Gene Cook Vs. Paul Manata Baptism Debate

[44jason]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

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

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

Hello brothers,
...Paul is a good debater but his argument was simply unconvincing.

...Gene's arguments seemed to be more defensive because Gene had to correct Paul's inconsistent hermeneutic...

...Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out."...

...just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Rom. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.

...this position is so off-base...

...trying to decipher this twisted position...

...Paul's position was such a stretch that Paul spent most of his cross-examination time begging Gene to re-write the Bible....

...The audience picked up on the fallacy of Paul's position...

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

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

 

[44jason]

Rich,
Maybe you didn't read comment #233 in which Paul claimed that I was being dishonest. Remember, he was responding to my first post and made such a remark because I typed "Romans" instead of "Hebrews". So who is uncharitable?
Well, maybe you don't want to believe me. You should read more of Paul's statements over at the NarrowMind Aftermath blog where he does the same thing to a guy named Tony. Yes, he even calls him "a little more than dishonest". And you will never believe why?
So Rich, I appreciate your concern and efforts to keep me accountable. I do appreciate it. But like you said, here is the proof so "deal with that."
Now back to my statement: Listen to the debate and you will find that Paul admits that it does not matter to him that he is baptizing people who neither claim to be converted nor may ever be converted. In fact, Paul says that Hebrews 10:30 is proof that God will judge all of these people who he baptized as infants and will sort out who is truly regenerate and who is not.
Rich, you can continue to claim that my statement is unsubstantiated, but I the MP3's of the debate speak for themselves.
Do you agree with Paul?
In fact, I thought Presbyterians believed that baptism was a means of grace? Manata seemingly does not. Even we Baptist who are Reformed believe that there is a means of grace in a true believers baptism. But Manata is denies any such grace. In fact, Paul argued that God only administers grace WHEN the child draws near to God first.
Does that sound Arminian to anyone else or is it just me?

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Pastor Jason, I think your misunderstanding is this: If I am not mistaken, Gene was using the perfection of NC (i.e. NC = elect) to argue that, since we don't know if the infants are elect, we shouldn't baptize them. Paul's argument was that, since we don't anyone to be elect for sure, Gene's argument can be equally applied to the Baptist's side to prevent any professed believer from being baptized. Paul was using the "we don't know who are the elect" to refute Gene's argument, not as a positive reason why we should baptize infant. Paul's primary argument for infant baptism was the continuinty of the covenant of grace, not "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out". And this is your misunderstanding/misrepresentation.

Also, we believe that there are external/internal aspect of a covenant. While Baptist believe that the New Covenant has only internal aspect (i.e. in the NC = elect). Therefore it is common that when a Paedobaptist says "a certain person is in the New Covenant", a Baptist will impose his "NC = elect" assumption and assume the Paedobaptist is saying "a certain person is elect", while the Paedobaptist simply mean that person is under the external administration of the New Covenant. An example would be Esau, he was in the external administration of the covenant of grace, he was circumcised, yet he was not one of the elect for all we know. Similarly, a person, whether an infant or professed believer, can be under the external adminstration of the covenant of grace - baptized, and yet not one of the elect. If you start imposing your Baptist understanding of New Covenant on what we are saying, you will definitely misunderstand/misrepresent what we are saying.

I did listening to the debate couple of days ago. Thank you for hosting and moderating the debate. I think the debate has been really helpful for many on this board.

 

[44jason]

Polo,
Thank you for your comments. I did understand already the paedo position but it was good to hear it again from you. Concerning your assertion that Paul was saying that Gene's argument can be applied to the Baptist side, I would like to say that this was proven in the debate to be not valid. But Paul and his paedo colleagues continue to assert it as a sound argument.

I have given you ample time references so that anyone can listen with their own ears to Paul's arguments. I will do more references as time allows, especially to show where he asserts "baptize them all and let God sort them out" theology.

I did find it very interesting that Manata's theology of baptism was void of any means of grace -- in fact, he explicitly said that God would do nothing for a baptized person until that person "drew near" unto God. Even us Baptist who are Reformed believe that baptism is a means of grace. That is why we are so disgusted at paedo theology that says that a person is a candidate for the sign of the Covenant, is a member of the church, but cannot partake of the Lord's Table --- why? because they are not of Christ and cannot digest lamb chops.

Come on. I can see that we need a follow-up debate. And this time we can just focus on what is the definition of baptism. That will answer who should be a candidate. Of course, that was Gene's argument that no one wants to deal with.

 

[44jason]

Good night. Will be back tomorrow, God willing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,
Maybe you didn't read comment #233 in which Paul claimed that I was being dishonest. Remember, he was responding to my first post and made such a remark because I typed "Romans" instead of "Hebrews". So who is uncharitable?
Well, maybe you don't want to believe me. You should read more of Paul's statements over at the NarrowMind Aftermath blog where he does the same thing to a guy named Tony. Yes, he even calls him "a little more than dishonest". And you will never believe why?
So Rich, I appreciate your concern and efforts to keep me accountable. I do appreciate it. But like you said, here is the proof so "deal with that."
Now back to my statement: Listen to the debate and you will find that Paul admits that it does not matter to him that he is baptizing people who neither claim to be converted nor may ever be converted. In fact, Paul says that Hebrews 10:30 is proof that God will judge all of these people who he baptized as infants and will sort out who is truly regenerate and who is not.
Rich, you can continue to claim that my statement is unsubstantiated, but I the MP3's of the debate speak for themselves.
Do you agree with Paul?
In fact, I thought Presbyterians believed that baptism was a means of grace? Manata seemingly does not. Even we Baptist who are Reformed believe that there is a means of grace in a true believers baptism. But Manata is denies any such grace. In fact, Paul argued that God only administers grace WHEN the child draws near to God first.
Does that sound Arminian to anyone else or is it just me?

Have a good night's rest and a blessed Lord's Day.

OK, thank you for pointing that out. We all need to be careful in the way we utilize our polemics that they might not offend. Paul understands this and I would urge you both to be careful. As you have pointed out that example and have had multiple examples in your initial post that were passed over without censure, I would ask us all to continue to be more circumspect in our argumentation.

I think, as aleksanderpolo has noted, you need to distinguish between when a person is using a reductio ad absurdum and when he is giving his actual thoughts on the means of Grace. I would be the first to jump on Paul if I thought what you attributed to a cross-examination or rebuttal accurately reflected his position on those points.

Incidentally, if you wish to interact more on the means of Grace, I would invite you to this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341

Please read all the way through to get to the heart of it. Perhaps you can shed some light on it especially given your concern for means of Grace.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

Having read all of the posts here I think a word or two is in order.

First, Paul has made a wonderfully concise and brilliant argument for paedo-baptism in his first presentation when he said:

1) All who join the visible church are proper subjects of Christian Baptism.

2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent(s) join the visible church.

3) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent(s) are proper subjects of Christian Baptism.

Second, this argument gets bogged down by the acculturation of the credo-baptist position. That is: paedo-baptists are not fighting a theology, but a culture. The credo-baptist has created a "culture" of jokes, catch-phrases, misapplied history, and philosophical intransigence that the paedo-baptist must penetrate. Engaging in this culture is what causes the emotional responses of the credo-baptist position. Unfortunately, if the paedo-baptist is not careful, then he also will get bogged down in this culture and confirm the credo-baptist thinking of his culture.

The argument is not about the Bible. The paedo-baptist position is the Biblical teaching on the subject. The argument is about the credo-baptists' emotional and sociological attachment to "Believer's Only." This is evident in their many statements on the subject:

1) Their "joke" about the Bible being the proof of credo-baptism is near and dear to their hearts. It was used in the beginning of this debate by Gene. It was also used in the White/Shishko debate as well. In short they are saying, "We are the Biblical ones. The paedo's simply have a theology."

2) Their catch-phrase of "Believer's Only" is nowhere found in the Bible - hence the "joke" above.

3) Their "history" that the Reformers did not reform baptism is unsubstantiated and a gross misreading of the Reformation. Yet, they brashly call themselves "Reformed"? Not even Spurgeon would do so - but simply referred to himself as "Calvinistic."

Finally, I would call upon both sides to stop the name-calling and emotional jabs at the opposing person's "intentions" and get back to the point at hand. Such, I think, is impossible for the credo-baptist to do, because his "culture" is always getting in the way.

In short I am asking the credo-baptist to be epistemologically self-conscious.

Therefore, I would like to wipe the slate clean and ask the simple question that any Biblical Christian might have concerning 1 Cor. 7:14 which reads:

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Paul is clear to point out that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for their own sake, but for the sake of the children. Thus, the child of at least one believing parent is considered "holy" or "set apart." Is this not the very definition of what it means to be in the Church - to be set apart? i.e. ekklesia the "called out" ones?

Why then would you not administer baptism to one that the Bible calls is "holy."

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Jim Johnston]

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

Again, I repost my un-refuted response:

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

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

So for Jason to say,

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

is to totally distort what actually happened. Actually, in my opening, which was my positive case, I never mentioned any arguments for internal/external. The "character attacks" have been substantiated. You did not even come close to representing me properly.

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

Actually, Jason, the full context began at 12:15 and it was a response to gene saying that I am KNOWINGLY baptizing unbelievers.

Since Gene had said that he didn't know who the elect are, then I offered this refutation above:

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

Gen can't "test" the "validity" of one's elect status by a "profession," especially when he said he would baptize IMMEDIATELY after profession. A seconds worth of time is not anything like a "test of validity."

At any rate, Jason, this was a *response* to one of *Gene's* complaints against me. This was in the THIRD mp3 for crying out loud! You said above that this was "my main reason" for baptizing infants. How could it be when it wasn't in (a) my opening positive case, (b) my cross exam, (c) my rebuttal???

And, my argument was that whatever applies to me can be applied to Gene. If I can't know that I am not baptizing an elect, neither can Gene. Now, perhaps you'd like to do the probability calculus for us and show us the probability that the 1.5 billion Christians who have 'professed faith" are mostly elect.

Indeed, look at some resolutions brought to the SBC convention:

Whereas in 2004 the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Church Profiles indicated that there are 16,267,494 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

Whereas well over one half of those members never attend or participate meaningfully in the life of any local Southern Baptist church and are thus no different than non-members; and

Whereas the ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2005, urge Southern Baptists to repent of our failure to maintain responsible church membership, and be it further

RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further

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

This is bad, Jason. I never even said that! I never even said "based on." In fact, if you charitably listen to my argument, I simply said that Gene quoted WHAT WAS SAID TO ABRAHAM and so the EXEGETICAL INTENT OF GENE'S QUOTE couldn't be that "children were removed from the covenant." You've totally failed to grasp my argument. Your comments here perfectly illustrate what I've found over and over again. It is so bad that it is almost as if fingers were stuck in ears when I talked. If you don't understand the difference between what I said, and what you attribute to me, then you have some severe biases. I hope others can at least see the level of misrepresentation; even if they don't agree with my paedo views.

I continued that argument and showed that "believers baptism" could not be demonstrated from The Great Commission (besides, what does this have to do with what you attribute to me in your opening post here? Looks like you're "running" from the facts

If you want to know what I said, here's the long version, it is different from your misrepresentation:

Consider Matthew 28:18-20 briefly:

(1) The word “alone” is not in the passage.

(2) Them does not refer to “disciples” since “make disciples,” in Greek, is a verb. It refers to the nations.

(3) Those in the times of the New Testament would have understood “nations” a bit differently than we do. For example in Amos 3:2 Jehovah tells Israel that He has chosen them over all the “families” of the earth. But the passages which speak about Jehovah choosing Israel takes place in the context of choosing Israel over against all the nations of the earth (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 4:32-37). Thus the passage could have read: “Therefore go and make disciples of all the families of the earth, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

(4) The same root word for the verb that is translated “make disciples” has been used in the LXX to refer to teaching and training children. Manthano is the root word from where we get the noun “disciple.” The Israelites knew that they were to “disciple” their children. The idea of discipling our children goes all the way back to Abraham. Abraham was chosen “so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just…” (Gen. 18:19). It was common knowledge that parents had the job of making their children disciples. As Mathew says, we make disciples by “baptizing and teaching” people.

5) the Gentile mission extends the Jewish mission - not replaces it; Jesus nowhere revokes the mission to Israel (10:6), but merely adds a new mission revoking a previous prohibition (10:5). The “minor commission” is dripping with Federalist assumptions. Entire families and towns were considered disciples of Jesus, or rejecters of Jesus, on the basis of the decision of the representative head of those families or towns. Thus this would have naturally been carried over into the “Great Commission.”

So, Jason, I simply demonstrated that it's much harder to probe "believers alone" baptism from this text. But, the funny part is that I got most the above arguments from Baptists themselves! Beasly-Murray, Keener, Blomberg, Witherington, &c.

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

Let's note again that this isn't in my intro and so doesn't substantiate your claim about "my only reason" for baptizing our infants.

But, let's look at your quote. The specific context, which you again conveniently left out, is that of a RESPONSE to Gene's question: "Why didn't they just say baptism replaced circumcision." And so in 18:20 I simply said, well why didn't the gentiles respond to the Judaizers that their children were not in the covenant, and so why were they trying to circumcise them? Weren't the Gentiles taught from inception into the community that their kids weren't in it? Wouldn't they have thought it odd that these Judaizers were trying to include the children Paul specifically said were out?

And, again, I must point out your misunderstandings. From the paedo perspective, you must understand, and, which I also pointed out in the debate, there are DIFFERENT SENSES to the phrase "in the covenant." When you treat being "in" the NC in just ONE SENSE you're begging the question against our view. I said this in the debate. But since it halts all your arguments, and forces you to deal with the argument stopper before you move on to your "nature of the NC argument," I guess that's why my clear and explicit words get ignored.

So, if one is spiritually dead, then they are only in THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP. I made an ARGUMENT for this from I Cor. 5:1-13. It was INCUMBANT upon Gene to rebut this, what did he say, "Well the word New Covenant isn’t in I Corinthians 5." I mean, that's a good stall tactic, but not likely to persuade the critical thinker.

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

What!!! This is absurd. I claimed that the great commission tells us to baptize disciples, and women are disciples, therefore we can baptize women. You'll note that this was Gene's argument for the Lord's supper. Anyway, I explained my view on Matt 28 and this should be taken as determinative of my views expressed later. Only someone bent on making me look bad would make these claims. Let's note, Pastor, that the TEXT says to baptize the nations, not "me." "Them" cannot refer to "make disciples" since "make disciples" is a "verb" and not a "noun." Almost every scholar agrees that the referent is "the nations." Anyway, I don't know how you're using "unconverted" or "disciple." So, again, you're READING YOUR ASSUMPTIONS into my text.

Look, in one sense, Jesus says that only those who persevere to the end are his disciples. But, we don't baptize at THE END of the Christian life, do we?

No, the text says, "make disciples of the nations by baptizing and teaching them."

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

Well, unregenerate professors have THE SIGN of the New Covenant, but no mediator.

And, what's you beef? Where's your argument? What sense are you talking about being "in" the New Covenant?

You're not even dealing with my position, Jason. Is this "showing yourself to be a workman approved by God?" Are you treating me and my arguments in the best possible light? Am I nodding in agreement as you characterize my position? No. that should tell you something. I don't know about you, but I was always taught that when you critique someone they should see their position in your writings or comments and be in agreement, knowing that you have understood them. You are about 10,000 miles away from that.

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

And this makes non-drawing-near professors baptism MEANINGLESS then!! Do you even see how bad you're refuting yourself???

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

Yes, I was. Even most paedocommunionists agree with that! But, it appears that you don't bother to read them either. I try to read and study my opponents.

If you'd like the longer answer, well here's some hi-lights: It is agreed upon that *infants* did not eat the Passover. There was no Gerber Passover Lamb Blender back then. Suffice it to say, it is pretty clear that the meals were for men only, and for catechized children. This is why Jesus goes up to Jerusalem at age 12. This is why the Talmud speaks of taking 12 year olds to the feast "for the first time." This is why ancient Jewish sources recall a story of a "pious Jew" who was turned away at the gate for bring his very young children to the assembly. This is why it was only male disciplines with Jesus at the Passover, and no hint that it was weird that they were away from their family. This is why it was only men ("brothers") at Pentecost, which was the time of one of the OT feasts. This is why there are rituals for *men* to become clean and/or take the Passover the next month, but for women there is nothing. This is especially odd since at least 25% of the Israelite women would have been unclean for Passover (due to menstruation). But there is no ritual cleanliness or way for them to take the Passover the next month with the men who either missed it or had become unclean somehow (which they couldn't anyway since the Jews observed a a lunar calendar).

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

Well, that was a joke, a jab. Are you really trying to prove something by this? Anyway, Jason, Gene has done them IN THE WORSHIP service. if you want to know, though, since the Roman Catholic Church began believer's communion in the 1200's, then your view (and mine) of the subjects of communion is another "un-reformed doctrine of the RCC church."!!

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

You argue for baptizing enemies of God do since you don't know who the elect are, and you have no "valid test."

And, David was God's enemy, but still called God his God. Around this same time Gene said that "we are ALL born enemies of God."

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

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

And, furthermore, what were they doing giving circumcision to "God's enemies?" Let's quote Paul Jewett:

“If anyone will look a little more deeply beneath the surface, he will perceive that the Old Testament is clearly concerned with the theological and ethical meaning of circumcision, which, as elaborated in the New, lies to close to that of baptism to be depreciated. […] This ethical and theological meaning, as the New Testament interprets circumcision, is not lost but taken up in the meaning of baptism (p. 86).

Paul describes the Ephesians as uncircumcised in the spiritual sense, that, prior to their conversion, they were apart from Christ. But if to be apart from Christ is to be spiritually uncircumcised, ‘alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,’ then to be in Christ must be to possess those blessings which circumcision in the flesh was no less certainly the sign of in the Old Testament than is baptism in the New. …[O]ne can hardly doubt that baptism has the same essential significance [as circumcision] for Christians in the New Testament (p. 87-88).

[T]he only conclusion that we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism” (p. 89).

So, I'm not saying anything that other BAPTISTS aren't.

Let's cite Baptist OT scholar P.D. Woodbridge:

“Circumcision was a physical expression of faith which distinguished those who belonged to the Lord and those who did not. […] [Circumcision was not meant to be understood as a sign of racial purity. […] In Joshua 5:2-8 the necessity of circumcision is again underlined, as God commands that the generation of Jews born on the journey through the wilderness, who had not been circumcised, should now undertake the rite. Verses 6-7, and 11-12 may also indicate that the people should re-dedicate themselves to the Lord before occupying the land promised in the covenant. […] It is clear even from these passages that circumcision is never merely a physical act. It is not sufficient to merely be physically circumcised. The Israelites in Deuteronomy are instructed to circumcise their hearts as a spiritual response to God’s choice of them as his people. This response involves fearing, serving and holding fast to him (v. 20); it is the opposite of stubbornness. Heart commitment is a necessity, not an option. […] The limitations of the mere physical act are underlined in Jeremiah 9:25-26, where the prophet plays down the value of circumcision as merely an end in itself; to rely on it could lead to false confidence and therefore Israel should be circumcised in heart. A Jew with an uncircumcised heart is no different from a Gentile whose nation practices circumcision (cf. Ezek. 44:9, where entry to the rebuilt temple is forbidden to those who are not circumcised in heart and flesh)” (Woodbridge, p. 411-412).

Certainly if the above spiritual realities were assumed to be operating in the adults who were circumcised in the Old Testament, being signified by the physical circumcision while being such that one was not warranted in assuming that infants possessed those realities, or assented to those meanings, then it does not bother the reformed paedobaptist to assume that baptism, which signifies myriad similar and dissimilar spiritual realities in adults which we do not assume infants currently posses, can rightly be given to the infant children of believers.

Even if circumcision did not signify exactly the same spiritual realities as baptism, the point is that circumcision signified spiritual realities that we are not warranted in believing the infants of the people who professed the true religion back then, currently possessed. To say that since baptism represents X, where X is a spiritual reality we are not warranted in assuming infants currently possess, therefore we should not baptize our infants, is to make a demonstrably false claim. Things that represent X, where X is a spiritual reality we are not warranted in assuming infants currently possess, were given to infants all the time. Thus the argument from meaning is not an obvious argument against infant baptism.

Cheers,

 

[Jim Johnston]

Jason slanders me again:

In fact, I thought Presbyterians believed that baptism was a means of grace? Manata seemingly does not. Even we Baptist who are Reformed believe that there is a means of grace in a true believers baptism. But Manata is denies any such grace.

In fact, Presbyterians believe this:

WCF CH. 28.VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

If you can't even state our position correctly, then you shouldn't be "refuting" it, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jason,
I think I can say, as a paedobaptist,

1) There is a sense in which it is immaterial for the paedobaptist whether the baptizee is presently, or will be, converted. And the reason is--we are only baptizing the specific people God has commanded us (so we are convinced) to baptize. Since we are not impacted by a concern over whether a profession is genuine, we will baptize an adult who gives us a credible profession of faith. And so far as we are concerned, he is baptized, and he needn't be again, even if he thinks later on "oh, I wasn't actually converted til later." Because, for us, the order (baptism-conversion-baptism) is of far lower significance. In part this has to do with what baptism symbolizes, in our understanding. So, when I say "it doesn't matter," of course I am "concerned" about a person's sincerity, however, if God has told me to baptize a certain person based on an outward criteria, I don't let my concern about the potential of his lying impact me beyond a very short limit. Unless I think he IS lying, or have strong reasons to doubt that credibility, I actually have an obligation to baptize. Likewise, if God has commanded me to baptize children of believers, I have a duty to do so.

2) The means of grace are never effectual apart from faith. No Reformed Christian should ever say otherwise. Our contention is that the sacraments are effectual only when they are united to faith through the Spirit's operation, in his appointed time. There is nothing Arminian about this. The "drawing near" is something only a faithful person, a regenerate converted person can do. The elect infant might be blessed faintly in his hour of baptism, however, we really do not know what God is secretly doing, only what the church is doing outwardly in His name. And, the grace of God is most evidently ministered, in this means, at that hour, unto those who are exercising the most patent FAITH at that moment--the believers who have brought their child to be baptized; baptism is functioning as a means of grace to them, as much or more at that moment than to the helpless child.

Perhaps this has cleared up some misunderstanding, I hope.

 

[44jason]

Paul, As I discerned in my second comment way back, I can see that it is futile to try to have a conversation with you. You feel as if "character attacks are substatiated." I do not and will not participate in such. My arguments stand, the MP3's are clear, and I gain nothing by repeating the obvious.

Bruce, thank you for your comments. I appreciate your two points. Both of them underscore the fact that the real issue is not who is a candidate for baptism but what is baptism. There we find ourselves at odds. Baptist do not claim to know 100% who is regenerated. But Baptist do recognize that we are called upon to do everything we can to know (e.g. "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers." Can't do that unless I know who is a believer and who is not.). In the Scriptures it was rare that an unregenerate person was baptized. John the Baptist turned away many; Jude, Peter, John, and Paul all warned of who was of the faith and who was not. Timothy (a non apostle) was called upon to know who was saved. Paul called the Thess. believers the "elect of God" if I remember right.

But just becuase sometimes we mistakenly baptize a non-regenerate person does not mean that we should either just quite baptizing all together or just start baptizing everyone's kids -- since perfection is unreachable. No, we shall do our best in the power of the Spirit to know the mind of Christ and baptize those who repent. That is what the Bible commands -- and no where does it command to baptize infants just because they have a believing parent.

And CalvinHodge, I just don't have time to correct your exegesis of 1 Cor. 7:14 right now, sorry.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I was going to listen to the second segment to day and respond to the examinations. But I am having such a peaceful day and enjoying it I will rest in the Lord and do it tomorrow.

You all have a great LORD's Day. I am.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Brother Jason,

we shall do our best in the power of the Spirit to know the mind of Christ and baptize those who repent. That is what the Bible commands

I agree with all the references to exercising a (fallible) spirit of discernment, and to do what we can to make just judgments. Of course, I disagree that in the case of baptism, those exercises extend beyond a simple assessment to a specialized gnosis. So far as I'm concerned, I'm only asking for the most basic outward testimony, which is not contradicted, followed by a simple outward rite-of-induction.

I strongly dispute the contention (if this is what you meant) that "having the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) means anything remotely like "knowing (or approximating) the knowledge Christ has" regarding human hearts. That concept specifically refers to revelation, our ability to know God's truth, it being Jesus gift to us to know it by the Spirit's enlightening help (Jn. 15:15). I hope you can see how I might be led to think that you could be saying that, given what you wrote above it.

Now, if you mean nothing more by "know the mind of Christ" than "follow the Word, alone," or "know Christ's doctrine," and so (since you thus believe the Scripture to teach) only baptize those who repent, then I don't fault you. I also must follow the Word alone. Surely we can't both be right, but we CAN both be sincere.

In Simple: Know the mind of Christ objectively= Agree; Know the mind of Christ subjectively= Disagree.

-- and no where does it command to baptize infants just because they have a believing parent.

And I accept that this is your clearly stated, firmly believed, Scripture-stance.

Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.

And this is the excluded middle. One of us is right, the other wrong, because if the one is false then the other is true, there is no "we could both be wrong".

Peace.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

*MODERATOR NOTE*

I appreciate everyone who participates in these hard discussions. I value everyones thoughts whether I disagree with them or not. But for the sake of graciousness and goodness we need to move on from accusing anyone of character attacks. Motives can not be seen on the board. I do know that this thread has started to focus on personality instead of just being focused on the issues. Jason has a gracious spirit as does Paul or these men would not be held in hi regard. So if we can just move on without the accusations and get back purely on the topic, it would highly be appreciated.

(Pro 19:11) The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression.

I am grateful you are here Jason. Go away Paul. JUST KIDDING! LOL
__________________

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul, As I discerned in my second comment way back, I can see that it is futile to try to have a conversation with you. You feel as if "character attacks are substatiated." I do not and will not participate in such. My arguments stand, the MP3's are clear, and I gain nothing by repeating the obvious.

Okay Jason, but let's all remember that I was using your terminology, i.e., "character attack." From my perspective I was spot on when I said you misrepresented and mischaracterized my position. I cited undeniable proof of this above. You have slandered my arguments, terribly misrepresented my case, and attributed to me arguments *for* paedobaptism that I never even used. As I'm sure you'd agree, I amunder no obligation to let false accusations fly unanswered. At any rate, I'm fine noting that you refuse to have an objective debate and deal with my responses to what you think my arguments are. Now, I know that tonight you're discussing the debate. Having read your comments above, I am frightened to hear how that's going to go. But, since I have demonstrated that you have misrepresented me, not dealt honestly and charitably with my arguments, and my demonstrations have gone unanswered, I can in good conscious say that I have warned and corrected your understanding of the debate. If you need to continue on in your misrepresentations, so as to bolster the rather shoddy case your side put forward, then I cannot stop you. If you feel that you know my position better than I do, then I think that attitude exposes serious logical weak spots and gives the impression that you are not really too interested in understanding so much as knocking down.

One more proof I'll cite. I've already proven that Jason' claim about what my "main reason" for baptizing infants was flat out false, let me quote what I have said about the type of arguments I use from Heb. 10:30 &c. I wrote this up BEFORE I debated, so no one can say I'm just saying this after the fact. In my extended argument from I Cor. 5, I said:

Furthermore, it is not my contention that if one substantiates the idea of a New Covenant “mixed community,” one has automatically substantiated the claim that “the children of professing Christian parent(s) are in said covenantal community.” I recognize full well that substantiating the one does not automatically substantiate the other; they are logically distinct. This concession of mine is also pointed out by many reformed Baptists, of whom Fred Malone is representative. Says Malone, “Even if it were true that [the apostates mentioned in the book of Hebrews] were considered in the New Covenant by their profession, they were not infants” (p. 102).

Since I wrote this before the debate, then this proves what I think about those kinds of arguments. I SPECIFICALLY said that the types of arguments that Jason has said that I use as "my main reason" for baptizing infants, ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT!!!!!!

I have went above and beyond in answering Jason's false allegations. His comments about my arguments do not fit the observable and checkable public evidence. I have pointed this out numerous times. Jason has refused to admit his mistake, has continued in his representations, has taken comments of mine in the debate out of context, and has therefore shown a "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up" attitude.

Will Jason admit his error? Will Jason correct his misfrepresenations? Will Jason own up to his responsibility as an elder to study and show himself a workman approved? Jason can turn this into an emotional debate all he wants. This takes the focus off the original questions and assertions to be resolved. It is a typical tactic of those who cannot back up their original assertions. When someone is shown to have made false accusations, the accusor usually responds, "Now they're just attacking my character." Ok, given the above doccumentation, sufficient chances to correct his false charges, multiple witnesses saying that he's misunderstood, what word would you like to use for what Jason has done?

 

[Jim Johnston]

I should say that it was not my intention to get into a lot of what transpired here. I wanted to talk about the claims Jason made and judge them by the facts of the debate. Too bad this got side tracked. I do respect Jason and appreciate all the work he does defending the doctrines of grace. It is my opinion that I substantiated my claim that his comments mischaracterized (though I agree with what I stated above, I *do not* think this misrepresentation was deliberate and intentional) my position. I will henceforth abstain from further comments in this thread. (I always wanted to say, "henceforth."

 

[44jason]

Robert asks concerning 1 Cor. 7:14

Paul is clear to point out that the unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for their own sake, but for the sake of the children. Thus, the child of at least one believing parent is considered "holy" or "set apart." Is this not the very definition of what it means to be in the Church - to be set apart? i.e. ekklesia the "called out" ones? Why then would you not administer baptism to one that the Bible calls is "holy."

For Robert to conclude that the Apostle Paul is equating OT covenant language which included circumcision with New Covenant baptism is stop reading the rest of the passage. In verse 16, the Apostle makes it clear that he is not speaking of salvation in any manner. The in verse 17 he makes it clear that he is speaking of individual responsibility. And then in verses 18-19 he makes it even more clear that he is not equating OT circumcision with anything in this passage. He even goes so far as to say that the outward sign "counts for nothing" but "keeping the commandments of God" count. So though it is true that those around a believer (their spouse or their children) are exposed, set apart, hollowed as being in the sphere of someone is filled with God's glory -- that in no way means those who are around them are recipients of that glory. So do not baptize them, do not put any sign upon them that claims them as God's. You can't save them and they have no spiritual advantage just because they are near you. Salvation is no based on statistical advantages but the finished work of Redemption -- as the Apostle mentions in verse 23 ("bought with a price").

Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Later...got to go.

Enjoying the conversation...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Later...got to go.

Enjoying the conversation...

I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341

 

[VictorBravo]

Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Later...got to go.

Enjoying the conversation...

I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341

Sigh. As a credo-baptist I have to concur. The paedos aren't using such cheap language. Everybody is trying their best, I believe, to be faithful to the text. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean their motives are bad. And I really don't see anybody persuading anyone by pragmatism.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Do you remember the commercials that said buy this microwave and we will give you a free blender? Jesus didn't purchase our salvation and then got our children thrown in for free! Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Later...got to go.

Enjoying the conversation...

I don't think these kind of pejoratives are helpful if you desire dialogue. I think you will find this thread addresses your concern. I would urge you to interact charitably on the subject.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24341

Sigh. As a credo-baptist I have to concur. The paedos aren't using such cheap language. Everybody is trying their best, I believe, to be faithful to the text. Just because there is disagreement doesn't mean their motives are bad. And I really don't see anybody persuading anyone by pragmatism.

In defense of Jason....

I didn't think Jason was trying to throw a cheap shot as much as try to make an illustration and point to a fact. It was not pejorative in my opinion. It was an illustration. I believe he was trying to illustrate that the belief of a two for one special that doesn't apply here. And he then pointed to ....

Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

BTW, I had to go look up pejorative.

First off paedo's do not believe the sign is empty in an infants life. It calls one to repent and believe. They do believe there are advantages in that Baptism is a special means of grace (and that doesn't mean a means of special grace). Now from Jason's point he is making reference to somethings that Paul M. said (If I am not mistaken) concerning the effectualness of Baptism.

That is my $.25 worth and I will be collecting. It is a poor tax. And I liked Jason's point. Especially since I am a credo.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Now from Jason's point he is making reference to somethings that Paul M. said (If I am not mistaken) concerning the effectualness of Baptism.

And, just so my side is clear, I hold the reformed paedobaptist tradition of saying that the grace signified in the sacrament must be joined with faith, the sacraments do not work ex opere operato.

If the infant does not have faith, or never does, then they do not take hold of the thing signified by the sign.... but this is the case with someone who makes a false profession too.

For what it's worth

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

*Moderator intrusion again*

Now if I may. I would like to keep this just about the debate and on the points about the debate. There are enough baptism threads going on that the other threads can be used to discuss issues not pertaining to the specific debate.

As I said I am going to listen to the cross examinations and I will post on them. So let's keep this about the debate and be good to each other.

Thank you for your support.

Randy

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I didn't think Jason was trying to throw a cheap shot as much as try to make an illustration and point to a fact. It was not pejorative in my opinion. It was an illustration. I believe he was trying to illustrate that the belief of a two for one special that doesn't apply here. And he then pointed to ....

Paedo's admit that there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant -- Right?? Then what is the point. But there are great advantages to the Credo definition of Baptism. Baptism, according to Reformed C-B, is part of the conversion event, so much so that the New Testament authors often used Baptism as a way of referring to the moment one is born-again.

Analogies are not cheap shots only if they accurately reflect the view. To conflate union with Christ with baptism and then represent the paedo view by that idea and then chalk it up to "buy one, get one free" is offensive.

We don't admit there is no advantage to being baptized as an infant. Baptism externally signifies the same thing regardless of the person being baptized in the paedo view of the Sacrament. What God applies to the elect united to Christ is His secret work.

BTW, I had to go look up pejorative.

First off paedo's do not believe the sign is empty in an infants life. It calls one to repent and believe. They do believe there are advantages in that Baptism is a special means of grace (and that doesn't mean a means of special grace). Now from Jason's point he is making reference to somethings that Paul M. said (If I am not mistaken) concerning the effectualness of Baptism.

That is my $.25 worth and I will be collecting. It is a poor tax.

But we're past Paul now and we're dealing with the audience of paedobaptists in general (incidentally, I don't think the statement reflects Paul's view either). By acknowledging that we do not believe baptism is an empty sign then you, yourself, are acknowledging that the analogy is pejorative.

Either way, the dialogue is not helpful.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Rich,
Read Pauls statement above. I knew what Jason was saying and I knew what Paul was saying I believe. We are talking past each other now. I liked the illustration. It wasn't meant to be demeaning.

ADDITION....

Rich I believe Jason is also trying to illustrate something about presumptive regeneration before there is any evidence. God doesn't save our children just because they are a package deal by being born to Christians. Some Presbyterians hold to presumptive regeneration which is bad form in our eyes. We don't mean to be offensive. We believe Presumptive Regeneration for infants who can't speak, walk, or be cognizant of God is dangerous. We are not trying to be offensive but there is some truth to the illustration. All analogies have their limits. And some may need to be explained a little more maybe.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

OK, let's move on. I've just never been a fan of poor analogies.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Does regeneration precede conversion (see ordo salutis)?

Doesn't conversion always follow regeneration (see golden chain Rom 8:29f)?

Don't people have to be regenerated in order to apprehend spiritual truth savingly (see 1 Cor. 2:14f)?

So what are we doing preaching to dead people? Don't they have to be alive first? Oh, right, its the ministry of the Word that is the ordinary medium of transformation. Is conversion instantaneous? Always? Aren't there people who sit, sometimes struggling for years, often fighting, frequently apathetic, who change over time? Not everyone who is born again can see the change like night and day.

Bottom line is: if you think your ministry is having ANY effect on people at all, at some level you are presuming, believing in regeneration. Now, I guess that the logic of the other position is that logic that says: "no action, certainly no baptism, no "presumption" until we think maybe, just maybe, you're probably truly a Christian, and have likely been one for a couple years, minimum."

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Does regeneration precede conversion (see ordo salutis)?

Doesn't conversion always follow regeneration (see golden chain Rom 8:29f)?

Don't people have to be regenerated in order to apprehend spiritual truth savingly (see 1 Cor. 2:14f)?

So what are we doing preaching to dead people? Don't they have to be alive first? Oh, right, its the ministry of the Word that is the ordinary medium of transformation. Is conversion instantaneous? Always? Aren't there people who sit, sometimes struggling for years, often fighting, frequently apathetic, who change over time? Not everyone who is born again can see the change like night and day.

Bottom line is: if you think your ministry is having ANY effect on people at all, at some level you are presuming, believing in regeneration. Now, I guess that the logic of the other position is that logic that says: "no action, certainly no baptism, no "presumption" until we think maybe, just maybe, you're probably truly a Christian, and have likely been one for a couple years, minimum."

Yes this may be true but they need to at least be cognizant as I mentioned before.

We believe Presumptive Regeneration for infants who can't speak, walk, or be cognizant of God is dangerous.

I was speaking of the doctrine that presumes infants. Sorry I wasn't more specific.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I understand, Randy,
But my point is: it is arbitrary to say "we'll presume a little here, but in this case it is a bad idea." Well, it seems to me it either IS a bad idea, or it ISN'T.

Now, we all agree that there are "presumptivists" who are definitely abusing the notion--I think we call them hypercalvinists, or Kuyperians, or something. But the abuse of a thing does not negate the thing or its proper use. So to say that we who are ardent Reformed Confessionalists, who preach, teach, and seek conversions, are misusing the notion "just because" we baptize the infant--that's not an effective argument.