Answering the main argument of Credo Baptism

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

If I have it right, and those who hold to the position can correct me, the main argument of credo-baptism is that the New Covenant is given only to the Elect. Consequently, the sign of the New Covenant should only be given to those who make a profession of faith in Christ - Believers only.

In order to substantiate this belief the credo-baptist argues that in every instance of Baptism in the New Testament we can only deduce Believers to have received it. Son's and daughters, (infants), servants, and other members of a household were not baptized except on their own personal profession of faith.

Putting aside the fact that these credo-baptists neglect the testimony of half the Bible (the Old Testament) concerning circumcision. I will stand on their ground - a ground that I used to occupy - and, Lord willing, show them the errors of their ways.

First, the New Testament clearly states that New Covenant Baptism was present in the Old Testament:

Moreover Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10:1-4.

All Israel passed through the sea and were Baptized. First, this militates against the idea of "dunking" as the people of Israel were said to pass through the Red Sea on dry land. No doubt the sea spray or the rain from the cloud "baptized them unto Moses." Or, the simple act of going down into the sea bed and coming back up out of the water was enough for them to be considered baptized.

Second, conservative estimates of the population of Israel at the time was about 1.5 million people. The Bible tells us that 600.000 men "besides children" travelled out of Egypt, Ex. 12:37. Children were among those who were Baptized unto Moses. I would also dare say that if you took any random population of 1.5 million people you will find some infants among them. What? Infants being Baptized from a text in the New Testament?

Next,

Is the New Covenant given only to the Elect? The confusion of the credo-baptist position becomes evident at this point. There is a subtle switch in their argument that is innocently deceitful. To tease this matter out a simple question must be asked:

Who are the Elect?

The Elect, as I understand it, are all true Believers in Jesus Christ. Many Divines refer to the Elect as the "invisible" or "universal" or "catholic" (small c) Church. What Divines call the "visible" Church is what you see every Sunday. A group of people composed of both the Elect and non-Elect. The example of the disciples of Jesus illustrates this idea. Of the twelve disciples eleven of them were Elect and one of them was not-Elect. We know this because God tells us it in the Scriptures. We are not given sufficient information from the Scriptures to determine who is Elect and who is non-Elect in the visible church (outside of those persons revealed in Scripture like: Judas, Simon the sorceror, and Demas). Thus, people "outside" of the church who make a credible profession of faith are allowed membership into the church. The 1689 Baptist confession upholds the idea of a "visible" and "invisible" church:

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted, chapter 26, section 2 (see also section 1 and 3 as well)

This asks the question as to whether the New Covenant is given to the Elect only?

When the New Covenant is preached the promises of the Covenant are given to all who hear the Word of God. Thus, the New Covenant is given not only to the Elect, but to the non-Elect as well. This explains within the Calvinistic framework all of the universal statements in the Bible:

Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

And other such like passages.

Since the promises of the Covenant are not given only to Elect members of a church, but also to non-Elect members as well, then what is the hinderance of giving Baptism to infant members of the church? Especially since we have both Old and New Testament warrant to do so?

The question to be answered then is: Are the children of believers considered members of the visible church?

This really is the only point that need be proved to end credo-baptism - that children of believers are considered visible members of the Church. Not only are believers, both Jews and Gentiles, as they are the Seed of Abraham to be baptized, but also their households as well.

Certainly, there can be no argument that the children in the Old Testament were considered members of the visible church? Is there? That circumcision was given to an infant eight days old, and that circumcision was the sign of the Everlasting Covenant given to Abraham? Gen. 17:13.

The credo-baptist argues that the promises to Abraham stop at the personal profession of the New Testament believer, and that it does not extend to his/her household.

There are three good and necessary answers that show children of believers are to be considered members of the visible church:

First,

1) It has been pointed out that the disciples of Jesus were considered members of the visible church.

2) Everywhere in the Bible we are commanded to disciple our children: The most obvious is Matthew 28:19.

3) Children of believers, then, are considered members of the visible church. Consequently, they are rightful recipients of New Testament Baptism.

Second,

1 Cor. 7:14 states that the children of believer(s) are considered "holy."

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

The unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for his/her own sake (otherwise we would be required to baptize them), but they are sanctified for the sake of their children. Thus, the children of the believing parent(s) are considered "holy" or "saints" as the word is rendered in other places in the Bible. The Baptist confession, as quoted earlier, states this about those who are considered "visible saints":

...are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

The confession acknowledges that those who are "visible saints" are rightly considered members of the visible church. I would call those Baptists who proudly proclaim themselves to be "Bible Believing" to acknowledge the Biblical teaching in both the Old and New Testaments that children of believers are not only 1. Disciples of Jesus Christ, and thus members of the visible church, but also, 2. Considered by the Bible to be "holy" or "saints" and are considered members of the visible church.

Third,

If we take the credo argument that there is no New Testament evidence of infant baptism at face value, then we come to a quandry when it comes to the Lord's Supper. There is no New Testament evidence that women were given the Lord's Supper. Consequently, if we are to be consistent with the Baptist hermeneutic, women should be forbidden the Lord's Supper on the same grounds that children are to be forbidden Baptism.

Silence in the New Testament does not necessarily mean "forbidden." Yet, the Baptist would have us think so concerning our covenant children.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[elnwood]

Quick response:
1. 1 Cor. 10 is a typological verse. The word "baptize" simply means to dip and, while conveys some of the same symbolism, should not be taken as the ordinance of baptism. Paedos will frequently point to the "washings" in the Old Testament, but clearly these are not baptisms either because those were done repeatedly, not the "one baptism."

There is a tendency for paedos to take a verse in the OT, whether it is the Baptism in the Red Sea, circumcision, or washings and cry "continuity" when it fits with their view of baptism but "discontinuity" when it doesn't, i.e. household servants being circumcised, women being baptized, washings given multiple times, etc. You simply cannot draw a direct correlation from an Old Testament type to a New Testament type.

2. Baptists draw the distinction between the visible and invisible church, but, unlike paedobaptists, believe it is the invisible church, and not the visible, that are the recipients of the New Covenant promises.

In the above post, you have not shown that the New Covenant is the visible church, but have simply assumed that since Baptists agree that there is a visible church, that therefore this is the New Covenant.

3. "Holy" and "Sanctified" can simply mean set apart. You cannot necessarily impose your definition of "holy" on the children. "Saints," or "holy ones," can also mean a regenerated believer, and yet you wouldn't impose that on the children.

4. The Lord's Supper is said to be given to members of the church. Women are members of the church, so it follows. If the Bible said that the Lord's Supper is given to men, and was silent about women, you would have a point, but it doesn't. Similarly, the Bible says that Baptism is given to professing believers, but is silent about the children of believers.

 

[JonathanHunt]

1 Cor 7.14 - The context of the passage is marriage, marriage and marriage.

Matthew Henry has this quite right when he begins his discussion of the passage

2. We have here the reasons of this advice. (1.) Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (1Co_7:14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. To the pure all things are pure, Tit_1:15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God's appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments. It was no more displeasing to God for them to continue to live as they did before, with their unbelieving or heathen relation, than if they had become converts together.

But then, he goes straight down an illogical route In my humble opinion. Rather than apply the same logic from the husband and wife part (above), he says:

Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (1Co_7:14), that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa_6:13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle's vision, Act_10:28.

Say what? So the unbelieving husband or wife part is merely a matter of whether the marriage is acceptable to God, but the children part is about whether they are in the 'covenant' or not? If you accept paedo theology, a child is in the covenant so long as they have a believing parent. Whether the parents are married or not is irrelevant. There are single parent paedos on this board. Would they contend that their children are out of the covenant? No.

I humbly submit that the context of the passage is marriage, and continues as marriage. The parents are married, and remain so. Therefore the children are adjudged pure, clean - not bastards. They, as the husband and wife, are above reproach.

JH

 

[elnwood]

Putting aside the fact that these credo-baptists neglect the testimony of half the Bible (the Old Testament) concerning circumcision. I will stand on their ground - a ground that I used to occupy - and, Lord willing, show them the errors of their ways.

This is kind of a hit-and-run tactic, i.e. you're making a sharp criticism and yet "putting it aside" as if you are not addressing it. So since you made the accusation, I'm going to respond to it.

Baptists look at circumcision and how it is applied and see similarities and differences with baptism. The similarity is that they are symbols of the same thing: regeneration. The difference is in the application. In particular, circumcision is applied to show inclusion to the visible community (Israel). In contrast, baptism is given upon an explicit profession of faith.

In Genesis 17, Abraham is ordered to circumcise servants bought from a foreigner. It is assumed these purchased foreign servants are not believers, and Abraham is not ordered to only purchase servants who are already believers. They are circumcised, but there is no call to faith in the true God. In Genesis 34, Shechem's family is circumcised, but there is no call to believe in or worship the true God. In Joshua 5, Joshua is commanded to circumcise the sons of Israel. Again, there is no condition of faith, belief or repentance.

In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar declares the greatness of the true God. And yet, Nebuchadnezzar is not circumcised and brought into the people of Israel. In Jonah, the entire city of Nineveh repents of their sins and turns to the true God. And yet, Jonah does not circumcise them and incorporate them into the people of Israel.

Whereas the New Testament says "believe and be baptized" repeatedly, you will never find in the Old Testament a call to "believe and be circumcised." It's simply not there.

To summarize: a) In the Old Covenant, no one is said to be circumcised after repentance and belief, and b) people who repent and believe under the Old Covenant administration are not circumcised, and c) every instance of baptism is after a call to repentance of belief.

Baptists do not neglect the testimony of the Old Testament regarding circumcision. We simply read the Old Testament and see a profound difference between the application of circumcision in the Old Testament and the application of baptism in the New Testament.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

In contrast, baptism is given upon an explicit profession of faith.

Did you miss the whole discussion of Lydia's singular belief and her whole household's baptism?

Whereas the New Testament says "believe and be baptized" repeatedly, you will never find in the Old Testament a call to "believe and be circumcised." It's simply not there.

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

Don, what does circumcise the foreskin of the heart mean? Why was that called a "circumcision of the heart"? Do you really think God only require the household of Abraham to be circumcised physically and not spiritually also? Why did Paul called baptism a "circumcision of Christ" if circumcision does not require the recipient to believe in God's promise when they are capable?

I don't think you really understand the significance of circumcision, and that's not doing justice to Romans 4 and Colossian 2, and the OT passages.

 

[elnwood]

In contrast, baptism is given upon an explicit profession of faith.

Did you miss the whole discussion of Lydia's singular belief and her whole household's baptism?

The text doesn't say that her household professed belief or not, therefore it doesn't provide arguments either way. Since Lydia was a head-of-household and yet a female, in all likelihood her household consisted of adults, and not infants.

Whereas the New Testament says "believe and be baptized" repeatedly, you will never find in the Old Testament a call to "believe and be circumcised." It's simply not there.

Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

Don, what does circumcise the foreskin of the heart mean? Why was that called a "circumcision of the heart"? Do you really think God only require the household of Abraham to be circumcised physically and not spiritually also? Why did Paul called baptism a "circumcision of Christ" if circumcision does not require the recipient to believe in God's promise when they are capable?

The Deuteronomy passage is calling people who are already circumcised to come to faith and repentance. My point is that no one is called to faith and repentance and then circumcised after they do. You have the order backwards.

I don't think you really understand the significance of circumcision, and that's not doing justice to Romans 4 and Colossian 2, and the OT passages.

As I said earlier, circumcision and baptism represent the same thing, as Romans 4 and Colossians attests to. My point, though, is that they are not applied in like manner. You can draw all the theological similarities that you want, but my point is that they were not practiced in the same manner.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Not trying to get involved in the debate itself, but I was just listening to a message by Greg Price yesterday and I thought he did a good exegetical job with I Corinthians 7:14 here:

SermonAudio.com - Holy Children

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Don, you are using double standard in your argument. In the Old testament passages, you said that since there is no call to repentence or faith in those passages, therefore faith and repentence are not required of them.

On the Lydia's passage, you said

The text doesn't say that her household professed belief or not, therefore it doesn't provide arguments either way

You should have used the same standard and argue that, since Lydia's household's profession of faith are not recorded, therefore they are not require to profess their faith or believe in God.

The Deuteronomy passage is calling people who are already circumcised to come to faith and repentance. My point is that no one is called to faith and repentance and then circumcised after they do. You have the order backwards.

Remember the people following Joshua crossing Jordan? When were the people circumcised? Was that after Deuteronomy? Or before? Was that after Moses called them to believe? Or before?

 

[Barnpreacher]

I humbly submit that the context of the passage is marriage, and continues as marriage. The parents are married, and remain so. Therefore the children are adjudged pure, clean - not bastards. They, as the husband and wife, are above reproach.

JH

Price notes in the message that I posted that the word unclean is never used in the OT or NT as illegitimate.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Quick response:
1. 1 Cor. 10 is a typological verse. The word "baptize" simply means to dip and, while conveys some of the same symbolism, should not be taken as the ordinance of baptism. Paedos will frequently point to the "washings" in the Old Testament, but clearly these are not baptisms either because those were done repeatedly, not the "one baptism."

There is a tendency for paedos to take a verse in the OT, whether it is the Baptism in the Red Sea, circumcision, or washings and cry "continuity" when it fits with their view of baptism but "discontinuity" when it doesn't, i.e. household servants being circumcised, women being baptized, washings given multiple times, etc. You simply cannot draw a direct correlation from an Old Testament type to a New Testament type.

2. Baptists draw the distinction between the visible and invisible church, but, unlike paedobaptists, believe it is the invisible church, and not the visible, that are the recipients of the New Covenant promises.

In the above post, you have not shown that the New Covenant is the visible church, but have simply assumed that since Baptists agree that there is a visible church, that therefore this is the New Covenant.

3. "Holy" and "Sanctified" can simply mean set apart. You cannot necessarily impose your definition of "holy" on the children. "Saints," or "holy ones," can also mean a regenerated believer, and yet you wouldn't impose that on the children.

4. The Lord's Supper is said to be given to members of the church. Women are members of the church, so it follows. If the Bible said that the Lord's Supper is given to men, and was silent about women, you would have a point, but it doesn't. Similarly, the Bible says that Baptism is given to professing believers, but is silent about the children of believers.

Hi:

I understand that a "quick response" is usually not a comprehensive one. Consequently, I will go on your supposition. By the way - your signature says you are a member of Harbor Church PCA - yet your personal profile says you are a member of a Baptist Church, and subscribe to the Baptist confession?

First, you point out that 1 Cor. 10 is a "typological verse." I am not exactly sure what you mean by this. However, if it is "typological" then it must be the "type" of something. The sacrifices of the Old Testament were a "type" of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Are you saying that these passages are a "type" of the Baptism given in the New Testament? If so, then how can you say that they do not apply to NT Baptism? I await your response.

Next,

There is a tendency for paedos to take a verse in the OT, whether it is the Baptism in the Red Sea, circumcision, or washings and cry "continuity" when it fits with their view of baptism but "discontinuity" when it doesn't, i.e. household servants being circumcised, women being baptized, washings given multiple times, etc. You simply cannot draw a direct correlation from an Old Testament type to a New Testament type.

You will have to be more clear on this because it does not make sense. Are you saying that paedo-baptists argue that servants in the OT were not circumcised? That they argue that women in the NT are not to be baptized?

Next,

2. Baptists draw the distinction between the visible and invisible church, but, unlike paedobaptists, believe it is the invisible church, and not the visible, that are the recipients of the New Covenant promises.

In the above post, you have not shown that the New Covenant is the visible church, but have simply assumed that since Baptists agree that there is a visible church, that therefore this is the New Covenant.

I think you should re-read your own confession:

The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ, 1689, chapter 26, section 6.

According to the Baptist confession the visible members of the church are considered "saints." This is the typical way in which Paul and all of the Apostles address the visible church:

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified (set aside) in Christ Jesus, called to be saints...parenthesis mine

The person sitting next to you in church may be a rank unbeliever and non-elect, but if he/she professes Jesus Christ, and lives a life that is consistent with his/her calling, then he/she are considered a visible saint (and would, consequently, be baptized in your church).

The question posed, which you seem to ignore, is whether or not children of believers should be considered "saints" and visible members of the visible church, and thus proper subjects of Baptism?

This leads into your next point:

3. "Holy" and "Sanctified" can simply mean set apart. You cannot necessarily impose your definition of "holy" on the children. "Saints," or "holy ones," can also mean a regenerated believer, and yet you wouldn't impose that on the children.

Jonathan Hunt pointed out that the context is marriage. Such is true, but Paul is answering a specific question concerning marriage - which is what is the status of children of whom one parent is an unbeliever? The Apostle says that the child of a believing parent is considered "holy."

In all of Scripture the term "holy" refers to a special relationship with God. Yet, the credo-baptist maintains that the term here means nothing special - it simply means "set apart." Yet, the Scriptures seem to use the word in a very special sense:

The Spirit of God is called the Holy Ghost, Matthew 3:11.
Jerusalem is referred to as the holy city, Matthew 4:5; 27:53.
Jesus says not to give holy things to the dogs, Matthew 7:6
The angels of God are referred to as holy, Matthew 25:31.
The name of God is considered holy, Luke 1:49.
The Covenant is considered holy, Luke 1:72.
The prophets are considered holy, Acts 3:21.
The ground where Moses saw the burning bush was considered holy, Acts 7:33.
The Bible is called holy, Romans 1:2.
The temple of God is called holy, and we are the temple of God, 1 Corinthians 3:17.

Children of believers are called holy, 1 Corinthians 7:14. As such children of believers are proper subjects for Baptism, because they are being separated out from the world as they are themselves considered holy.

You say that I cannot impose my own definition of "holy" upon the children. But, are you not doing the same thing? The term "saint" is a valid translation of hagia. The translation "saint" is present when the word "holy" refers to a person or persons. Thus, it is even more valid to translate "saint" in 1 Cor. 7:14 because children are people.

It is interesting to note that none of the credo-baptists have addressed the point concerning discipleship.

Are your children being discipled according to the command of Jesus in Matthew 25? If they are, then how can you forbid Baptism to them according to the same command?

In Jesus,

-CH

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Not trying to get involved in the debate itself, but I was just listening to a message by Greg Price yesterday and I thought he did a good exegetical job with I Corinthians 7:14 here:

SermonAudio.com - Holy Children

Hi:

Greg Price says, "Your children are holy because they are born of believing parents. In other words the baptism is not the cause of holiness, but rather the result. If your children are holy, therefore they ought to be baptized. Because your children are holy they have a right to membership in this nation, this holy nation, the church of Christ."

You agree with this?

-CH

 

[elnwood]

First, a quick response to aleksanderpolo.

I do not think I am a double standard because there is more evidence in the Old than the New. The Lydia passage is a narrative passage and does not say whether or not Lydia's household was called to repentance and believed. The assumption, based on every other baptism in the NT, is that they were.

On the other hand, the call to circumcise servants is prescriptive, not narrative. In other words, evangelization is not included in the command to circumcise newly purchased servants, so it ought to be assumed that it was not required.

In Acts 2:38, there is a prescription: repent and be baptized. There is no such prescription of repentance and then be PHYSICALLY circumcised in the Old Testament. (Deut. 10:16 is not a call to be physically circumcised).

Next, a response to CH.

I am attending Harbor Church, but I am not yet a member. I was previously a member of a Reformed Baptist church.

When I say 1 Cor. 10 is "typological," I simply mean that it is symbolic, and what is true of it is not necessarily true of baptism. Most paedos, for example, will say that John the Baptist's baptism was not true Trinitarian baptism.

Re: saints, yes, Paul calls the visible members "saints," or "called out ones." Can it mean more? Obviously yes, but it is not necessarily so. It is sufficient to say that from 1 Cor. 7:14 that unbelieving spouses are also in some sense "set apart" and yet that doesn't make them a part of the visible church.

I know you argue from 1 Cor. 7:14 that "sanctified" does not necessarily mean part of the visible church and "holy" and "clean" means that they are part of the visible church, but I find such arguments unconvincing.

It is interesting to note that none of the credo-baptists have addressed the point concerning discipleship.

Are your children being discipled according to the command of Jesus in Matthew 25? If they are, then how can you forbid Baptism to them according to the same command?

I assume you mean Matthew 28. The command is to "make disciples," not "disciple." I do not have any children, but if I had, I would baptize them when I think that they have been made disciples, or followers, of Jesus. How will I know? Based on a credible profession of faith.

I would like answers to the following questions:

If a profession of belief and repentance is required of adults before circumcision,
1) how come this isn't included when God commanded Abraham to circumcise newly purchased foreign servants? (Genesis 17:12).

2) how come this isn't included when God commanded Joshua to circumcise the sons of Israel? (Joshua 5)

If, like baptism in the New, circumcision follows a profession of belief and repentance of adults in the Old,
3) how come Nebuchadnezzar was not circumcised when he worshiped the true God? (Daniel 4)

4) how come Jonah did not circumcise Ninevah when they repented and turned to the true God? (Jonah 3)

To a Baptist, the answers are simple. The recipients of these signs are not exactly analogous. Circumcision is a physical sign given to those brought into the physical nation of Israel. Baptism is a spiritual sign given to those who evidence spiritual regeneration by their profession of faith. It is perfectly consistent with the biblical data.

How, then, does the paedobaptist account for this?

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Circumcision is a physical sign given to those brought into the physical nation of Israel. Baptism is a spiritual sign given to those who evidence spiritual regeneration by their profession of faith.

Romans 4. Don, really, how is your view different from dispensationalism? Do you really want to ascribe to circumcision primarily the significance of "physical nation of Israel" while the scripture keep telling us both circumcision and baptism signify the promise of God and regeneration? Why is it that for most of the saints in Hebrews 11, even though in the OT passages they were not explicitly mentioned to "profess their faith in God" except for Abraham (to answer your question 1 & 2), yet the author of Hebrew understand clearly that they believe in God? Were the OT saints saved by faith? Why did God give them circumcision? To signify national identity? What is the function of covenant and covenant sign in the scripture? As a national badge? Or to assure God's people of God's promise of salvation?

For question 3 & 4, first we are not sure if they really believe in God. For all we know, they didn't worship God with the people of God. Second, there are a whole bunch of people in the NT whose baptism are not explicitly mentioned (how many of the 12 apostles' baptism were explicitly mentioned, and how many of them were recorded to profess their faith before they were baptized? Scripture reference?). Should you be using the same standard, you would have argued that most people in the NT are not baptized. Does this prove anything?

Anyway, I have to keep myself out of baptism discussion, as it is sucking too much of my time. Have fun.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Let me add this before I go.

To say that, because not all circumcised are saved, therefore circumcision is only a sign of national identity, is similar to saying that:

because not all baptized are saved, therefore baptism is only a sign of a particular church's membership.

Are you willing to degrade covenant sign into that?

Ok, roger and out.

 

[elnwood]

Aleksanderpolo, it's been fun. Some point in time we ought to meet up and hash this out!

Circumcision is a physical sign given to those brought into the physical nation of Israel. Baptism is a spiritual sign given to those who evidence spiritual regeneration by their profession of faith.

Romans 4. Don, really, how is your view different from dispensationalism? Do you really want to ascribe to circumcision primarily the significance of "physical nation of Israel" while the scripture keep telling us both circumcision and baptism signify the promise of God and regeneration? Why is it that for most of the saints in Hebrews 11, even though in the OT passages they were not explicitly mentioned to "profess their faith in God" except for Abraham (to answer your question 1 & 2), yet the author of Hebrew understand clearly that they believe in God? Were the OT saints saved by faith? Why did God give them circumcision? To signify national identity? What is the function of covenant and covenant sign in the scripture? As a national badge? Or to assure God's people of God's promise of salvation?

I am drawing a clear distinction between a) what a symbol represents or signifies, and b) to whom the sign is given.

For a), the sign of circumcision, like baptism, signifies the promise of God and regeneration. In this sense, I fully agree with what you wrote.

But because a) is the same for circumcision and baptism does not necessarily mean that b) is the same. We both agree that there is no necessary correlation between the two. One can be circumcised/baptized and unsaved or one can be uncircumcised/unbaptized and saved.

For b) the sign of circumcision is given to those brought into physical Israel, and to no others, even if they repent and believe as Nebuchadnezzar and Nineveh did.

For question 3 & 4, first we are not sure if they really believe in God. For all we know, they didn't worship God with the people of God. Second, there are a whole bunch of people in the NT whose baptism are not explicitly mentioned (how many of the 12 apostles' baptism were explicitly mentioned, and how many of them were recorded to profess their faith before they were baptized? Scripture reference?). Should you be using the same standard, you would have argued that most people in the NT are not baptized. Does this prove anything?

Whether Nebuchadnezzar or Nineveh REALLY believed in God is not relevant. The fact is that they gave a credible confession of faith.

But for the sake of argument: Nebuchadnezzar proclaimed the true God, and his words are recorded in Holy Scripture! That's a pretty good sign he was regenerated. Regarding Nineveh, Jonah 3:5 says, "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Were Nebuchadnezzar or Ninevah worship God with the people of God? No, and that was my point. Although they became true believers, and thus incorporated into spiritual Israel, they did not take the sign of circumcision because they were not incorporated into physical Israel.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey:

Elnwood, I have to say that I am enjoying this conversation with you on this matter. Other credo's on this site, and 2 of them moderators, seem a bit too dogmatic to engage in conversation about Baptism. Kudos to you.

Thank you for clarifying about Harbor Church. Will they accept you as a member if you still hold to credo-baptism? I hope that God will through our discussion change your mind on the subject.

Typology or symbology must have a referent. I think that Paul is clear enough in 1 Cor. 10 to point out that the referent is New Testament Baptism. Here, Paul points out, the people of Israel were Baptized, they ate the same spiritual food, they drank of that Rock which is Christ, but many of them fell in the wilderness:

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted

That the people of Israel received these things in "types" how much more are we to follow their example and not fall into diverse lusts as they did? The credo-baptist says that there are no examples of children being Baptized in the New Testament. Yet, it seems here that 1 Cor. 10 contradicts such a statement. Paul, in "spiritualizing" the text, is pointing out that Baptism is not only for those who profess faith in Jesus - but for the household of the elect.

Another point here is that the word Bapism is used for the children of Israel - yet they were never dunked in the Red Sea. Only the army of the Pharaoh was fully immersed! According to the account they traveled on dry land. This is a perfect example of people being "Baptized" yet not being dipped or fully immersed in water. A dry Baptism? Sounds like sprinkling to me. A passage from the New Testament as well.

I still cannot grasp the way you interpret the word "holy." Holy things are to be washed:

As Aaron and his sons, Ex. 29:4, Ex. 30:18-21, Lev. 16:4.
The Levites were set apart for the work of the Temple by washing in water, Numbers 8:7.

How can you forbid water to people of whom the New Testament tells us are holy? The argument against this that credo-baptists make concerning the unbelieving spouse has been adequately answered. I would also bring to your attention the excellent sermon that Barnpreacher has referenced:

SermonAudio.com - Holy Children

By simply dismissing this out of hand in saying that "holy" means "set apart" you have not dealt with the problem. Baptism is a mark of the New Covenant people - a holy nation, a royal priesthood. If a person is considered "holy" then he/she should be baptized.

A person who is under the teaching authority of the Church is a disciple. Children of believers are under the teaching authority of the Church. Consequently, they are disciples. The Bible clearly tells us to Baptize disciples: it does not give us any criterion to determine the level of their discipleship.

This also brings us to that odd Baptist teaching concerning the "age of accountability" which is no where taught in Scripture. Yet, "Bible Believing" Baptists will teach this as if it were Scripture. Hmmmm.

Thanks for the thought-provoking thoughts!

-CH

 

[Jim Johnston]

In Acts 2:38, there is a prescription: repent and be baptized. There is no such prescription of repentance and then be PHYSICALLY circumcised in the Old Testament.

So could adult proselytes enter the Jewish religion as adults, not be repentant of their former pagan way of life, and become circumcised?

In Acts, 1st generation potential Christians are being spoken to.

It is logically invalid to offer a prescriptive conclusion regarding what is normative for second generation Christians (or, the children of 1st generation Christians) based on a prescription told to cognizant, first generation proselytes. In other words,, your conclusion goes beyond the information contained in your premises.

 

[elnwood]

Hey:

Elnwood, I have to say that I am enjoying this conversation with you on this matter. Other credo's on this site, and 2 of them moderators, seem a bit too dogmatic to engage in conversation about Baptism. Kudos to you.

Thank you! I greatly appreciate it. I pray that our conversation will continue to sharpen us.

Thank you for clarifying about Harbor Church. Will they accept you as a member if you still hold to credo-baptism? I hope that God will through our discussion change your mind on the subject.

I have not had that conversation with the leadership, but generally this is not an issue in the PCA. While the officers in the PCA must subscribe to infant baptism, the laypersons do not have to. In fact, one of the moderators of PuritanBoard is a Baptist at a PCA church.

Also, at the historic Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, apparently only 64% of the membership affirmed infant baptism.
SermonAudio.com - Baptism

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more Reformed Baptists who attend Presbyterian churches than Baptist churches.

Typology or symbology must have a referent. I think that Paul is clear enough in 1 Cor. 10 to point out that the referent is New Testament Baptism. Here, Paul points out, the people of Israel were Baptized, they ate the same spiritual food, they drank of that Rock which is Christ, but many of them fell in the wilderness:

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted

That the people of Israel received these things in "types" how much more are we to follow their example and not fall into diverse lusts as they did? The credo-baptist says that there are no examples of children being Baptized in the New Testament. Yet, it seems here that 1 Cor. 10 contradicts such a statement. Paul, in "spiritualizing" the text, is pointing out that Baptism is not only for those who profess faith in Jesus - but for the household of the elect.

I'll be honest. I just don't see Paul clearly teaching that. It doesn't seem to be a necessary teaching of that text, and I feel like you are reading that into the text. The overall emphasis seems to be the corporate unity of the people of Israel in sharing spiritual food and drink and passing through the Red Sea.

I read the symbolism as such: the Israelites shared unity in their shared experience as the people of Israel, even their baptism in the Red Sea. Similarly, professing believers in Christ share unity in their water baptism. Similarly, true believers in Christ share unity in their spiritual baptism. They are all symbols, but they are not to be intermingled.

You run into all sorts of unresolved issues if you say that this is NT baptism. Why didn't this Red Sea baptism replace circumcision? Why weren't further generations baptized also? Did the adults make professions of faith before they were baptized? Did Moses actually administer baptism to every person there, by sprinkling or whatever? Clearly there are differences between the Red Sea baptism and New Testament baptism.

I don't have much to add to the "holy" conversation other than I am still not convinced that there is enough of a difference in 1 Cor. 7:14 to require water baptism of one group and forbid it of the other.

A person who is under the teaching authority of the Church is a disciple. Children of believers are under the teaching authority of the Church. Consequently, they are disciples. The Bible clearly tells us to Baptize disciples: it does not give us any criterion to determine the level of their discipleship.

This also brings us to that odd Baptist teaching concerning the "age of accountability" which is no where taught in Scripture. Yet, "Bible Believing" Baptists will teach this as if it were Scripture. Hmmmm.

As a side note, I consider children to be under the authority of their parents, and not under the authority of the Church per se.

Say you were having a "basic Christianity" bible study with people learning about Christianity who had not yet professed Christ. Are you discipling them? Should you baptize them?

I think you can make a clear distinction between "making disciples" and "discipling." A disciple is a follower, not necessarily one who is being discipled. For example, I can paint, but that doesn't make me a painter.

Re: age of accountability, paedos are often forced to use a pragmatic "age of accountability" for baptism too. Say the parents of a family come to Christ, and they have children aged 2 to 17 living under their roof who have not taken a firm decision either for or against Christ, but dutifully attend church with their parents. Do you baptize them? Which ages?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Don:

I know you want me to respond to you via email, but I think there are two points here that would be very helpful concerning paedo-baptism. You wrote:

Say you were having a "basic Christianity" bible study with people learning about Christianity who had not yet professed Christ. Are you discipling them? Should you baptize them?

Being discipled is being brought under the teaching ministry of the Church. The command of Jesus was given to the Apostles who represented the Church at the time. If I invite unbelievers to my home for a Bible study, and if they profess interest in the doctrine, and if they start coming to Church regularly, and if they were not baptized, and if they are willing to be baptized, and if they have children who are also being discipled, then I would say unequivocally "Yes" they can be baptized and their children.

When we look at the Baptisms in the first century that seems to be their practice.

As far as 1 Cor. 7:14 goes:

If the unbelieving spouse does not want to be baptized, then I see no Scriptural warrant for forcing baptism upon him/her. However, if the spouse desires to be baptized, and he/she has never been baptized, then I see no Scriptural warrant for not doing so.

There! I think that answers the problem!

Blessings,

-CH

 

[elnwood]

CH, regarding your last post ... well, at least you're consistent!

If I am understanding your view correctly, I think it is very problematic. It seems to me from what you have stated that, if a person wanted to be baptized and become a church member, regardless of his personal convictions, they could. (If I am incorrect, please clarify!)

Some would say this is a ridiculous hypothetical, but it is not. I read in the news a while ago about an atheist who decided to become a member of a church because he wanted to be a part of normal American society, and thought that church, as a social connection, was still beneficial and worth joining. (If someone remembers this story and can find it, I'd be appreciative).

There was a man who was a convinced agnostic but came to our church dutifully almost every Sunday (and more regularly than some of our members, sadly enough). He sang the songs, he listened closely to the sermons, and he socialized after church. I never asked him, but I would guess that if we offered to baptize him and let him become a member of the church and let him keep his convictions, he would have.

As a Baptist, I am very concerned about keeping the purity of the church. Baptizing believers into the church and the exercise of church discipline to expel unbelievers are the means of keeping the church pure. I do not believe we should let anyone who wants to be baptized and join the church to do so.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

CH, regarding your last post ... well, at least you're consistent!

If I am understanding your view correctly, I think it is very problematic. It seems to me from what you have stated that, if a person wanted to be baptized and become a church member, regardless of his personal convictions, they could. (If I am incorrect, please clarify!)

Some would say this is a ridiculous hypothetical, but it is not. I read in the news a while ago about an atheist who decided to become a member of a church because he wanted to be a part of normal American society, and thought that church, as a social connection, was still beneficial and worth joining. (If someone remembers this story and can find it, I'd be appreciative).

There was a man who was a convinced agnostic but came to our church dutifully almost every Sunday (and more regularly than some of our members, sadly enough). He sang the songs, he listened closely to the sermons, and he socialized after church. I never asked him, but I would guess that if we offered to baptize him and let him become a member of the church and let him keep his convictions, he would have.

As a Baptist, I am very concerned about keeping the purity of the church. Baptizing believers into the church and the exercise of church discipline to expel unbelievers are the means of keeping the church pure. I do not believe we should let anyone who wants to be baptized and join the church to do so.

Hey:

Thanks for the response.

Simon the Sorceror had wrong intentions concerning his baptism - thought it was some magical formula that would grant him the powers of the Spirit of God - I suppose. Apparently, the church did not inquire as to his intentions too deeply when they baptized him.

As far as an atheist or an agnostic is concerned it seems to me that they would have to believe and profess that Jesus Christ is God if they desire to be baptized. That is part of what baptism is all about - a public profession of the divinity of Jesus Christ. If they are unwilling to do so, then they are unwilling to be baptized. Baptism should be refused because it contradicts their beliefs concerning no-God.

However, if an "unbelieving" spouse is willing to confess (outwardly) the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized, then I see no bar in granting him/her baptism. The nature of baptism should be carefully described to him. The ramifications of not having a true heart-felt faith should be shown him from the Scriptures. But, in the end, if he/she still desires to be baptized, then maybe there is a work of the Spirit that is going on that we cannot discern.

In several parables Jesus tells us that the Church is always going to be impure on this side of judgment day: That the wheat and the tares will grow up together. He warns us that we should not try to pull out the tares lest we destroy the wheat as well. An "unbelieving" spouse who desires to be baptized should not be refused baptism. Who knows? Maybe the testimony of the believing spouse wrought grace in the heart that we cannot discern.

Grace and Peace,

_CH

 

[Ron]

Hi:

If I have it right, and those who hold to the position can correct me, the main argument of credo-baptism is that the New Covenant is given only to the Elect. Consequently, the sign of the New Covenant should only be given to those who make a profession of faith in Christ - Believers only.

In order to substantiate this belief the credo-baptist argues that in every instance of Baptism in the New Testament we can only deduce Believers to have received it. Son's and daughters, (infants), servants, and other members of a household were not baptized except on their own personal profession of faith.

Putting aside the fact that these credo-baptists neglect the testimony of half the Bible (the Old Testament) concerning circumcision. I will stand on their ground - a ground that I used to occupy - and, Lord willing, show them the errors of their ways.

First, the New Testament clearly states that New Covenant Baptism was present in the Old Testament:

Moreover Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10:1-4.

All Israel passed through the sea and were Baptized. First, this militates against the idea of "dunking" as the people of Israel were said to pass through the Red Sea on dry land. No doubt the sea spray or the rain from the cloud "baptized them unto Moses." Or, the simple act of going down into the sea bed and coming back up out of the water was enough for them to be considered baptized.

Second, conservative estimates of the population of Israel at the time was about 1.5 million people. The Bible tells us that 600.000 men "besides children" travelled out of Egypt, Ex. 12:37. Children were among those who were Baptized unto Moses. I would also dare say that if you took any random population of 1.5 million people you will find some infants among them. What? Infants being Baptized from a text in the New Testament?

Next,

Is the New Covenant given only to the Elect? The confusion of the credo-baptist position becomes evident at this point. There is a subtle switch in their argument that is innocently deceitful. To tease this matter out a simple question must be asked:

Who are the Elect?

The Elect, as I understand it, are all true Believers in Jesus Christ. Many Divines refer to the Elect as the "invisible" or "universal" or "catholic" (small c) Church. What Divines call the "visible" Church is what you see every Sunday. A group of people composed of both the Elect and non-Elect. The example of the disciples of Jesus illustrates this idea. Of the twelve disciples eleven of them were Elect and one of them was not-Elect. We know this because God tells us it in the Scriptures. We are not given sufficient information from the Scriptures to determine who is Elect and who is non-Elect in the visible church (outside of those persons revealed in Scripture like: Judas, Simon the sorceror, and Demas). Thus, people "outside" of the church who make a credible profession of faith are allowed membership into the church. The 1689 Baptist confession upholds the idea of a "visible" and "invisible" church:

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted, chapter 26, section 2 (see also section 1 and 3 as well)

This asks the question as to whether the New Covenant is given to the Elect only?

When the New Covenant is preached the promises of the Covenant are given to all who hear the Word of God. Thus, the New Covenant is given not only to the Elect, but to the non-Elect as well. This explains within the Calvinistic framework all of the universal statements in the Bible:


And other such like passages.

Since the promises of the Covenant are not given only to Elect members of a church, but also to non-Elect members as well, then what is the hinderance of giving Baptism to infant members of the church? Especially since we have both Old and New Testament warrant to do so?

The question to be answered then is: Are the children of believers considered members of the visible church?

This really is the only point that need be proved to end credo-baptism - that children of believers are considered visible members of the Church. Not only are believers, both Jews and Gentiles, as they are the Seed of Abraham to be baptized, but also their households as well.

Certainly, there can be no argument that the children in the Old Testament were considered members of the visible church? Is there? That circumcision was given to an infant eight days old, and that circumcision was the sign of the Everlasting Covenant given to Abraham? Gen. 17:13.

The credo-baptist argues that the promises to Abraham stop at the personal profession of the New Testament believer, and that it does not extend to his/her household.

There are three good and necessary answers that show children of believers are to be considered members of the visible church:

First,

1) It has been pointed out that the disciples of Jesus were considered members of the visible church.

2) Everywhere in the Bible we are commanded to disciple our children: The most obvious is Matthew 28:19.

3) Children of believers, then, are considered members of the visible church. Consequently, they are rightful recipients of New Testament Baptism.

Second,

1 Cor. 7:14 states that the children of believer(s) are considered "holy."

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

The unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for his/her own sake (otherwise we would be required to baptize them), but they are sanctified for the sake of their children. Thus, the children of the believing parent(s) are considered "holy" or "saints" as the word is rendered in other places in the Bible. The Baptist confession, as quoted earlier, states this about those who are considered "visible saints":

...are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

The confession acknowledges that those who are "visible saints" are rightly considered members of the visible church. I would call those Baptists who proudly proclaim themselves to be "Bible Believing" to acknowledge the Biblical teaching in both the Old and New Testaments that children of believers are not only 1. Disciples of Jesus Christ, and thus members of the visible church, but also, 2. Considered by the Bible to be "holy" or "saints" and are considered members of the visible church.

Third,

If we take the credo argument that there is no New Testament evidence of infant baptism at face value, then we come to a quandry when it comes to the Lord's Supper. There is no New Testament evidence that women were given the Lord's Supper. Consequently, if we are to be consistent with the Baptist hermeneutic, women should be forbidden the Lord's Supper on the same grounds that children are to be forbidden Baptism.

Silence in the New Testament does not necessarily mean "forbidden." Yet, the Baptist would have us think so concerning our covenant children.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Try this brother: Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism: 3 Part Series

Ron