clear doctrinal teaching in the Bible. Consider, for example, the disappearing of the ceremonial law , and of the food laws, and of circumcision, and of the inclusion of the heathens who believe in the covenant, there are very clear doctrinal passages (amongst others, Colossians 2, Acts 10, Galatians 5) in the Bible supporting those alterations to the new covenant; in all the instances where the two covenants differ, there are very clear doctrinal passages. Then where is this one? Where does Paul or Peter or John or Jude or the Lord Himself say, anathema on those who think that the believer's children are still included in the covenant?

And another dilemma I will bring before you, three, actually: One, does it not reflect poorly on God that, when He widens His new covenant in almost every sense, He restricts it on this account, namely, by casting the children out from the covenant?

Second, what about the transition period? When the young children where circumcised, they were under the law and in Gods covenant, which was a way to grace, as Paul shows in Romans and Hebrews. Then the new covenant is there, their parents believe, but they are cast out from the new covenant, because God no longer promises to young children all the good that he promised to the line of Abraham, if they would stick to Him. So then, did God default on his promises? Or were there then two covenants simuktaneously, with the old one dying a slow death? But then, how could the new covenant be a renewal of the old one, if they both exist together and have together the same power. Where there then two ways open at the same time, both working through saving faith, but the one with circumcision and the other with baptism as their sign?

Third, why did God so strangely change His mode of working? We know that He did not do that before or after that; the things seen in the old covenant are all present in the new covenant, only, in a fuller shape and form, and less shadowy. We still have a High Priest, a King, a Prophet, a heavenly Jerusalem, a Kingdom, a Sacrifice, a Substitute. We still abstain from many things the world delights in, we still worship, we pray, we give alms, we help our neighbours, we love God and our fellowmen; but for some reason, our children are no longer promised a thing by God, they are not set apart from the world anymore, they do not have a sign to remind them of their God - what prompted this? Did God learn that the sign thing didn't work out as planned? (I speak after the manner of men.) 

Does not this credobaptism of yours lead to a change in the God you worship, does this not make Him one Who is mutuable, or changes His mind, or goes back on His promises, or is resticted in His knowledge? But I will uphold that He is none of the aforementioned, and I think I know you will, too. So then, how do you explain?


----------



## semperveritas

I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.


----------



## InevitablyReformed

semperveritas said:


> I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
> especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
> The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
> So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.



Friend,

If you are looking into the covenantal paedo view, you should go to Monergism.com and check out their massive section on baptism. I would probably start there.  Glad to have you on the board.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

semperveritas said:


> I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
> especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
> The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
> So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.



Mike,

What you are sensing is the difficulty in bridging the gap between visible signs and the spiritual realities they signify. Scripture uses unequivocal language about a visible sign that could only be true of the Elect. How? Well, the Church has wrestled with that question in different ways. I think many Early Church Fathers simply state things as facts about what baptism does and it is true as far as it goes. Like many things they state and don't flesh out later Church theologians flesh out. 

The Roman Catholic Church combines their idea of baptismal regeneration with a merit theology and sacerdotalism to try to integrate the Biblical texts. They fail at the root of the issue.

Lutherans try to hold together an inconsistent view of Sovereign election and Baptismal regeneration.

Many run of the mill Baptists (Reformed company excluded) actually tend to be as staunch about the idea that Baptism regenerates even going so far as to utilize the "dying in the watery graves of baptism to be risen again" to have a sort of ex opere operato view of the ordinance.

Reformed baptists, as admitted in a recent thread, admit that baptism doesn't confer anything. It only proclaims what it is believed the believer already possesses. Thus, the sign is either valid or invalid depending upon the regenerated status of the recipient. There's actually no way for the Church to know one way or the other as only God knows who His elect are. Hence, the ordinance has no necessary attachment to regeneration but is a badge intended to communicate probable regeneration.

The Reformed view is what I believe most Biblical. It guards against any sacerdotal or necessary baptismal regeneration view while doing justice to the Biblical data and not having to speak of baptism in a way that is dissonant with the Scriptures. We don't see Paul or the other Apostles having to go back and "guard their speech" all the time to qualify themselves and saying "Oh, but make sure you understand I'm talking about baptism in the spirit...." The sign, then, has to have some objective quality that doesn't rely upon the Church's "guesswork" about who it believes most probably elect. At the same time, however, the Holy Spirit is sovereign in regeneration for the baptized just as He was for the circumcised Nicodemus. For a more detailed discussion of this view, you can read this recent thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/valid-baptism-presumes-actual-union-w-Christ-42683/


----------



## Contra_Mundum

semperveritas said:


> no interaction with the order of faith before baptism? So you make a disciple by baptizing THEM and teaching THEM? Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis. NO,baptizing "them" refers to the disciples already made from the nations when they believed the gospel and were saved then you baptise and teach THEM. The THEM are not made by baptism and teaching....


etc., etc., etc.

Did you catch the part where I quoted the Baptist grammarian, with reference to Matthew 28:19-20? It's not "Lutheran" exegesis, it's just Greek sentence structure. Same rules for everybody. I can't help it that the sentence isn't giving you the ORDER that you assumed it was, using an English translation.

_Participial use_ is a whole subset of the verbal syntactical analysis that goes into exegeting a passage. You MUST determine the relationship those subordinated terms have to the "main verbal idea" of a sentence, otherwise you will NOT understand the author's intent.

In my post, I suggested that you offer an alternative grammatical argument that would sustain a different understanding of the relationship of the participles to the main verb, and I would consider it. However, all that is contained in the above quote (relevance) from your post is partial invective, and the insertion of "believed the gospel and were saved," terms and conditions NOT PRESENT in the text of Mt.28. This is not a grammatical argument.

So, if Matthew seems to say that "baptizing and teaching" is how a "disciple" is made, then perhaps your idea of "disciple" needs to be broad enough to fit Matthew's description. Was Judas Iscariot (the son of perdition) a "disciple" (Mt.10:1-4)? I would think that any definition of the term "disciple" would at a minimum need to encompass the original Twelve. 



I realize that the tone of the post as a whole was already addressed, and so no need to rehash the admonishment.

I think that it might be helpful for you to _focus_ just a little bit on the *parts* of not only other people's arguments, but yours as well.

The "shotgun" approach to presenting your position just shows how reliant you are on all those pieces being true and properly interpreted and then it all just hangs together so tight and ...

so I pick one piece here or there and point out a potential problem with the way you've understood it, or just answer one of your specific questions, and (naturally) you see that as a threat to the whole picture you've laid out. Either that, or it's treated as unworthy of your attention. 

I think even your credo-compatriots will urge you to build an argument from a strong base, and work your way out to a particular, discrete conclusion that gives you confidence. When you start off with premises your opponents agree with, it can often help your argument immensely. At the very least it forces the other side to consider whether it has reasoned well to arrive at such different conclusions. And if they answer well, it will help you also to sharpen your critical thinking skills, even if they don't persuade you.

Also, beginning with areas of strong, vital agreement should help you avoid casting unfounded slurs at your opponents. If you are reasonably sure you share a common understanding of core truths, it should help you argue vigorously but charitably, and avoid making gaffes that you wish later you hadn't said.

For example, if I point out that the whole passage Acts 16:27-34 deals *textually* with the actions and behaviors of essentially one person, sometimes associated "with his", and you treat my "covenant" view of the passage (happens to be the view of Calvin) as *non-Reformed*, how exactly does that work??

The idea of "house" and "household" is one that is found copiously throughout the Scriptures. It is quite easy to define the term, and should not be arbitrarily restricted. Luke (and other NT writers) assumes he doesn't need to qualify the language whenever he makes reference to such. You can no more exclude a toddler than you can include an alien. So, when the passage says "they rejoiced," it's simply arbitrary to say that the description excluded any one-year-olds (for example) in the house, or downs-syndrome youth, or gramma who's getting mighty slow...

See what I mean? I hope that by patience and tact, you can spend a long time enjoying the board, giving and receiving knowledge within our Confessional framework. May God bless your studies.


----------



## A.J.

semperveritas said:


> I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
> especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
> The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
> So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.



Lutherans are (happily) inconsistent in their view of baptism. Despite their belief in a form of baptismal regeneration, they do believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. The problem I see with the Lutheran view of the sacraments, however, is that it fails to do justice to the continuity of the NT with the OT especially in the area of the sacraments (cf. Rom. 4). The key to understanding the texts you mentioned is the idea of sacramental union. 



> The WESTMINTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
> 
> 2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other.a
> 
> a. Gen 17:10; Mat 26:27-28; Titus 3:5.



That is why the Scriptures have no problem calling baptism as the washing of regeneration and renewal without teaching baptismal regeneration, or the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper as the body and blood of Christ, respectively, without teaching transubstantion or consubstantiation. There is a union between the sign (application of water) and the thing signified (regeneration and renewal). If we understand the language of the sacraments in this way, we also avoid the error of thinking of them as bare signs. 

To know and understand the Reformed view, it's always good to go back to the confessional standards which teach us what the sacraments are, and what they do for God's people. I grew up in churches which either taught baptismal regeneration or held a memorialist view of these means of grace. So learning the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments was literally life-changing for me. 



> The LARGER CATECHISM
> 
> Q162: What is a sacrament?
> A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[1] to signify, seal, and exhibit [2] unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[3] the benefits of his mediation;[4] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[5] to oblige them to obedience;[6] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[7] and to distinguish them from those that are without.[8]
> 
> 1. Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19
> 2. Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25
> 3. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48
> 4. Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16
> 5. Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27
> 6. Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21
> 7. Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13
> 8. Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14
> 
> Q163: What are the parts of a sacrament?
> A163: The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.[1]
> 
> 1. Matt. 3:11; I Peter 3:27; Rom. 2:28-29
> 
> Q164: How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
> A164: Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's supper.[1]
> 
> 1. Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19; I Cor. 11:20, 23
> 
> Q165: What is Baptism?
> A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8]
> 
> 1. Matt. 28:19
> 2. Gal. 3:27
> 3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
> 4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
> 5. Gal. 3:26-27
> 6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
> 7. I Cor. 12:13
> 8. Rom. 6:4
> 
> Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
> A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.[2]
> 
> 1. Acts 2:38; 8:36-37
> 2. Gen. 17:7, 9; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:16; I Cor. 7:14; Matt 28:19; Luke 18:15-16
> 
> Q167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
> A167: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;[1] by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;[2] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[3] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[4] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[5] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[6] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[7] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[8] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[9]
> 
> 1. Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 6:4, 6, 11
> 2. Rom. 6:3-5
> 3. I Cor. 1:11-13; Rom. 6:2-3
> 4. Rom. 4:11-12; I Peter 3:21
> 5. Rom. 6:3-5
> 6. Gal. 3:26-27
> 7. Rom. 6:22
> 8. Acts 2:38
> 9. I Cor. 12:13, 25-27





> The HEIDELBERG CATECHISM
> 
> Lord's Day 25
> 
> 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, where does this faith come from?
> The Holy Spirit creates it in our hearts1 by the preaching of the Gospel,2 and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments.3
> 1 Jn 3:5; 1 Cor 2:10-14; Eph 2:8; Php 1:29; 2 Rom 10:17; 1 Pt 1:23-25; 3 Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 10:16
> 
> 66. What are the sacraments?
> The sacraments are holy, visible signs and seals, instituted by God so that by their use He might the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel;1 namely, that He grants us out of free grace the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, because of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.2
> 1 Gen 17:11; Deut 30:6; Rom 4:11; 2 Mt 26:27-28; Acts 2:38; Heb 10:10
> 
> 67. Are both the Word and the Sacraments intended to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?
> Yes indeed; for the Holy Spirit teaches us in the Gospel, and by the Holy Sacraments assures us, that our whole salvation rests on the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.1
> 1 Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 11:26; Gal 3:27
> 
> 68. How many Sacraments has Christ instituted in the New Covenant?
> Two: Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.1
> 1 Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26
> 
> Lord's Day 26
> 
> 69. How does holy baptism signify and seal to you that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross benefits you?
> In this way: that Christ has instituted this outward washing with water,1 and has joined with it this promise, that as surely as I am washed outwardly with water, whereby commonly the filthiness of the body is taken away, so certainly I am washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins.2
> 1 Mt 28:19; 2 Mt 3:11; Mk 16:16; Jn 1:33; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Pt 3:21
> 
> 70. What does it mean to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?
> It is to have the forgiveness of sins from God, through grace, because of Christ’s blood, which He shed for us in His sacrifice on the cross;1 and also, to be renewed by the Holy Spirit, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die to sin, and lead holy and blameless lives.2
> 1 Ezek 36:25; Zech 13:1; Eph 1:7; Heb 12:24; 1 Pt 1:2; Rev 1:5, 7:14; 2 Jn 3:5-8; Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 6:11; Col 2:11-12
> 
> 71. Where has Christ promised that He will wash us with His blood and Spirit as surely as we are washed with the water of Baptism?
> In the institution of baptism, where He says, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”1 “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be damned.”2 This promise is also repeated where the Scripture calls baptism “the washing of regeneration” and “the washing away of sins.”3
> 1 Mt 28:19; 2 Mk 16:16; 3 Tit 3:5; Acts 22:16
> 
> Lord's Day 27
> 
> 72. Is then the outward washing with water itself the washing away of sins?
> 
> No; for only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins.1
> 1 Mt 3:11; 1 Pt 3:21; 1 Jn 1:7
> 
> 73. Why, then, does the Holy Spirit call baptism “the washing of regeneration” and “the washing away of sins?”
> God speaks in this way for a good reason. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ remove our sins just as water takes away dirt from the body;1 but more importantly, He wants to assure us by this divine pledge and sign that we are as truly washed from our sins spiritually, as our bodies are washed with water.2
> 1 1 Cor 6:11; Rev 1:5, 7:14; 2 Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27
> 
> 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
> Yes, since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,1 and both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who creates faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents.2 Therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,3 as was done in the Old Covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which in the New Covenant baptism was instituted.5
> 1 Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14; 2 Ps 22:11; Isa 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39, 16:31; 3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14; 4 Gen 17:9-14; 5 Col 2:11-13



Also, if you are looking for online resources (articles, sermons, and debates) on the Reformed belief in infant baptism, please check my post here from another thread. Aside from the books I have read, and am currently reading on this controversial subject, these resources have been helpful to me. I have included resources defending the covenantal Baptist view for the sake of objectivity. As always, iron sharpents iron!


----------



## jbotkin

Weighing into this debate is always fun! Can I pull back a little and ask a big picture question to my paedo baptist brothers? If baptism replaces circumcision, why doesn't Paul just say that? Especially in places like in Galatians? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to put down the Judaizers he had to fight so hard against? Yes, it's an argument from silence, but I find the silence deafening. Just a thought. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jbotkin said:


> Weighing into this debate is always fun! Can I pull back a little and ask a big picture question to my paedo baptist brothers? If baptism replaces circumcision, why doesn't Paul just say that? Especially in places like in Galatians? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to put down the Judaizers he had to fight so hard against? Yes, it's an argument from silence, but I find the silence deafening. Just a thought. Blessings!




The question belies a basic ignorance of the issue in the Galatian Church. This error is so common, I believe, because people are mining the text for verses and not for the root issue.

Circumcision, in the context of Galatians, is mostly used in a way that is synonymous with "keeping Torah". This is a Judaizing perversion of what circumcision was about.

Hence, to simply say "baptism replaces circumcision" would simply replace one sign with another but the underlying substance of what each pointed to would be corrupted. If one does not understand the nature of Justification and Union with Christ then it would be pastoral malpractice to simply tell a person to become baptized. For such a person baptism and un-baptism is nothing - there are plenty of baptized people that treat the sign of baptism no differently than a Judaizer - "yeah, you begin by faith, but then you become sanctified and perfected by being on fire for Jesus and doing what He commands."


----------



## jbotkin

> The question belies a basic ignorance of the issue in the Galatian Church. This error is so common, I believe, because people are mining the text for verses and not for the root issue.



Nice.



> Circumcision, in the context of Galatians, is mostly used in a way that is synonymous with "keeping Torah". This is a Judaizing perversion of what circumcision was about.



Maybe. I would certainly agree that it could be an example of that, but not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians). And in the midst of his argument against the Judaizers' legalism, he still makes the assertion that Gentiles should not be circumcised (Acts 15:10; Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 7:18; ; etc). 

And so my question still stands. Why didn't Paul simply explain that baptism is now the sign of the new covenant? Surely he could have done this without being "pastorally irresponsible"? Paul could have BOTH battled the legalism and made it a closed case for the Gentiles by simply asserted they didn't need to be circumcised since they had been baptized = received the sign of the new covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John,


> not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians)


1) Can you give, please, one concrete example from Galatians where circumcision is not treated as "shorthand" for law-fulfillment? It would help the discussion if we had an instance of what you say is the case. Thanks.

2) The Judaizers were trying to force circumcision on the Galatians. These were circumcised folks who had been baptized by water themselves. They were telling Gentile Christians that they needed circumcision, which was simply the beginning of Torah-observance.

If you keep one law ceremony because it's Torah, then it's simple to demonstrate that you are debtor to keep the whole thing. That's Paul's argument.

3) What _possible good_ would it do, on Paedo-baptist presuppositions, to tell the Galatians to answer the *baptized *Judaizers by telling them "We're already baptized"? It is a total waste of time, or ink. If you think it's an answer, then you don't understand how it is we view the correlation between these signs.

4) The problem with these circumcisers was they had confidence in the flesh. The answer to confidence in the flesh isn't to point to some other sign and say, "Oh no, we have confidence in THIS sign over here!"

Great. Now we've replaced one confidence in the flesh with another? And you know what the answer to that is: "Neither is [baptism] anything nor [unbaptism] anything".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> Circumcision, in the context of Galatians, is often used in a way that is synonymous with "keeping Torah". This is a Judiazing perversion of what circumcision was about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. I would certainly agree that it could be an example of that, but not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians). And in the midst of his argument against the Judaizers' legalism, he still makes the assertion that Gentiles should not be circumcised (Acts 15:10; Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 7:18; ; etc).
Click to expand...

Excuse me, did I say that this is how circumcision is defined _across_ the New Testament? In fact, in Romans 4:11, the proper understanding of circumcision is defined but to understand Paul in Galatians you actually have to pay attention. I actually see you underlining your basic misunderstanding of Paul's argument. If you would like to understand it better than you can go here: Galatians | Central Baptist Church, Okinawa, Japan

Otherwise, it seems, you don't really seem to understand why it is that Paul would not just say: "Baptism just replaces circumcision even though the Judaizers don't understand what circumcision was about."



> And so my question still stands. Why didn't Paul simply explain that baptism is now the sign of the new covenant? Surely he could have done this without being "pastorally irresponsible"? Paul could have BOTH battled the legalism and made it a closed case for the Gentiles by simply asserted they didn't need to be circumcised since they had been baptized = received the sign of the new covenant.


He actually does this in a different way but, again, your problem is a more basic misunderstanding of Galatians and I would urge you to study that and you will find where Paul actually notes to the Gentiles that they already possess everything and need not be jealous for anything they might have been envious of in the Judaizers.


----------



## A.J.

jbotkin said:


> Maybe. I would certainly agree that it could be an example of that, but not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians). And in the midst of his argument against the Judaizers' legalism, he still makes the assertion that Gentiles should not be circumcised (Acts 15:10; Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 7:18; ; etc).
> 
> And so my question still stands. Why didn't Paul simply explain that baptism is now the sign of the new covenant? Surely he could have done this without being "pastorally irresponsible"? Paul could have BOTH battled the legalism and made it a closed case for the Gentiles by simply asserted they didn't need to be circumcised since they had been baptized = received the sign of the new covenant.



John, I think the answer to your question is found in the fact that there is an essential continuity between OT Israel and the NT church (Rom. 4; Rom. 11; Acts 7; Gal. 3.; Eph. 2; the entire book of Hebrews). Reformed Baptists grant this. To be outside Israel was to be a stranger to the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12) and to be outside God's household of faith (Eph. 2:19), which is the church itself (1 Tim. 3:15). In the OT, Gentiles who professed faith in the God of Israel would have to be circumcised, they and their households with them (Gen. 17:9-14; Gen. 18:19). No one became a formal member of God's covenant community apart from circumcision for circumcision was the OT initiatory ordinance appointed by God Himself for that very purpose. 

Now Scripture clearly tells us that the New Covenant which the Lord Jesus Christ inaugurated (see texts above) is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17). God's covenant community is now to expand to all the nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 3:8). If circumcision is no longer the initiatory rite in the NT (which is true, cf. Acts 15), *and* if baptism did not in fact replace circumcision, then there is _no_ NT initiatory rite! But there _is_ a NT initatory rite, the sacrament of baptism (Matt. 28-18-20; Acts 2:41ff). Since baptism has now come in place of circumcision, those who profess faith in God are now to be baptized, they and their households with them (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:14-16; Acts 16:31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). So the pattern is prescribed. The sign is to be administered to confessors and their families. That was the OT pattern, and is still the NT pattern.[1]

B.B. Warfield's response to this Baptist argument is helpful.



> How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii.11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that "in Christ ye were also circumcised "-- but how? -- "with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh," -- that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: "Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel's circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church? *No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party!* Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles. (emphasis mine)
> 
> - B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism



Aside from the heretical understanding of the Judaizers about the purpose of the Law, they did not understand that baptism has _now_ come in place of circumcision. It is for this reason that they insisted that the * already baptized* Gentiles who have already received what circumcision signified (i.e., regeneration, which is signified by baptism) *be circumcised* _also_. The point of Warfield is that the Baptist argument against infant baptism is similar in this manner to the Judaizers' argument against the apostolic teaching about circumcision. The Judaizers denied that baptism has replaced circumcision. And many (not all) Baptists are unfortunately doing the same thing. The decision of the Acts 15 Synod is clear: baptism has replaced circumcision as the entrance sign of God's covenant community. Gentiles should not be circumcised because they have not only received what circumcision signified. The reality of regeneration (which circumcision signified) was signifed and sealed also for them by baptism (Acts 10-11). There is thus no need for circumcision anymore.[2]

Lastly, we must remember (as Rich has pointed out many times) that the NT writers especially the Apostle Paul use the words "circumcision" and "Jew" in different ways. On the one hand, they use them to describe the unbelieving Jews and/or the Pharisaical sect of the Judaizers, their false understanding of the significance of circumcision, or the Jews in general. 

(All quotations are from the ESV)



> So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the *circumcision* party criticized him, saying, - Acts 11:2
> 
> But when the *Jews* saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. - Acts 13:45
> 
> But the *Jews* incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. - Acts 13:50
> 
> For neither *circumcision* counts for anything nor *uncircumcision*, but keeping the commandments of God. - 1 Cor. 7:19
> 
> For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the *circumcision* party. - Gal. 2:12
> 
> Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept *circumcision*, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts *circumcision* that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither *circumcision* nor *uncircumcision* counts for anything, but only faith working through love. - Gal. 2:5-6
> 
> I testify again to every man who accepts *circumcision* that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. - Gal. 5:3-4
> 
> For in Christ Jesus neither *circumcision* nor *uncircumcision* counts for anything, but only faith working through love. - Gal. 5:6
> 
> For neither *circumcision* counts for anything, nor *uncircumcision*, but a new creation. - Gal. 6:15
> 
> Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the *circumcision*, which is made in the flesh by hands— - Eph. 2:11
> 
> For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the *circumcision* party. - Titus 1:10



On the other hand, the NT writers use these words to describe true Christians and the Christian Church. 



> For no one is a *Jew* who is merely one outwardly, nor is *circumcision* outward and physical. But a *Jew* is one inwardly, and *circumcision* is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. - Rom. 2:28-29
> 
> How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been *circumcised*? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of *circumcision* as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still *uncircumcised*. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being *circumcised*, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely *circumcised* but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. - Rom. 4:10-12
> 
> For we are the *circumcision*, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— - Phil. 3:3
> 
> In him also you were *circumcised* with a *circumcision* made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the *circumcision* of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, - Col. 2:11-13



So the next time we read Baptists apologists arguing against infant baptism on the basis of prooftexts from the NT dealing with circumcision (e.g., Galatians, which is essentially a defense of justification by faith from the Judaizers), we must ask ourselves again and again: which circumcision are these NT writers talking about? Are they dealing with the true meaning of circumcision, or with the Pharisaical and the Judaizers' perversion thereof?

Footnotes: 

[1] See Lee Irons' The Oikos Formula (which is based on Joachim Jeremias' _The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland_) for a list of Scripture texts from both the OT and the NT using this _oikos_ formula. 

[2] For a more detailed response to this Baptist argument, please see Dr. Gregg Strawbridge's Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It? Though Strawbridge's views have become problematic and anti-confessional in recent years, his written works on infant baptism are excellent. Look for that part of the booklet discussing the so-called "Judaizer Objection."


----------



## jbotkin

Here's the telling quote!



> ) What possible good would it do, on Paedo-baptist presuppositions, to tell the Galatians to answer the baptized Judaizers by telling them "We're already baptized"? It is a total waste of time, or ink. If you think it's an answer, then you don't understand how it is we view the correlation between these signs.



Is it possible to read the text _apart_ from a paedo-baptist presupposition? I honestly think this is part of the "talking past" each other that takes place in discussions like this. 

AJ, thanks for your excellent reply! After seeing a reformed view of salvation is more in line with the Bible, I read hundreds of pages of arguments from paedo-baptists on baptism. You've presented an excellent summary of all that I read. 

But here is the nub of the disagreement:



> Now Scripture clearly tells us that the New Covenant which the Lord Jesus Christ inaugurated (see texts above) is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17). God's covenant community is now to expand to all the nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 3:8). If circumcision is no longer the initiatory rite in the NT (which is true, cf. Acts 15), and if baptism did not in fact replace circumcision, then there is not NT initiatory rite! But there is a NT initatory rite, the sacrament of baptism (Matt. 28-18-20; Acts 2:41ff). Since baptism has now come in place of circumcision, those who profess faith in God are now to be baptized, they and their households with them (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:14-16; Acts 16:31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16).



Yes, there is continuity, but also discontinuity. And as I read the Scriptures, there is a major difference when it comes to the formation of the covenant people. Baptism does NOT bring one into the covenant, regeneration - or a circumcision of the heart - brings one into the covenant (John 3; Col 2; etc). Baptism points back to this reality. I believe this fundamental difference is what causes us to put things together so differently, one side seeing baptism as necessary for children, the other side seeing it the result of a profession of faith. 

Either way, we rejoice _together_ as brothers and sisters to the salvation we have in Christ! SDG


----------



## Contra_Mundum

jbotkin said:


> Here's the telling quote!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) What possible good would it do, on Paedo-baptist presuppositions, to tell the Galatians to answer the baptized Judaizers by telling them "We're already baptized"? It is a total waste of time, or ink. If you think it's an answer, then you don't understand how it is we view the correlation between these signs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Is it possible to read the text apart from a paedo-baptist presupposition?* I honestly think this is part of the "talking past" each other that takes place in discussions like this.
Click to expand...


Why...? Your question (which I *bolded*) to me is... just confusing. Are you presenting a real curiosity, or simply being facetious? Do you mean Galatians, or any portion of the Bible?

I mean, do you expect me to read Rev.1 with my paedo-baptist presuppositions in mind? Mat.27? Is.25? Because I think you are way smarter than that, to think that any reasonable person brings ALL their theological baggage to every textual destination.


**********


OK, I actually wrote that entire bit above, before it dawned on me WHY you might have said what you said. Because I'm wondering the whole time: why ANY person would be thinking of baptism when he was reading Galatians for Paul's argument?

Other than the Church of Christ dude (for example) who ought to be comparing his own doctrine of (credo) baptism to the Judaizers doctrine of circumcision, and going pale. But, of course, that too is an application of the text, and not an explanation of the text.

What is interesting to me is that you would assume that any passage with the _word_ "circumcision" in it automatically makes a paedo-baptist think of baptism. I assume this is the substance of the reason you wondered what you did.

But, as I wrote (and you quote): you don't understand the position you're abnegating. I agree, misunderstanding is the biggest reason we just 'talk past' one another.

Nice thing about the PuritanBoard: I have learned why the Baptist doesn't agree with me. I know why we ask totally different questions, and I don't put questions that _don't arise from the text_ into his mouth.

Your whole "argument from silence" thing is just amazing to me. It proves you are asking an alleged Paedo-baptist question from a preset Credo-baptist mind.

If you can ever understand why, from an exegetical and theological standpoint, it would never occur to a Paedo-baptist to ask the question you think he should be asking, then you are that much closer to understanding what it is you don't agree with.

Peace.


----------



## A.J.

jbotkin said:


> Yes, there is continuity, but also discontinuity. And as I read the Scriptures, there is a major difference when it comes to the formation of the covenant people. Baptism does NOT bring one into the covenant, regeneration - or a circumcision of the heart - brings one into the covenant (John 3; Col 2; etc). Baptism points back to this reality. I believe this fundamental difference is what causes us to put things together so differently, one side seeing baptism as necessary for children, the other side seeing it the result of a profession of faith.



John, it is true that the sign (the application of water) does not result in regeneration (the thing signified). That is why historic Reformed Theology has made a clear distinction between those who are in the covenant narrowly, and those who are in it broadly (John 15; Rom. 2:28-29; Rom. 11:17-24, etc.). See our previous posts on this. 



> The LARGER CATECHISM
> 
> Q61: Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
> A61: All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.[1]
> 
> 1. John 12:38-40; Rom. 9:6; 11:7; Matt. 7:21; 22:14
> 
> Q62: What is the visible church?
> A62: The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion,[1] and of their children.[2]
> 
> 1. I Cor. 1:2; 12:13; Rom. 15:9-12; Rev. 7:9; Psa. 2:8; 22:27-31; 45:17; Matt. 28:19-20; Isa. 59:21
> 2. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Rom. 11:16; Gen. 17:7
> 
> Q63: What are the special privileges of the visible church?
> A63: The visible church hath the privilege of being under God's special care and government;[1] of being protected and preserved in all ages, not withstanding the opposition of all enemies;[2] and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation,[3] and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,[4] and excluding none that will come unto him.[5]
> 
> 1. Isa. 4:5-6; I Tim. 4:10
> 2. Psa. 115:1-2, 9: Isa. 31:4-5; Zech. 12:2-4, 8-9
> 3. Acts 2:39, 42
> 4. Psa. 147:19-20; Rom. 9:4; Eph. 4:11-12; Mark 16:15-16
> 5. John 6:37
> 
> Q64: What is the invisible church?
> A64: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.[1]
> 
> 1. Eph. 1:20, 22-23; John 10:16, 11:52
> 
> Q65: What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
> A65: The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.[1]
> 
> 1. John 17:21, 24; Eph. 2:5-6



What baptism does is that it marks out people as God's people even though many of these men and women eventually turn out to be reprobates. The point is baptism initiates us as members of the _visible church_. 



> The WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
> 
> Chapter 28. Of Baptism.
> 
> 1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,a not only for the *solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church*,b but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,c of his ingrafting into Christ,d of regeneration,e of remission of sins,f and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life:g which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.h
> 
> a. Mat 28:19. • b. 1 Cor 12:13. • c. Rom 4:11 with Col 2:11-12. • d. Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27. • e. Titus 3:5. • f. Mark 1:4. • g. Rom 6:3-4. • h. Mat 28:19-20.



I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the _visible church_, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"? The olive tree example of Paul is clear on this.



> *But if some of the branches [the Jews] were broken off, and you [the Gentiles], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others* and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. *For if God did not spare the natural branches [the Jews], neither will he spare you [the Gentiles]. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you [the Gentiles], provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you [the Gentiles] too will be cut off [just as the Jews were cut off]. And even they, if they [the Jews] do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.* For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. - Rom. 11:17-24 (ESV emphasis added)



How can the Gentiles be cut off (assuming they do not continue in God's kindness) if the Baptist view of the church is true? Apostasy _in the church_? There have been attempts by Reformed Baptists to deal with warning passages like this.[1] But I am not convinced. 

Peter is equally explicit. 



> For it is *time for judgment* to begin at the *household of God*; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? - 1 Peter 4:17 (ESV emphasis added)



What is the household of God?



> if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the *household of God*, which is the *church* of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. - 1 Tim. 3:15 (ESV emphasis added)



How can God _judge the church_ if the Baptist interpretation of Jer. 31:31-34 is true? Everyone without exception in the covenant is elect? I don't think so. The Covenant of Grace has a _substance_, and an _administration_. And we must properly distinguish these two. 



jbotkin said:


> Either way, we rejoice _together_ as brothers and sisters to the salvation we have in Christ! SDG



Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, you un-baptize me, and would not allow me to partake of the Lord's Supper if ever I visit your church. 

Footnote: 

[1] See this book's chapter on paedobaptism.

Amazon.com: A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: Samuel, E. Waldron, Richard, C. Barcellos: Books


----------



## jbotkin

AJ,
Amazingly dense post, brother! But I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree here. I would agree with the LC quote expect for the statement of children. And I agree with the state on baptism in the WCF.



> I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"?



Are you saying you don't believe people can be part of the visible church and not the invisible church, or you can't see that from a baptist perspective? I would point to Judas and Demas as examples and John's comments (1 John 2:19) to say it's more than possible, but does happen. They appeared to be believers, but were in fact not and made that clear by their apostasy. Jesus teaches this as well (Matt 7:21-23).



> "(totally) regenerate church membership"



Maybe the problem comes in how you understand this. Here we simply want to say that unless someone has professed faith in Christ, they cannot join the church. This is to try to have local church membership - as much as possible - accurately reflect membership in the true Church universal (= genuine belief). This also helps prevent false assurance. Even still, we know we are fallible and some will deceive themselves or deceive others into believing they are saved when they are not. 



> Unfortunately, you un-baptize me, and would not allow me to partake of the Lord's Supper if ever I visit your church.



For the record, you WOULD be permitted to partake at the Table at my church (so feel free to stop in some time when you're in the States!

Blessings

P.S. As a related question of curiosity, if an unchurched man professed faith, would you baptize him along with his wife and children? That would seem to be consistent with the Acts passages, but I've never heard of a church doing that. I'm asking this, not as a criticism, but as an honest inquiry into paedo-baptist church practices.


----------



## A.J.

jbotkin said:


> AJ,
> Amazingly dense post, brother! But I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree here. I would agree with the LC quote expect for the statement of children. And I agree with the state on baptism in the WCF.



Thank you, John. I think we should start another thread since the thread starter's questions are quite different from what we are discussing now. The previous posts (including ours) show that no specific question is being answered anymore. 



jbotkin said:


> I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you don't believe people can be part of the visible church and not the invisible church, or you can't see that from a baptist perspective? I would point to Judas and Demas as examples and John's comments (1 John 2:19) to say it's more than possible, but does happen. They appeared to be believers, but were in fact not and made that clear by their apostasy. Jesus teaches this as well (Matt 7:21-23).
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if I understood your question. My quote from Rom. 11 is simply to indicate why I find it hard to accept the Baptist view of the New Covenant, and the nature of the church. Rom. 11 is far from teaching that only _individual_ elect people are _now_ what God is concerned about in including _in his church_. Simply put, I don't see how Jer. 31:31-34, which is central to the Baptist position, supposedly excludes the _children_ of believers _now_ given the fact that other prophecies of the New Covenant explicitly include them. (All quotations are from the ESV.)



> And _they shall be my people, and I will be their God_. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of *their children* after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. - Jer. 32:38-40
> 
> But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness *to children's children*, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. - Psa. 103:17-18
> 
> “And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of *your offspring*, or out of the mouth of *your children's offspring*,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.” - Isa. 59:21
> 
> “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and *their children* and *their children's children* shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and _I will be their God, and they shall be my people_. - Ezek. 37:24-27



This is the _same_ promise given to Abraham. It is the _same_ promise proclaimed in Pentecost at the beginning of the _New Covenant_.



> And I will establish my covenant between me and you and *your offspring* after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to *your offspring* after you. - Gen. 17:7
> 
> And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for *your children* and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” - Acts 2:38-39





jbotkin said:


> "(totally) regenerate church membership"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem comes in how you understand this. Here we simply want to say that unless someone has professed faith in Christ, they cannot join the church. This is to try to have local church membership - as much as possible - accurately reflect membership in the true Church universal (= genuine belief). This also helps prevent false assurance. Even still, we know we are fallible and some will deceive themselves or deceive others into believing they are saved when they are not.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The disagreement is inherently about what the church is, and how the covenant sign is to be administered. Also, infant baptism does not create false assurance. The fact that a child is a child of believing parents does not diminish any responsibility at all. It increases it since the child is raised in an environment where Christ is preached and taught to him, a privilege a child of an unbeliever does not have. Since much has been given to the covenant child, much will be demanded of him as well. 



> Unfortunately, you un-baptize me, and would not allow me to partake of the Lord's Supper if ever I visit your church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, you WOULD be permitted to partake at the Table at my church (so feel free to stop in some time when you're in the States!
> 
> Blessings
Click to expand...


I'm aware of Reformed Baptists who hold to a view like that. But I wouldn't have a problem if you deny the Lord's Supper to those who aren't validly baptized the Baptist way. It's okay with me. 



jbotkin said:


> P.S. As a related question of curiosity, if an unchurched man professed faith, would you baptize him along with his wife and children? That would seem to be consistent with the Acts passages, but I've never heard of a church doing that. I'm asking this, not as a criticism, but as an honest inquiry into paedo-baptist church practices.



It's an honest inquiry which I think is not sufficiently dealt with even in Reformed literature. The question fortunately has been discussed in the PB Forums in the past, and Reformed Paedo-Baptists have provided answers to it. See the threads here and here. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger deals with this question in this way. 



> Yes, the covenant head must believe, make profession of faith, and understand the basic meaning of Christian baptism before being baptized! Yes, all of those old enough to receive instruction must also profess faith before baptism. But again, all this proves is that those in the households who were not infants and small children were instructed and even that they came to faith before baptism as well. Remember that instruction from the Scriptures to all of those under his or her authority is indeed the responsibility of the head of the authority unit. Children born into a Christian home, like Timothy [1 Timothy 3:15], should know the Scriptures from infancy! They should never know what unbelief is like! Indeed, it is also equally plausible that there were older children, adult servants, a spouse, and even teenagers in these households, who were instructed, came to faith, and were then baptized, as well as infants and small children who were baptized upon the covenantal authority of the believing parent before they could believe. The difficulty raised by the varying ages and levels of comprehension possible within these households does not negate the principle of covenant authority, upon which infants are baptized, or the need for those in the household old enough to profess faith before baptism.
> 
> - Kim Riddlebarger from his Lectures on the Sacraments


----------



## jbotkin

> Thank you, John. I think we should start another thread since the thread starter's questions are quite different from what we are discussing now. The previous posts (including ours) show that no specific question is being answered anymore.



I understand!

After the other prophetic quotes you mentioned, I got what you were driving at. It's interesting because I had never read those references to children thinking, "Oh my Presbyterian friends would be thinking this here." Having that pointed out to will cause me to ponder more my own understanding/position about such things. 



> Exactly. The disagreement is inherently about what the church is, and how the covenant sign is to be administered. Also, infant baptism does not create false assurance. The fact that a child is a child of believing parents does not diminish any responsibility at all. It increases it since the child is raised in an environment where Christ is preached and taught to him, a privilege a child of an unbeliever does not have. Since much has been given to the covenant child, much will be demanded of him as well.



Sorry, I wasn't implying that paedo-baptism necessitates false assurance. In fact, I was thinking more of my own denominations failure on the outset to preach clearly the gospel message and are too quick to baptize. The idea of regenerate membership means those coming as candidates for membership in our church go through an interview process where their understanding of the gospel and profession of faith is examined. 

Thanks for the direction to the other posts, I will check them out. Thanks also for the tone of your responses. I know that conversational print is hard to read, but some other posters tend to have a very harsh tone that suggests an certain egotism. I'm not saying it's true, but they come off that way. I would have added an official 'thank you' for your posts if I could do it!

Blessings


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Is it OK if I chime in again? I hope so...


jbotkin said:


> AJ,
> Amazingly dense post, brother! But I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree here. I would agree with the LC quote expect for the statement of children. And I agree with the state on baptism in the WCF.


I think one of the issues here has to do with terms being used differently by the two sides. John, do you agree that ALL members of the visible church (however you define or limit) ARE members, fully and without an asterisk, even when they are revealed later as apostates?

The Presbyterian would say, that even after this was made plain, we wouldn't go back and hang an asterisk on that membership. He was a "member" as far as any human recognition could take it, and following discipline he has been dis-membered. His baptism was real and an unchangeable fact. He was a member; he is one no longer.

We distinguish between membership in the administration _only,_ which is visible, and membership according to the substance, which is something God himself keeps track of. We would say that the body of Christ (on earth) can in fact be dismembered, whether by individual deaths, by disciplinary amputation, by massive schism or corruption, or by overwhelming persecution from without. All such things would result in a "form" of dismembership. It is the price we pay for not being in heaven yet.

I'm not so sure that's the Baptist view of membership. Wouldn't you say that the apostate was NEVER a member of the church (invisible), and you are simply recognizing this fact, and indeed hanging an asterisk on that earthly membership? And stating that his "baptism" was no baptism but only a wetting?

Wouldn't you call this "dis-fellowship" as opposed to "dis-membership"? I just find it hard to believe that the average Baptist is OK with the idea that Christ's body (the church) can _*in any sense of the word*_ be dismembered.

Otherwise, it seems to me that you would be accepting that folks who are fooling others, and possibly themselves, are *members* of the church while they go undetected. Is that consistent with Baptist ecclesiology?

If I have raised valid questions, then while you might be able to agree with those catechism statements as agreeable words once they are run through a different filter, that's not the same thing as accepting them in the *sense* in which they are written.




jbotkin said:


> I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying you don't believe people can be part of the visible church and not the invisible church, or you can't see that from a baptist perspective? I would point to Judas and Demas as examples and John's comments (1 John 2:19) to say it's more than possible, but does happen. They appeared to be believers, but were in fact not and made that clear by their apostasy. Jesus teaches this as well (Matt 7:21-23).
Click to expand...

I think you misread AJ here. He thinks that the Baptist view of church membership views only those as real members even here below who are regenerate. Hence the phrase "regenerate church membership" common in Baptist circles.

And when you conflate the terms "members" and "believers" you are showing that you hold to such a view. But AJ is saying that it is possible for people to be "on their way to hell" AND to be _bona fide_ members of the church, albeit exclusively in the administrative (and not the substantive) sense. Again, I don't think that view fits the Baptist paradigm.



jbotkin said:


> "(totally) regenerate church membership"
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the problem comes in how you understand this. Here we simply want to say that unless someone has professed faith in Christ, they cannot join the church. This is to try to have local church membership - as much as possible - accurately reflect membership in the true Church universal (= genuine belief). This also helps prevent false assurance. Even still, we know we are fallible and some will deceive themselves or deceive others into believing they are saved when they are not.
Click to expand...

I just want to highlight one of your words here: "try", as in "_*try*_ to have membership reflect..." I agree that we use the term "member" in a _similar_ fashion (and here I'm attempting to be vague enough to say something we agree on in substance): to denote the regular gathering of people who sit under one rule. But when you use the word "try", I have to assume you are saying there is something essentially provisional about this list.

For us, that list is not provisional, but predicated although mutable. Our list can be changed, adding and taking away names. But if a name is taken away by discipline, we do not say "never was a true member," nor do we say he was not baptized. He is a "former" member. He doesn't belong here anymore.




jbotkin said:


> P.S. As a related question of curiosity, if an unchurched man professed faith, would you baptize him along with his wife and children? That would seem to be consistent with the Acts passages, but I've never heard of a church doing that. I'm asking this, not as a criticism, but as an honest inquiry into paedo-baptist church practices.


I'm going to give you one pastor's view here. It might differ on some particular or other with another man's understanding. But I think in general it is a fair description.

Preliminarily, patriarchs don't wield the same kind of authority in our culture as they did, even in NT times. But still I do not think it is reasonable to assume that anyone who was _positively unwilling_ to be baptized in NT-culture was forced into it.

Nor, then, would we baptize a wife who was not desirous to be included in the church, and to be called a Christian disciple. Her refusal is the refusal of a grown and independent person, emancipated from even the husband in many things in our culture. But a truly submissive wife, who though ignorant of many things of the faith still desired to follow her husband into a new identity, and take a new name "Christian"--I couldn't comprehend why she wouldn't be a good candidate. It isn't as though she comes not having had any basic preparation, an elementary instruction in the gospel which prepares her to accept or reject this rite.

We would baptize non-rebellious, non-refusing children. Children are in natural order under authority, they are not emancipated (yet), they have not attained majority, nor do they have any proper right to refuse baptism if they are commanded to submit to it, by the 5th commandment. (Please remember, you asked for the Presbyterian attitude.) And, again, in the nature of the case, they shall have received basic instruction in that of which they are engaging. Assuming total incomprehension of a teenager or even much younger seems rather artificial to me.

Now, I wouldn't baptize a rebellious youth, because he is refusing the Christian name. It is clear that this person isn't under his parent's authority, or is actively seeking its overthrow. In this way, he is refusing a "right" the paedo-baptist thinks he has, and therefore is not a proper subject.

And anyone who's emancipated, or in the judgment of the church should be examined for his own profession, then this is a wise course to take.


----------



## jbotkin

> Is it OK if I chime in again? I hope so..



Of course! 



> If I have raised valid questions, then while you might be able to agree with those catechism statements as agreeable words once they are run through a different filter, that's not the same thing as accepting them in the sense in which they are written.



That is something I don't want to do. I hate word games, particularly when it comes to confessionalism, so If I have misunderstood the meaning of the confession, then I would want to be corrected. But I'm not sure I have misunderstood it. Although perhaps the meaning of baptism (creedo vs paedo) is what is helping muddy the waters in our discussion - no pun intended! 

So let me begin by asking, if a child was baptized but then as an adult turned away from God and Christ, proving himself never saved, would you still say he was baptized in the NT sense? As I understand NT baptism, it is an external act that points to the invisible union of a believer with Christ (Rom 6, Gal 3) and so with his people (1 Cor 12). Therefore, even is one participates in a baptismal service, the sign ( = baptism) proves to be false if they fail to persevere, showing themselves to never have been a true believer. It was not a true baptism because they had not been truly united to Christ. 

So, as the pastor of my local church, when I had the unfortunate task of disciplining one of our members, I said he was no longer a member of our church. I did not say he wasn't ever a member. I said he was, and now he is not. Time will tell if he is a member of the invisible Church and he repents and is restored to membership in a local, visible church. So, I would say it's possible to have an earthly church membership without having a heavenly Church membership. 



> I think you misread AJ here. He thinks that the Baptist view of church membership views only those as real members even here below who are regenerate. Hence the phrase "regenerate church membership" common in Baptist circles.



Again, I would draw a distinction between visible members and invisible members. We work hard to try our best to ensure they are the same, but some visible members are not invisible members.

Of course, I could be out of step with traditional Baptist views! 

Dis this clarify my position or make it more confusing? 




> I'm going to give you one pastor's view here. It might differ on some particular or other with another man's understanding. But I think in general it is a fair description. . .



Very helpful, thank you. Again, curiosity - how does refusal to be baptized by older children affect their being considered covenant children? Does simply being the children of believing parents make them covenant children, or baptism?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

jbotkin said:


> if a child was baptized but then as an adult turned away from God and Christ, proving himself never saved, *would you still say he was baptized in the NT sense?* As I understand NT baptism, it ... was not a true baptism because they had not been truly united to Christ.


There's your credo-paedo distinction, expressed very clearly right there. We answer the *bold* question affirmatively. Because under our understanding it doesn't depend on the state of the individual's heart for the church validly to declare in the name of God that "God saves everyone who puts their faith in Christ."

Baptism is so tied to gospel-proclamation, that we say it has no efficacy where no gospel-word accompanies it. That is to say, where the gospel does not function as the rarefied air in this church, there baptism fails to teach real gospel truth. Christians are hot-house plants that thrive only in a gospel-saturated environment.

This is why the very deep theological divisions between Reformed baptism and Roman baptism need to be appreciated. Just because they may practice baptism in a similar mode upon formally similar subjects (old or young) does not mean that they are much alike at all. Rome is missing the gospel! And you should have to say something similar about the Church of Christ, or JW's.

We say that baptism is applied, it is something set to a person, done by an outside agent (God's institution on earth being his church), affecting a person symbolically and outwardly. It is "monergistic" under our view, and not dependent for any of its intrinsic meaning on the subject. The participant is entirely passive in undergoing this ordinance.

It is the individual's duty to believe (have faith) in what baptism teaches God does objectively to save people. Baptism reflects a subjective "inward reality" when the meaning of baptism is apprehended by faith. But because baptism, as Presbyterians understand it, is a declaration of God's work in salvation, and is not intrinsically or infallibly a declaration of God's saving work _in this person right here,_ then the *timing* of baptism makes no difference to us.

It makes no difference because God in Scripture doesn't make his promise to save SPECIFIC NAMED PERSONS, but to save ANYONE who has faith in Jesus Christ. The promise predates all mankind's existence, except for Adam and Eve. It was declared to the patriarchs, and restated many times by the prophets. The promise received a full expression and fulfillment in the Person and Work of Christ. And it continues to be restated in the Apostles and by their successors in the ministry of the NT church.

God's promise stands no matter what man does or fails to do with it. In fact to reject one's baptism, which is nothing more than a pictorial representation of the gospel-word, after receiving it (the baptism/gospel) and understanding it (the baptism/gospel), is to turn one's back on Christ.

So, when (for example) a baby is baptized, God promises to save him IF/WHEN he believes in the gospel. Why he has a right (or doesn't) to receive this sign of God's promise is what we argue about a lot around here. But the Reformed think that he is living and being reared in the gospel-context of the church, which is the PLACE where the gospel-promise is supposed to be held out each time we meet for worship.

If a person (let's say he's an adult) falsely professes yet is baptized, unless baptism is taken in the Baptist sense--of being a visible depiction of a subjectively realized AND objectively true invisible spiritual reality, at that moment, for that individual--then the divine declarative statement is true, irrespective of whether that sinner means what HE declares!

And if said sinner is still an elect person, then despite his falsehood at that time, unbenownst to him God has in fact made the secret promise personally to him before the world began. And it still awaits its revelation in time unto faith. But the fact is that before he was even ready for it, in baptism the promise is made PUBLIC, with special reference to him, since he is the subject. 

Baptism has no efficacy where no gospel accompanies it, because it has no efficacy apart from faith. But if right now I am believing in God's promise of salvation made to the elect before time, declared to my fathers and mothers in Scripture, and to my biological parents, and declared to me for the first time in my life before I was barely aware and alert (in baptism), and thousands of times since... "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"--

Yea... I believe that--then I understand that even as a child, God knew me before I knew him, and he was already making promises to save me, but not somehow apart from means, nor apart from perseverance in faith.

And if that child denies the gospel? He also denies what the baptism symbolized: "God will wash clean everyone who has faith in Jesus." But he wasn't elect (demonstrated if he persists in unbelief until he dies), and the promise was never for him. "But it is not as if the promise of God failed" (Rom9:6).




jbotkin said:


> So, as the pastor of my local church, when I had the unfortunate task of disciplining one of our members, I said he was no longer a member of our church. I did not say he wasn't ever a member. I said he was, and now he is not. Time will tell if he is a member of the invisible Church and he repents and is restored to membership in a local, visible church. So, I would say it's possible to have an earthly church membership without having a heavenly Church membership.


I guess my only question is: does he need to be baptized again? If he does, or anyone does, that shows a distinctly different view between us of the meaning of the term "member."



jbotkin said:


> how does refusal to be baptized by older children affect their being considered covenant children? Does simply being the children of believing parents make them covenant children, or baptism?


1) We say a covenant child is one by birth. His parent(s) render him such, 1Cor.7:14. Now my mother is a covenant child, but she is over 60 now. Time moves us beyond previously appropriate considerations relative to our status all our lives long. But consider, there is a sense in which covenant children owe MORE to their parents in their old age than heathen children owe theirs. There are clear reciprocal covenant obligations.

2) A rebellious covenant child is just that, a rebel. A despiser of mercy. God gave him to believing parents, so that he should receive a blessing of being trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and he hates them. Since in this scenario the child grew up in an unbelieving house for quite a while, perhaps he's angry that he's no longer permitted to have his wicked fun with his parents approval (or at least without any discipline).

3) He's showing by his actions that he is demanding treatment on his own standing, as an adult. So, he needs to be evangelized that way.


----------



## jbotkin

> I guess my only question is: does he need to be baptized again? If he does, or anyone does, that shows a distinctly different view between us of the meaning of the term "member."



No one is ever baptized again - at least they shouldn't be. Either the baptism was biblical baptism and never needs to be repeated, or it was not biblical baptism and the person just got wet. If a disciplined member repents and returns, there is no need to do anything than continue to disciple them. 

However, for example, if someone came with a Catholic "bathtism" we would tell them they were not really baptized and need to be in accordance with Christ's command. 



> t is the individual's duty to believe (have faith) in what baptism teaches God does objectively to save people. Baptism reflects a subjective "inward reality" when the meaning of baptism is apprehended by faith. But because baptism, as Presbyterians understand it, is a declaration of God's work in salvation, and is not intrinsically or infallibly a declaration of God's saving work in this person right here, then the timing of baptism makes no difference to us.



Obviously this is the core of our difference. Though I agree that baptism is "is a declaration of God's work in salvation, and is not intrinsically or infallibly a declaration of God's saving work in this person" the pattern of Scripture, as I read it, makes the timing of baptism very important. The sign (baptism) signifies what has happened (salvation). Thus, the sign should follow after that to which it points. Furthermore, try as I might - and trust me I have tried hard! - some of my heroes seem to read far too much into the OT connects to baptism. I just don't see any specific reference to the practice of paedo-baptism; it must come as a "consequence" and inference from larger biblical themes. 

I don't think either of us expected to change the other's mind. But your very helpful posts have allowed me to better understand your position while strengthening me in mine. 

Blessings to you, brother! I'll see you around the board.


----------



## A.J.

jbotkin said:


> ; it [infant baptism] must come as a "consequence" and inference from larger biblical themes.



John, that's the beauty of Covenant Theology and Reformed heremeneutics! Baptism is a _covenant_ sign, the initiatory ordinance of the visible _church_, and is administered to _households_. These are the larger Biblical themes necessary in understanding the proper subjects of baptism. Examining them thoroughly does justice to *all* of the Biblical data. I agree with that powerful statement (even though you disagree with the _necessary_ conclusion derived from these themes). 

I say, . Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Brian Withnell

A lot has already been posted, but one thing I think has been somewhat missed. The sign of circumcision in the OT was done exactly like the sign (baptism) in the NT. While it was normal for the sign to be applied through the descendants of Abraham (long before faith in the individual was evident) it was also applied at the point of conversion to those that came from outside the family of Abraham.

Exodus 12:48


> “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.



Those that came to believe in the OT were circumcised, even as the native in the land. If the head of the house believed, all the house was circumcised. That is not to say all believed, but if the father believed, the house was set apart.

If there were to be a change, it would have to be very clear that the change would have to be stated. That circumcision is replaced by baptism is clearly stated (Col 2:11, 12). If the persons to whom the sign is to be applied is to be changed ... those who believe as they come into belief and their children ... and it would be more restrictive than the already established OT order, then it should be stated explicitly.

While I see plenty of statements that those who believe should be baptized, I see no statements that say their children should not be baptized. To have such a sign change, it would seem incumbent upon those that would say it has changed to produce some verse that positively states not to baptize the children of those who believe. We already have a command to apply the covenant sign to the children of believers in the OT, to revoke that command should be by as clear a command as the original.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I was wondering if I could address something/ask a question about something that I saw earlier on the thread that didn't make any sense to me:



> WE part ways there.
> Regeneration is the fulfillment of circumcision not baptism-baptism is only it's NT counterpart.
> The covenant of grace unfolded over redemptive history to reveal more and more of the same truth, namely salvation in Christ. Those covenant embraced types and shadows, promise and fulfillment-all culminating and fulfilled in the finished work of Christ in the New Covenant, the types and shadows being no more.



How can that be when regeneration preceeded circumcision? In the book of Genesis, one of the key terms for regeneration is to speak of someone who hithallek 'et 'elohim, walked with God [Genesis 5:24, 6:9]. This is used all over the place for people who were regenerated, long before circumcision was ever instituted. If regeneration was the fulfillment of circumcision, then it would seem that circumcision should have never gotten off the ground, since regeneration both preceeded and followed the giving of circumcision. How can something be fulfilled by something that both preceeded and followed it in redemptive history?

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Quickened

Excellent thread. I gained a good idea of insight here


----------



## A.J.

Hebrew Student said:


> How can that be when regeneration preceeded circumcision? In the book of Genesis, one of the key terms for regeneration is to speak of someone who hithallek 'et 'elohim, walked with God [Genesis 5:24, 6:9]. This is used all over the place for people who were regenerated, long before circumcision was ever instituted. If regeneration was the fulfillment of circumcision, then it would seem that circumcision should have never gotten off the ground, since regeneration both preceeded and followed the giving of circumcision. How can something be fulfilled by something that both preceeded and followed it in redemptive history?
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



Good point, Adam. As I see it, this argument against infant baptism is more of a failure to understand the implications of sacramental union. Paedo-baptists believe that baptism has come in place of circumcision precisely because the reality signified by circumcision is signfied today by baptism. The sign changed, but the thing signified did not. As Paul explains, "In Him (the Lord Jesus) also you were circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism...." (Col. 2:11-12) We are circumcised when we are baptized. So since baptism signifies the same reality which circumcision signified, and since circumcision could be given to both believing Abraham and to infant Isaac (who could not profess faith, cf. Rom. 4:11-12), the conclusion is inevitable. Baptism could and should be administered to believers and their children. Also, there are Baptists who have no problem with asserting that baptism _does_ replace circumcision.


----------



## A2JC4life

armourbearer said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true; and of the facts we do possess there is not one example of the child of a believer being baptised on his own profession of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you certain? In Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer and his family were baptized, the text says, "having _believed_ in God with all his household." The entire household believed. It seems to me that there is as much evidence here that his children were baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there was an infant present within the household. And, in fact, it seems to be statistically more likely that there was _some_ child of reasoning age than that there was an infant, just given that the first category spans a far greater number of years.
> 
> In Acts 18, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, "_believed_ in God with all his household." It doesn't specify that they were baptized, but given the context of the verse that seems a reasonable assumption. And, again, there is as much evidence here that there were children baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there were infants present.
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.

Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.


----------



## A2JC4life

Semper Fidelis said:


> Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.
> 
> Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.



I agree. However, large numbers of paedobaptists point to these same passages as support for the baptism of infants. I am simply pointing out that there is just as strong (or weak) support for _either_ the baptism of an as-yet unprofessing child or a professing child in these passages. We simply cannot know for certain that there were young children in these households at all. We may assume so, but we cannot know so. (The passages do, however, indicate that if there were children present and counted as part of the "household," they believed.)


----------



## smhbbag

> So since baptism signifies the same reality which circumcision signified, and since circumcision could be given to both believing Abraham and to infant Isaac (who could not profess faith, cf. Rom. 4:11-12), the conclusion is inevitable



Those two points are not sufficient. The conclusion is not inevitable, as stated.

I agree with both - that baptism replaces circumcision, and that circumcision was given to infants who could not profess faith. We would both agree that circumcision/baptism are, at least, outward signs that formally establish one's membership with the visible covenant community. They are more than that, and I reject the misguided Baptist notion that it's just a symbol, or serves only as an announcement of or tribute to their conversion.

Only a third point would make your conclusion inevitable, and that is if the composition of the covenant community remained unchanged. If that has changed, and infants are no longer to be presumed to be included, then infant baptism is not established. The Baptist position maintains OT to NT continuity on the priesthood, while the paedo position maintains continuity on the membership - it has to be one of them. But just those two points are not enough.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

A2JC4life said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.
> 
> Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. However, large numbers of paedobaptists point to these same passages as support for the baptism of infants. I am simply pointing out that there is just as strong (or weak) support for _either_ the baptism of an as-yet unprofessing child or a professing child in these passages. We simply cannot know for certain that there were young children in these households at all. We may assume so, but we cannot know so. (The passages do, however, indicate that if there were children present and counted as part of the "household," they believed.)
Click to expand...



OK. I just don't know that disagreeing with Todd's post was apropos if your point was merely to demonstrate that the examples don't support either.

The paedo-baptist position doesn't rest upon narrative passages in the Scriptures where the credo-baptist position does. I don't say that to be pejorative but the paedo-baptist position begins with the continuity of the household principle in the Covenant of Grace whereas the credo-baptist position starts with the principle that the New Covenant is with the Elect alone.

Yet, the identity of the Elect is known only to God and so the Baptist would be completely unable to baptize anybody if they tried to base the actual baptism of a believer on this didactic principle. Thus the Baptist shifts to higher probabilities and notes that a professor is more likely to be elect than a non-professor and so it is best to wait to hear a person profess faith in Christ before they are baptized preventing any more false baptisms than necessary. At this point, as well, the "example of the Scriptures" is brought where historical narrative is appealed to buttress the baptism of professors. As already indicated, all passages with household baptisms mentioned are assumed to contain no infant children because that goes against the "higher probability that a professor is elect" assumption previously noted. Yet, as you noted, barring this assumption, there is nothing in historical narratives that explicitly supports the previous assumption.

Incidentally, in the final analysis, baptism does not confer membership in the New Covenant but in the visible Church alone as Baptist theology forces this distinction to be made for reason that it is admitted that false professors are inadvertently baptized. It is often overlooked that the membership of the New Covenant is visibly unrelated to the actual administration of Baptist baptisms because it is assumed they are connected. Yet, the real goal is to get the visible Church to match the identity of those in the NC as much as possible and the statistical probability issue is the principle issue of baptizing professors.

As far as I'm concerned, I could grant the Baptist view of the identity of those in the NC for the sake of argument and it would still not grant the subjects of who is to be baptized. I don't think there is any Scriptural support for the "greater probability of being elect" argument nor, as you have pointed out, do the historical narratives provide any further evidence one way or the other.

And, oh by the way, there is also no explicit retraction of the household principle that has operated within the visible/invisible Church since the time of Adam.


----------



## smhbbag

> The paedo-baptist position doesn't rest upon narrative passages in the Scriptures where the credo-baptist position does. I don't say that to be pejorative but the paedo-baptist position begins with the continuity of the household principle in the Covenant of Grace whereas the credo-baptist position starts with the principle that the New Covenant is with the Elect alone



As a note, this is the case for the vast majority of Baptists, including the Reformed ones, but it is not necessary in the credo position to start that way. Many, including myself, are fully on-board with the principle of continuity within the Covenant of Grace between the administrations of Old and New, and use that as a starting point. This is evidenced by the existence of credo Theonomists who argue for theonomy on that very basis. Baptists in this position would say that the credo position actually maintains more significant continuity than the paedo does.


----------



## tellville

Tim: Cool, you're from Vancouver. There are a few of us here!

Glenn: For some reason, you're avatar just oozes credo-baptist. I know you're not but every time I see your avatar I think "there's a baptist!"


----------



## A.J.

A2JC4life said:


> Are you certain? In Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer and his family were baptized, the text says, "having _believed_ in God with all his household." The entire household believed. It seems to me that there is as much evidence here that his children were baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there was an infant present within the household. And, in fact, it seems to be statistically more likely that there was _some_ child of reasoning age than that there was an infant, just given that the first category spans a far greater number of years.
> 
> In Acts 18, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, "_believed_ in God with all his household." It doesn't specify that they were baptized, but given the context of the verse that seems a reasonable assumption. And, again, there is as much evidence here that there were children baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there were infants present.



Bruce gave an exegesis of Acts 16:31-34 in post #22. Please check it out. Moreover, even if we read the 16:34 as saying that the jailer rejoiced, _believing in God with all his house_ (rather than the the jailer rejoiced with his house, _he having believed in God_, cf. ASV and ESV), the words used by Luke points still to a paedobaptist reading of the text. I have read a booklet defending paedobaptism that actually argues in a much similar way. An article I found from the OPC website makes the same observation. 



> The most detailed and informative account is that of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30�34). “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” he was told, “and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31; cf. 11:14). Accordingly, the gospel was preached “to him together with all who were in his house” (vs. 32). In response, he “believed in God with his whole household” (vs. 34), whereupon “he was baptized, he and all his household” (vs. 33).
> 
> The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed “with” his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had.
> 
> This crucial distinction between “with” and “and” (regrettably obscured by some translations) is clear in similar passages in Acts: 1:14; 3:4; 4:27; 5:1; 10:2; 14:13; 15:22; 21:5. In each case, “with” introduces those who follow the lead of others and join with them in their activity, however actively or passively. In Acts 21:5, for example, Paul is escorted to the harbor by all the men in the church at Tyre, “with wives and children,” which no doubt included a number of small infants.
> 
> In the household baptism passages, the head of the house always believes “with” his household, but he “and” they are baptized. Just as the heads of households escorted Paul to the harbor “with” infants who were only passive participants, so also heads of households were baptized “with” whatever infants were in their families.



Quoted rom The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism by James W. Scott.



A2JC4life said:


> I agree. However, large numbers of paedobaptists point to these same passages as support for the baptism of infants. I am simply pointing out that there is just as strong (or weak) support for either the baptism of an as-yet unprofessing child or a professing child in these passages. We simply cannot know for certain that there were young children in these households at all. We may assume so, but we cannot know so. (The passages do, however, indicate that if there were children present and counted as part of the "household," they believed.)



From your statements, it woud seem that you are saying that even Baptists themselves cannot conclusively establish the proper recipients of baptism from these historic examples. It is admiited by paedobaptists that there is no explicit example of infants/little children getting baptized. And yet there is no explicit example either of the "believer's baptism" of children of believing parents. In fact, *all* the explicit examples we have in Acts and 1 Cor. are those of adults coming from Jewish or non-pagan backgrounds who professed faith before getting baptized. We are not told _when_ their children (if there are any) received baptism. Were they baptized as infants/little children or as adults? The question can only be answered by examining the _entire_ Biblical data avaialble. 



smhbbag said:


> So since baptism signifies the same reality which circumcision signified, and since circumcision could be given to both believing Abraham and to infant Isaac (who could not profess faith, cf. Rom. 4:11-12), the conclusion is inevitable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those two points are not sufficient. The conclusion is not inevitable, as stated.
> 
> I agree with both - that baptism replaces circumcision, and that circumcision was given to infants who could not profess faith. We would both agree that circumcision/baptism are, at least, outward signs that formally establish one's membership with the visible covenant community. They are more than that, and I reject the misguided Baptist notion that it's just a symbol, or serves only as an announcement of or tribute to their conversion.
> 
> Only a third point would make your conclusion inevitable, and that is if the composition of the covenant community remained unchanged. If that has changed, and infants are no longer to be presumed to be included, then infant baptism is not established. The Baptist position maintains OT to NT continuity on the priesthood, while the paedo position maintains continuity on the membership - it has to be one of them. But just those two points are not enough.
Click to expand...


Infant circumcision started with Abraham, _not with Moses_. The nation of Israel, the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, etc. officially came into existence 430 years later after God made a covenant with Abraham (Exo. 12:40; Gal. 3:17). This is an important distinction many Baptists fail to consider. The contrast set by the Biblical writers is between Moses (Old/Mosaic Covenant) and the Lord Jesus (New Covenant), not between Abraham and Christ. See Jer. 31; Heb. 8; 2 Cor. 3; Rom. 4; Gal. 3. Dr. R. Scott Clark has recently written a blog post discussing this all too common Baptist objection in detail. See Abraham was not Moses.


----------



## smhbbag

> Infant circumcision started with Abraham, not with Moses. The nation of Israel, the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, etc. officially came into existence 430 years later after God made a covenant with Abraham (Exo. 12:40; Gal. 3:17). This is an important distinction many Baptists fail to consider. The contrast set by the Biblical writers is between Moses (Old/Mosaic Covenant) and the Lord Jesus (New Covenant), not between Abraham and Christ. See Jer. 31; Heb. 8; 1 Cor. 3; Rom. 4; Gal. 3. Dr. R. Scott Clark has recently written a blog post discussing this all too common Baptist objection in detail. See Abraham was not Moses.



I'm not too sure why you responded this way, and rebutted with that article. That article is so exactly my own thoughts and words it was a little scary to read it. The author of it is completely right in every respect.


----------



## Michael Doyle

> Infant circumcision started with Abraham, not with Moses. The nation of Israel, the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, etc. officially came into existence 430 years later after God made a covenant with Abraham (Exo. 12:40; Gal. 3:17). This is an important distinction many Baptists fail to consider. The contrast set by the Biblical writers is between Moses (Old/Mosaic Covenant) and the Lord Jesus (New Covenant), not between Abraham and Christ. See Jer. 31; Heb. 8; 2 Cor. 3; Rom. 4; Gal. 3. Dr. R. Scott Clark has recently written a blog post discussing this all too common Baptist objection in detail. See Abraham was not Moses.



Wow, that was a fantastic article. Thanks


----------



## A2JC4life

A.J. said:


> The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed “with” his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had.



Believe it or not, I would tend to agree with this. This is one of the reasons my husband and I would prefer that churches not engage in "children's ministry" - VBS and such. These often seem to be the church's lazy way to say they've "evangelized" because it's less disconcerting than talking to heads of households, or households as a whole. However, statistics demonstrate the same thing noted above. When daddies are the first ones to come to the Lord, their families are far more likely to follow. That's somewhat off-topic, though. 



A.J. said:


> From your statements, it woud seem that you are saying that even Baptists themselves cannot conclusively establish the proper recipients of baptism from these historic examples. It is admiited by paedobaptists that there is no explicit example of infants/little children getting baptized. And yet there is no explicit example either of the "believer's baptism" of children of believing parents. In fact, *all* the explicit examples we have in Acts and 1 Cor. are those of adults coming from Jewish or non-pagan backgrounds who professed faith before getting baptized. We are not told _when_ their children (if there are any) received baptism. Were they baptized as infants/little children or as adults? The question can only be answered by examining the _entire_ Biblical data avaialble.



Yes, I agree. It is clear that new adult believers were baptized, but of course no one is disputing that.  Certain narratives may "add evidence" to a particular view, so to speak, but I don't think that we can arrive at any firm conclusions on the matter from them, no. And, frankly, I think it's kind of selling us Baptists short to assert, as someone did a few posts back, that our entire doctrine is built on narrative passages. Neither of us can rely on a passage that teaches as clearly as to say, "Baptize your babies," or, "Do not baptize your babies." That's why there are solid Christians on both sides of the fence. But I think it's fair to say that both base their teachings on something firmer than "so-and-so did it."


----------



## galactic reformer

semperveritas said:


> Assuming you all are correct can you tell all of your children after they are baptized in infancy, and while they still are infants, what St. Paul told the Romans and the Galatians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3Do you not know that all of us(C) who have been baptized(D) into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were(E) buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as(F) Christ was raised from the dead by(G) the glory of the Father, we too might walk in(H) newness of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Can you GAURANTEE that to anybody? If not, your argument is a strawman.

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 01:11:31 EST-----



Brian Withnell said:


> A lot has already been posted, but one thing I think has been somewhat missed. The sign of circumcision in the OT was done exactly like the sign (baptism) in the NT. While it was normal for the sign to be applied through the descendants of Abraham (long before faith in the individual was evident) it was also applied at the point of conversion to those that came from outside the family of Abraham.
> 
> Exodus 12:48
> 
> 
> 
> “But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those that came to believe in the OT were circumcised, even as the native in the land. If the head of the house believed, all the house was circumcised. That is not to say all believed, but if the father believed, the house was set apart.
> 
> If there were to be a change, it would have to be very clear that the change would have to be stated. That circumcision is replaced by baptism is clearly stated (Col 2:11, 12). If the persons to whom the sign is to be applied is to be changed ... those who believe as they come into belief and their children ... and it would be more restrictive than the already established OT order, then it should be stated explicitly.
> 
> While I see plenty of statements that those who believe should be baptized, I see no statements that say their children should not be baptized. To have such a sign change, it would seem incumbent upon those that would say it has changed to produce some verse that positively states not to baptize the children of those who believe. We already have a command to apply the covenant sign to the children of believers in the OT, to revoke that command should be by as clear a command as the original.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Precisely. OIKOS inclusion is the rule of all scripture. If the family covenant was done away with, I would like to see where.

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 01:19:10 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.
> 
> Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.



How does said SILENCE require a baptist hermeneutic? IF OIKOS is not specifically addressed as to scope in the NT, can we go to the OT to help us? Especially given that the NT was written in a historical setting, which would have ramifications on the interpretation of the issue. So which method is correct? Looking elsewhere in scripture to help understand how signs and seals are given, or interjecting a definition not found oustide NT-baptist thinking? OIKOS in the OT was inclusive...OIKOS today is still defined as all members of a household. ONLY in the NT does OIKOS never come with an EXclusive understanding. I'll take historical-grammatical continuity.


----------



## A2JC4life

galactic reformer said:


> semperveritas said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you all are correct can you tell all of your children after they are baptized in infancy, and while they still are infants, what St. Paul told the Romans and the Galatians?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3Do you not know that all of us(C) who have been baptized(D) into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were(E) buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as(F) Christ was raised from the dead by(G) the glory of the Father, we too might walk in(H) newness of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you GAURANTEE that to anybody? If not, your argument is a strawman.
Click to expand...


I agree. (And I'm Baptist.)


----------

