AHH help!! The paedo's are after me!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
As B.B. Warfield said, "It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now."

Regulative principle: Whatever is not commanded by Scripture in the worship of God is forbidden.
 
Regulative principle: Whatever is not commanded by Scripture in the worship of God is forbidden.

Which leads to this article I found

Infant Baptism and the Regulative Principle of Worship


Our Presbyterian friends often state that the authority for infant baptism comes from "good and necessary inference" of Old Testament circumcision of infants, not from positive command, example, or institution in the New (Warfield, Berkhof, Murray, et al). In fact, they candidly and regularly admit that there is no command or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, or indeed, in all the Scriptures.

Baptists often reject Presbyterian infant baptism by showing that the Paedobaptist ("infant Baptist") brand of covenant theology erroneously allows "good and necessary inference" from Old Testament circumcision to overrule the only positive institution of baptism in the New Testament, namely, that of disciples alone. This is a proper argument. However, few recognize that this Presbyterian error is a violation of their own "regulative principle of worship." Yet, the practice of infant baptism does just that.

This may not seem to be a very significant statement at first, but since the regulative principle is taught and championed by our Presbyterian brethren, it actually is a very serious charge. It means that they contradict their most important principle of worship every time they baptize an infant.

Baptists have held historically to the very same regulative principle of worship, though many have forgotten that today. In fact, we ultimately practice "the baptism of disciples alone" because of it. I am convinced that one reason that some Baptists are becoming Presbyterians is because Baptists do not understand the regulative principle any more.

Obviously, Baptists and Presbyterians cannot both be right on the question of baptism. Granted, this issue is not essential to salvation (as is, for example, justification by faith alone), but it does concern a sacrament of the church and thus cannot be dismissed as unimportant (though some ministers have tried to do just that in order to serve in the Presbyterian ministry). Baptists who are tempted to forsake the theologically troubled Baptist Zion for more comfortable Presbyterianism may not realize that they must violate the Presbyterian (and Baptist) regulative principle of worship to do so.

In order for me to prove my thesis I will first define "the regulative principle" from Presbyterian sources and then show why I believe that infant baptism is a clear violation of that principle.
What is the regulative principle of worship?

According to the Westminster Presbyterian and the 1689 London Baptist Confession (the mother confession of American and Southern Baptists),

the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (WCF 21:1; italics mine).

This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship. Therefore, the only elements of worship approved in the regulative tradition, according to Scripture, are:

Prayers: The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear; the sound preaching, and conscionable hearing of the word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence; singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ; are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: besides religious oaths and vows, solemn fasting, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in a holy and religious manner (WCF 21:4-5; italics mine).

Prayer, the reading and preaching of Scripture, singing, the sacraments, vows, thanksgivings, etc., are the only authorized elements of Reformed worship. It should be noted that the only sacraments which are approved as elements of worship are those which have been "instituted by Christ" himself, not by "good and necessary inference.

On the other hand, the "normative principle of worship" is practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and, apparently, by many charismatic and fundamental Baptists. They are joined by a growing number of Southern Baptists who, sometimes ignorantly, have turned from their theological heritage in the regulative.

The normative principle teaches that worship must consist of that which is commanded by God and may also include that which is not specifically prohibited by Scripture. This opens the door to many uncommanded activities which often limit the practice of those commanded elements. The result too often is seen in public worship which has very little Scripture reading and twenty minute sermonettes.

Obviously, the normative principle invites invention, creativity, and new elements of worship which are never commanded or mentioned in Scripture. It also permits practices which are prescribed in Old Testament worship to be used in New Testament Christian worship by "good and necessary inference," even if these practices are not prescribed for Christian worship. This accounts for the traditional differences in worship between those from normative versus regulative backgrounds. It also explains the normative additions of pageantry, altars, priesthoods, vestments, prayer books, mariolatry, prayers to saints, and other practices not instituted by Scripture for Gospel worship. Others today add drama, dance, puppets, clowns, movies, magicians, comedians, weight lifting, high-pressured "altar calls," entertainment, and whatever else their heart desires. When one holds to the normative principle, another must ask: "Where will it end up?"

The regulative principle has always included "that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1:6). However, these circumstances of worship are always limited to time, place, order of worship, length of worship, language, pews, air conditioning, etc., issues which are common to any human society (see The Westminster Confession of Faith, by G. I. Williamson, 161). They have never included new uncommanded activities such as those mentioned above.

Adding to the confusion, others who claim to hold to the regulative principle have redefined the simpler elements of worship to include creative "applications" of those elements by "good and necessary inference." Thus they justify new practices such as drama as a form of preaching and dance as a form of praise. These are justified by "good and necessary inference" even though such practices are never commanded in either Old Testament worship or New Testament Christian worship. Such teachers have, whether unwittingly or purposefully, returned to the normative principle of worship by adding what Scripture has not specifically prohibited. No amount of protesting to the contrary can change this fact.

In summary, the Reformed regulative principle of worship allows only those elements of worship which have been positively instituted and commanded by God in Scripture.
What does the regulative principle have to do with infant baptism?

Infant baptism violates the regulative principle of worship. Baptism is one of the sacraments which has been "instituted by Christ." Thus it is regulated by God, limited by His revealed will, and prescribed by Holy Scripture. This regulation extends to the subjects of baptism. Who are to be baptized? How are they to be baptized? Why are they to be baptized? To answer these questions we must ask a more basic one: What has been "instituted by Christ?"

Christ's institution of baptism, in its mode, meaning, and subjects is to be regulated by the Word of God. Yet, as Baptists and Paedobaptists agree, the only subjects of baptism which can be conclusively determined by Scripture are professing disciples. Infants are included only by "good and necessary consequence," a normative addition which is never commanded in the Bible. The practice of baptizing babies violates the regulative principle.

Amazingly, Paedobaptist apologist, Pierre Marcel, actually states that God only gives us general instructions concerning the doctrine of baptism and then leaves it up to us to determine its practical application to infants. This is done, he argues, by "normative principles." He compares the practice of infant baptism to the work of application in preaching. This is a woefully inadequate comparison when one considers the Westminster Confession's inclusion of sacraments under the regulative principle of worship. Marcel writes,

The Church never confines herself merely to the letter, but, working from the data of Scripture and under the control of the Holy Spirit, she affirms normative principles and elaborates the consequences and applications which make her life and development possible and effective. Were it not so, the exercise of the pastoral ministry, the cure of souls, preaching, discipline, and so on, would be absolutely impossible! It is thus that the Church operates when she passes from adult to infant baptism. Scripture affords general instruction on baptism, its meaning and value, and the Church applies it concretely in life. If Scripture assigns to the children of believers the enjoyment of the same privileges as are experienced by those who are of an age to confess their faith, and since it nowhere makes mention of a baptismal ministry which should have been applied to adults born of Christian parents, it has said sufficient on this point, without needing to have prescribed literally the baptism of infants.[1]

It is astonishing that Marcel admits that infant baptism is practiced on "normative principles" and therefore does not need to be prescribed literally by Scripture! This is clearly an application of the normative principle, not the regulative, to a sacrament "instituted by Christ." It is even more astonishing to see how he uses the lack of biblical instruction concerning the baptism of adults who were born to Christian parents. He makes these adult children of believers a special class and then cites the Bible's silence regarding their baptism to justify the baptism of infants.

It is not true that the Scripture is silent on the baptism of "adults born of Christian parents." They, along with adults born of non-Christian parents as well as men and women, boys and girls of every age are commanded by the Lord through the Scripture to repent and believe the gospel. Those who do, regardless of their backgrounds, should, like the first century believers of the New Testament, be baptized (Acts 2:41).

To make a special class out of the adult children of believers and then to equate the Scripture's silence regarding them with its silence on infant baptism is preposterous. Such thinking can lead anywhere, even back to the seven sacraments of Roman Catholicism. After all, the Scripture is no more silent on infant baptism than it is on the administration of last rites.

One fundamental question remains: if Christ did not actually institute infant baptism, how can it be, in the language of the confession, a sacrament "instituted by Christ?" Marcel's explanation of infant baptism on "normative principles" constitutes a Paedobaptist affirmation of what has been maintained in this article, that infant baptism is a violation of the regulative principle of worship and is based upon the normative principle.

When God instituted circumcision, He was very specific to identify its subjects. This is why infants were circumcised. This is in keeping with the regulative principle. Now in this New Testament era are we to assume that the regulative principle concerning the subjects of the sacraments "instituted by Christ" (baptism and the Lord's Supper), limited by God's revealed will, and prescribed by Holy Scripture, are to be left to our application as if it were an uncommanded circumstance of worship? If words mean anything, obviously not. According to the regulative principle, the only subjects of baptism "instituted by Christ" and prescribed in Holy Scripture are disciples.

I am convinced that the "good and necessary inference" which establishes infant baptism, has opened the door to other difficulties within the Reformed and evangelical Christian world. Theonomy, paedocommunion, and more recently, stated applications of the regulative principle of worship which in fact have transformed it into the old normative principle, are three such examples. Or could it be that infant baptism was always based upon the normative principle instead of the regulative? That is my conclusion. Perhaps we all, Presbyterians and Baptists alike, need to recommit ourselves to the biblically based regulative principle of worship and follow it where it leads us.

Neither Baptists nor Paedobaptists have a corner on the truth. Both need to examine our beliefs and practices in the light of God's Word. The heritage which we share in the Protestant Reformation reminds us that the church must be "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God." Why do we do what we do in worship? How are the sacraments of the church to be observed? What does the Word specifically say about the subjects of baptism? These questions must be answered from the Bible. Such an exercise will prove beneficial for every child of God. Further, it should make us careful not to violate Scripturally regulated worship through the incorporation of uncommanded, uninstituted, unrevealed, and unprescribed practices.
 
Greetings:

I am taking you on your own Baptist presuppositions:

Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized?

Yes.

What does that mean to a Baptist? Was Simon the Sorceror Baptized into the New Covenant?

Yes or No?

The Paedo-baptist would say that Simon was baptized into the outward (physical) administration of the Covenant. That, as long as his profession of faith remained legitimate, he was a member of the Church, and received all the priviledges and rights thereunto. We would treat and consider him a true Christian man unless he proved otherwise.

In being Baptized Simon the Sorceror made a Covenant with God of which he broke.

The unbreakable Covenant is God's Covenant with the Elect. If you baptize people based on this criterion (which the Apostles did not), then you must baptize only the Elect. Who here is arrogant enough to claim they know who are elect or not?

I have heard it said from Baptists, "Oh, we do our best..."

Well, your best is not good enough when you consider that you are talking about God's everlasting and unbreakable Covenant. The Covenant made at Baptism is everlasting and unbreakable only to the Elect, and not to the non-Elect.

We do not baptize people based on Election, but on the Covenant Promises of God:

"...For the promise is to you, your children, and those who are afar off..."

You wrote:


From Scripture:


The child of a believer is considered "holy" or "set apart." As I have noted in other posts the term used here is translated in other places as "saint."

Consider, your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike out this verse in the Bible. The child is not considered "holy" because the child believes, but because one, or both, of his parents believe. Your views lead you astray of the Word of God, and not towards it.

Repent (metanoeo) of this unbelieving mindset.

Peace,

-CH

CH,

I would love to continue our dialogue, however, statements like, "..your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike this verse in the Bible.." and "Repent of this unbelieving mindset" right off the bat does not bring glory to our to our Lord and Savior. You have assumed that I believe baptism to be the sign of the New Covenant(which I do not). The passage in 1 Cor 7 is not addressing baptism at all. I believe the sign of the NC is circumcision just as it was in the the Old.

I am simply asking a question concerning your understanding of how God sees unregenerage children (ie unrepentant unbelieving children) differently when they are baptized. Please explain this to me.
I only see two classes of people in the bible believers (children of God) and unbelievers (children of wrath).

Instead of getting a bit upset of somewhat nasty in your response why not dialogue with me and be patient? (lets show fruits of the Spirit).

In Christ,

MC
 
from that article;

Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ's body, there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament's view of membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one's pedagogy will be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by paedobaptist theologians J.H.Thornwell and R.L.Dabney on one hand, and Charles Hodge on the other.

Here is and always has been my biggest struggle with paedobaptism. I've always stayed out of this debate because I fear some will think less of me for where I stand and at this point, where I think I shall remain.
 
however, statements like, "..your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike this verse in the Bible.." and "Repent of this unbelieving mindset" right off the bat does not bring glory to our to our Lord and Savior.

I agree that we can do without statements like these.
 
CH,

I would love to continue our dialogue, however, statements like, "..your Baptist presuppositions would lead you to strike this verse in the Bible.." and "Repent of this unbelieving mindset" right off the bat does not bring glory to our to our Lord and Savior. You have assumed that I believe baptism to be the sign of the New Covenant(which I do not). The passage in 1 Cor 7 is not addressing baptism at all. I believe the sign of the NC is circumcision just as it was in the the Old.

I am simply asking a question concerning your understanding of how God sees unregenerage children (ie unrepentant unbelieving children) differently when they are baptized. Please explain this to me.
I only see two classes of people in the bible believers (children of God) and unbelievers (children of wrath).

Instead of getting a bit upset of somewhat nasty in your response why not dialogue with me and be patient? (lets show fruits of the Spirit).

In Christ,

MC

MC:

Your signature proclaims you to be a Baptist of the 1689 character. Is it "nasty" of me to hold you to your tradition? Is it "nasty" of me to call you to repentance for an obviously non-biblical mindset? If this is how you define "nasty" than I stand in good company with Jesus and His Apostles.

I have answered your question with 1 Cor. 7:14. The child of a believer is considered "holy." Whether baptism is in view here or not is irrelevant. Before the child is baptized he is considered "holy." After the child is baptized he is considered "holy." That is the attitude of the Bible whether or not the child is baptized. The implications concerning unbelieving parents I will leave at the intuitive level of this passage.

Would you not baptize someone of whom the Bible proclaims as "holy" and "set apart"? Where would you find prohibition on such a matter?

"That only individual professing believers are to be baptized" is nowhere substantiated in the Scriptures.

Repent of this.

-CH
 
Again, CH..there are MANY here who hold to differing views on baptism and we fellowship in unity. You're coming across to harshly here and I am personally asking you to step back a little or leave the thread. Baptists could call YOU to repentance and we could go back and forth all day with that nonsense, but that would be foolish. Address the arguments and debates within this post without coming across as someone who has it all figured out please.
 
MC:

Your signature proclaims you to be a Baptist of the 1689 character. Is it "nasty" of me to hold you to your tradition? Is it "nasty" of me to call you to repentance for an obviously non-biblical mindset? If this is how you define "nasty" than I stand in good company with Jesus and His Apostles.

I have answered your question with 1 Cor. 7:14. The child of a believer is considered "holy." Whether baptism is in view here or not is irrelevant. Before the child is baptized he is considered "holy." After the child is baptized he is considered "holy." That is the attitude of the Bible whether or not the child is baptized. The implications concerning unbelieving parents I will leave at the intuitive level of this passage.

Would you not baptize someone of whom the Bible proclaims as "holy" and "set apart"? Where would you find prohibition on such a matter?

"That only individual professing believers are to be baptized" is nowhere substantiated in the Scriptures.

Repent of this.

-CH

CH,
So what you are saying is that unbaptized children of believing parents are indeed "holy" in God's sight? If that is the case, as a baptist holding to believer's baptism, it should not matter whether or not I baptize my children for they are already "holy" in His sight.(according to your above statement). Maybe you could clarify this for me. I thought that unbaptized children are considered unclean in many Presbyterian circles. Just as those in the OT were when they did not recieve the sign of circumcision. (being cut off). What does the WCF have to say on this issue? Do you not hold any creeds or confessions yourself? I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

MC
 
This is how I expect to see us debate. Simple questions/inquiries, not overly bold statements calling for repentance.
 
I think I see a problem here:

If I am not mistaken, I have seen more than once that Baptists on this board deny that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because not all baptized are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.

If this is so, Jer 31 has nothing to do with Baptism, because Jer 31 talks about the "unbreakable" New Covenant, and if Baptism is not the sign of this New Covenant, then we shouldn't use this passage to suggest Baptism can only be administered to professed believers only, am I right?

And I supposed this passage: Jer 31:34 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.



means that we shouldn't have Sunday school and teaching in the "New Covenant Age", when the "unbreakable" New Covenant has already fully fullfilled now? :candle:
 
Quote:
What is covenant theology? The straightforward, if provocative answer to that question is that it is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic -- that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds. A successful hermeneutic is a consistent interpretative procedure yielding a consistent understanding of Scripture in turn confirms the propriety of the procedure itself.
and

Quote:
It is a hermeneutic that forces itself upon every thoughtful Bible-reader who gets to the place, first, of reading, hearing, and digesting Holy Scripture as didactic instruction given through human agents by God himself, in person; second, of recognizing that what the God who speaks the Scriptures tells us about in their pages is his own sustained sovereign action in creation, providence, and grace; third, of discerning that in our salvation by grace God stands revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, executing in tripersonal unity a single cooperative enterprise of raising sinners from the gutter of spiritual destitution to share Christ's glory for ever; and, fourth, of seeing that God-centered thought and life, springing responsively from a God-wrought change of heart that expresses itself spontaneously in grateful praise, is the essence of true knowledge of God. Once Christians have got this far, the covenant theology of the Scriptures is something that they can hardly miss.

J.I.Packer link
 
I think I see a problem here:

If I am not mistaken, I have seen more than once that Baptists on this board deny that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because not all baptized are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.

If this is so, Jer 31 has nothing to do with Baptism, because Jer 31 talks about the "unbreakable" New Covenant, and if Baptism is not the sign of this New Covenant, then we shouldn't use this passage to suggest Baptism can only be administered to professed believers only, am I right?

And I supposed this passage: Jer 31:34 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.



means that we shouldn't have Sunday school and teaching in the "New Covenant Age", when the "unbreakable" New Covenant has already fully fullfilled now? :candle:


Hi aleksanderpolo!

I understand what you are saying concerning teachers in the NC. I DO believe that their is a need for teachers in the NC. What is being expressed in this passage is that those who are in the NC will know the Lord. (Making it a believers Covenant). Israel was always being called to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts and to be stiff-necked no longer. That is because not all Israel was the "Israel of God". So I believe there are teachers in the NC and that this passage does not say, "no longer shall each teach." It says," no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord." To me this passage is a clear demonstration to the idea that the NC is a Covenant that is exclusively made up of believers. (Those for whom Christ died). Hopefully what I said makes sense to you.

In Christ,

MC
 
Last edited:
Isn't the issue of breaking covenant dealing with the unbelief of the individual?

For example when Korah died and went alive into the pit in Numbers 16 how did he break covenant? Was it because he rebelled against the authority of Moses? No, he broke covenant because of his unbelief. He was never a part of "true Israel." Yet he was a part of the visible covenant community. He received blessings as being a part of God's outward covenantal group. But in the end he died and went to hell because of his unbelief.

So then in the same regard is that not how one breaks the New Covenant? In their unbelief they refuse to repent and believe the gospel. They die as an unbeliever even though they may have been a part of God's visible church they were never a part of the "true Israel", the invisible Church.

One can't really put a distinction between unbelief in the OC and unbelief in the NC can they? It's unbelief that causes a man to break covenant and die and go to hell. If that's not what caused Korah to break covenant then what did? Was he holy and righteous up until the point of Numbers 16 when he rebelled against God? Then all of a sudden he "broke covenant"? That can't be it at all because that would make his righteousness the basis of his standing. He was just never a part of the true church and neither are those in the New Covenant who die in unbelief. They can be a baptized member of a local church and still die and go to hell.

In that regard the New Covenant isn't any different from the old, is it?
 
CH,
So what you are saying is that unbaptized children of believing parents are indeed "holy" in God's sight? If that is the case, as a baptist holding to believer's baptism, it should not matter whether or not I baptize my children for they are already "holy" in His sight.(according to your above statement). Maybe you could clarify this for me. I thought that unbaptized children are considered unclean in many Presbyterian circles. Just as those in the OT were when they did not recieve the sign of circumcision. (being cut off). What does the WCF have to say on this issue? Do you not hold any creeds or confessions yourself? I look forward to your response.

In Christ,

MC
Greetings:

It would matter because baptizing your children is a matter of obedience to the Coveant you made with God. Baptism is a sacrament, a ritual, it does not "make" you holy. You should be aware of this because in your own tradition one has to make a profession of faith before he is baptized: you must be "born again" or be "holy" before you can be baptized.

As I understand it many children of believer's die in the womb, or at childbirth, or before they can be baptized. One can use 1 Cor. 7:14 to comfort the bereaved parents. I hold to the Westminister Standards, and the Three Forms of Unity.

Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also, are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, WCF 10:3, c.f. 1689 chapter 10.

A person who says that someone is "unclean" before he is baptized sounds like an argument from Baptismal Regeneration or some similar error. A person dunked in water or having water poured on the head does not have his sins cleansed: it is an outward sign of the washing and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Where is your command to forbid children of believers from Baptism when we have so many encouragements from Scripture to do so?

Baptism of Believers Only is not Scriptural. It is an error that needs to be repented of.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 
from that article;

Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ's body, there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament's view of membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one's pedagogy will be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by paedobaptist theologians J.H.Thornwell and R.L.Dabney on one hand, and Charles Hodge on the other.

Here is and always has been my biggest struggle with paedobaptism. I've always stayed out of this debate because I fear some will think less of me for where I stand and at this point, where I think I shall remain.
Adam,

I always find it strange and ironic when Baptists state the above about the paedobaptist position.

Here is the WCF on the significance of Baptism:
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
Here is the LBCF on Baptism's significance:
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
The WCF is stronger not weaker on the fact that Baptism signifies spiritual union with Christ.

Now, if what the author of the quote intends to say is that, in Baptism, actual spiritual union with Christ has been conferred then he, not we, are on the horns of a dilemna. Why? Because people like Simon the Sorceror are baptized!

I find much Baptist argumentation to be tactical in argumentation rather than actually valid criticisms. There is not a single charge that can be levied agains the practice of baptizing the potential apostate that cannot be immediately levied back on their practice. They know very well, when pressed, that they are not baptizing merely the elect when they baptize.

I think I see a problem here:

If I am not mistaken, I have seen more than once that Baptists on this board deny that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, because not all baptized are in the "unbreakable" New Covenant.

If this is so, Jer 31 has nothing to do with Baptism, because Jer 31 talks about the "unbreakable" New Covenant, and if Baptism is not the sign of this New Covenant, then we shouldn't use this passage to suggest Baptism can only be administered to professed believers only, am I right?
I've probably typed this 100 times on this board. This is exactly the case.

The unbreakability of the New Covenant has NOTHING to do with who is baptized. Nada. Zero. Zip.

I suggest Baptists read this thread again: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=21492

Notice around Post #42 that I promise Bill that I will quote him next time a Baptist starts using the unbreakability of the New Covenant for participation in the Sacraments of the Church:
Originally written by Bill Brown:
You suggested that Baptists do not want to corrupt New Covenant membership by admitting those who may not be in the New Covenant. First and foremost, the New Covenant cannot be corrupted. There are corrupt people who claim the inward blessings of the covenant, but they have not corrupted the covenant itself. I don't know about other Baptist ministers, but when someone asks to become a member of our church we do not officiate as arbiters as to whether they are granted membership in the New Covenant. No, our concern is whether they give assent to exercising repentance and faith, are seeking to live a life obedient to scripture and have been baptized.
Thank you for writing this. I will quote you the next time a Baptism thread comes up and somebody argues for believers-only baptism on the basis of Hebrews 6 or Jeremiah 31 and says something like: "But the New Covenant can't be violated..." as an argument. You make my point well that this is an invalid argument and yet it dominates Reformed Baptist literature as the penultimate reason for credo-baptism.
This is the irony of how much ink is wasted in Reformed Baptist literature estabilishing the unbreakability of the New Covenant as the grounds for credo-Baptism. It's rather like they spend 99% of their time erecting a fortress on a hill but then when the discussion of a flesh and blood human being is presented for baptism, they don't ask the question: Are you elect?

Really, the frailty of the Baptist argument would be revealed for what it was if Baptists understood that the unbreakability of the New Covenant doesn't give them the warrant they desire. They are left, fundamentally, with a single argument for credo-baptism and that is historical narrative.

That is, they have passages that, on the face of it, seem to imply that only professing adults are to be baptized but this is not actually taught. "Believe and be baptized" are collected as prooftexts while "this promise is to you and your children..." is ignored. It ought to be noted that, on the one hand, historical narrative is a flimsy method of estabilishing the necessity of a doctrine (compared to didactic teaching) and that there are narrative passages that contradict their position that are discarded arbitrarily, on the other.
 
A really, REALLY consistent Baptist should only baptize believers on their deathbed, because then he can look back at the subject's life and see they are "really, REALLY elect". Really.

:eureka:
 
they don't ask the question: Are you elect?
Your earlier premise doesn't logically lead to the right conclusion here Rich. You're going in circles and contradicting yourself in the end. I thought it was implicit in statement "they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration." But anyway I submit that baptist article is not well though-out objection anyway. So, why trivialize the Baptist argument by entertaining and dwelling on a weak argument, and imputing it to all Baptists?
 
Last edited:
The thread so far has negated its purpose of inquiry in the comments and topical debates that have ensued.

If I could I would have locked this thread a looooong time ago for that simple reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top