At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote:b9a5bb0159][i:b9a5bb0159]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:b9a5bb0159]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:b9a5bb0159]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again.:cool:
 
[quote:479761079a][i:479761079a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:479761079a]
[quote:479761079a][i:479761079a]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:479761079a]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:479761079a]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again.:cool: [/quote:479761079a]

Please enlighten me as to how I have failed to address a point? I mean do you want to put your words into actions by having a debate on a Monday night- after all if Paul's arguements about the 1) Apostle commaning children who could understand him and probably had faith; thus all infant with Christian parents are to be baptized" or the arguement that "Judas was called a Disciple; thus infant baptism" or "women were federally circumcised; thus infant baptism" are what you say they are then you are prepared I mean what could I possible say in return to those arguements... we could even have an audience who could watch and see how weak credotbapsitm is right? So what do you think maybe on a Monday night at the end of your study on Covenant theology?


[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:01eb7e52b5][i:01eb7e52b5]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:01eb7e52b5]
[quote:01eb7e52b5][i:01eb7e52b5]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:01eb7e52b5]
[quote:01eb7e52b5][i:01eb7e52b5]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:01eb7e52b5]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:01eb7e52b5]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again.:cool: [/quote:01eb7e52b5]

Please enlighten me as to how I have failed to address a point? I mean do you want to put your words and actions by having a debate on a Monday night- after all if Paul's arguements are what you think they are then you are prepared I mean what could I possible say in return... we could even have an audience who could watch and see how weak credotbapsitm is right? So what do you think maybe on a Monday night at the end of your study on Covenant theology? [/quote:01eb7e52b5]

Its a date big shot!:tongue:

oh by the way:

"This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... "
 
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:603429d050]
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:603429d050]
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:603429d050]
[quote:603429d050][i:603429d050]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:603429d050]
This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... [/quote:603429d050]


After reading Tyler's post, I thought this needed to be reiterated once again.:cool: [/quote:603429d050]

Please enlighten me as to how I have failed to address a point? I mean do you want to put your words and actions by having a debate on a Monday night- after all if Paul's arguements are what you think they are then you are prepared I mean what could I possible say in return... we could even have an audience who could watch and see how weak credotbapsitm is right? So what do you think maybe on a Monday night at the end of your study on Covenant theology? [/quote:603429d050]

Its a date big shot!:tongue:

oh by the way:

"This thread is disappointing. Credo responses seem to be more avoidance than interaction. I would like to see a credo pick apart, not by sophistry, but logically and exegetically, Paul's last long post.

Don't just avoid it...... " [/quote:603429d050]

Cool... by the way words can not make something true... no matter how many times you repeat it... why not just let the reader decide... I already know that Paedobaptist will not change their minds... Paul for example already confessed that he presumes infant baptism to be true and so he must debate just for fun. So I mean is it really any surprise if you do not find my arguements convincing when you presume your position to be true?
 
[quote:f26a0c4da5]If you are in the church, then you are in Christ (Galatians 1:22).[/quote:f26a0c4da5]

Suppose there is an adult in the church and he does not profess to be a Christian. Would he be in Christ? If so, is he a disciple and should he get baptized?

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by cih1355]
 
[quote:36eb49f8bb][i:36eb49f8bb]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:36eb49f8bb]
Tertullian,

Thanks for agreeing to number 1. All that's left was to prove #2. I gave a few examples, though you just want to deal with the ephesians passage. (btw, both sides have [i:36eb49f8bb]inference[/i:36eb49f8bb] interpreting that vs. But my argument, which you haven't addressed, is that I proved that certain first century Christian churches had infant members. You have not delt with this. You throw out red herrings. Forget the slaves, and girls, and all the rest, all YOU ASKED was for me to show that their were infant members! That's it. Are you now requalifying? Here is the argument again:

[quote:36eb49f8bb]
Last, but certainly not least, Christian Jewish parents still circumcised their infants (Acts. 21:21) and was still a sign of true relationship to God (Rom. 2:29). Even the great Baptist sophist Paul King Jewett recognized this (though he then tries to use it to argue for credobaptism, but his rebuttle is not the point of my argument)! By circumcising them it meant that they were members of their parent's synagogues and we know that believing Jews assembled in Christian synagogues (Jas. 2:2). These synagogues were also considered Christian churches (Jas. 5:14). Therefore, we know that certain first century churches had infant members! (cf. Douglas Wilson, To A Thousand Generations, pgs 122-123).
[/quote:36eb49f8bb]

p.s. I am sorry that you were offended at the [i:36eb49f8bb]style[/i:36eb49f8bb] in which I wrote my last post. I apologized and have tried to not write in that way. I find it sad that you keep bringing that up. And, many people think that you have not addressed my post, maybe their wrong, maybe their right...but could a possibility be that you haven't? I mean, I just re-posted my argument and saw that you keep bringing up Eph. (btw, even though you have not delt with the reductio's I posted to defend the Eph passage. And, even though I answered your question about writting letters to infants "who couldn't understand." by saying that Tit 1:11 proves that [i:36eb49f8bb]teaching[/i:36eb49f8bb] can have an effect on infants.) So, maybe you just haven't delt with it. I mean, that's not beyond imagination...is it?

And Tyler, there is not much difference between someone who says something in a matter of fact way, and someone who dresses it up in nice complimentary words. You continue to appeal to emotion (my opinion is because my post does't want to be delt with head on). You act as if I am just calling names while you continue to say things like: "if you would just check Scripture aganst your traditions." You know what that is saying? It is saying, "You guys don't even read the bible, because if you did you would be credo." How is this not at the same level, or worse(!), then what I have said. Or, you guys just follow your fathers...while I follow the Bible. And then you have the nerve to say that we (or I) are not humble! The reason I am calling you out is because I just want to debate the objective issues. I am tired of being portrayed as the "uncaring paedo" while you are "just discussing and searching for the truth." I wasn't going to bring this up but I see that it has continued. You are using a debate trick. You are painting me in a light that takes the focus of my argument. And you do it very well. You dress your arrows up in fluffy feathers...but guess what? The tip is still exposed and it still makes its mark. Like this:

[quote:36eb49f8bb]
Paul for example already confessed that he presumes infant baptism to be true and so he must debate just for fun.
[/quote:36eb49f8bb]

That's right Tyler, I do. And if you don't think you presuppose your system you are just ignorant (in the technical sense). And, people can change their presuppositions. Have you read Kuhn? Wittgenstein? It is a presupposition at the more towards the outer layer of the web. Therefore, is is not as non-negotiable as a belief towards the center. But where have I ever said I just debate it for fun! Where! Quote me! This is what I am tallking about. Please, brother, stop putting us in the light of rude, arrogant, proud people. Tyler, a pig is still a pig even if you perfume her up. And your comments are still arrogant and emotive and degrading to paedo's (as if we don't read the bible) even though you say it kindly. And I will take the heat for this, even though it is the consensus of many paedo's here. But they let it slide. Hmmm, maybe we're not as arrogant and proud as you have portrayed us. Sorry for this, but I just thought enough was enough.

There now that i have cleared the air on that one...hopefully we can get back to just dealing with the issues.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Paul manata]

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:36eb49f8bb]

On Point???:saint:
 
Tyler,

You wrote:
"Again the conclusion does not follow because it does not follow that if you are in Christ you are baptized unless of course you want to say that no Old Covenant saint was ever in Christ?"

I do believe people in the Old Testament were in Christ (Ephesians 2:12); however, the Old Testament saints were brought into Christ through circumcision. That's what it means to be apart of the "commonwealth of Israel."

You wrote:
"The phrase "in Christ" is very vague after all in context Jesus was using a metaphor not entering into a discourse about who was a church member so we out not to turn the passage into something it is not but always be cautious about drawing conclusions from Jesus teachings on subjects different from Jesus was teaching. Now I also note that Jesus clearly says that the branches that were in him but cutt off proved not to be Disciples in John 15:8, so then clearly it is not sufficient to be "in Christ" in the metaphorical sense that Christ used the phrase because Christ tells us that they were not disciples. So premise 2 fails because it is not true that if "you are in Christ" in the metaphorical sense of John 15 that you are a Disciple because Christ teaches otherwise and Christ ought to be regarded as the best interpreter of his own parable."

1.) I prefer not to see the phrase "in Christ" or as the text actually states "in me" as vague. My argument is based off a unity in the usage of the phrase "in Christ." I grant that the bible speaks of a person's relationship with Christ differently in different places. However, the places where I pointed out the phrase have essentially the same basic idea-they all carry the basic idea of "identification."

2.) As far as John 15 stands, I have derived two basic points. The first point is that some branches don't bare fruit and are yet "in me (Christ)" in some manner (This of course is not agriculturally sound since branches can't even exist apart from a vine). Again, I think this is a term of identification. The dead branches are those who claim to be Disciples of Christ and the ones that bear fruit are genuine disciples. Or else, how could they both be connected to Christ? What do disciples and non-disciples have in common that would place them both together on the vine? Since scripture clearly indicates that all disciples receive baptism (whether those who claim to be or those who are genuinely), I am suggesting that both kinds of branches are placed (identified) in Christ through discipleship and baptism. If I am correct, then to be a disciple is at minimum to be baptized.


Also, since we are now debating scripture, it would be helpful if you provide a positive interpretation. In order to help this along, I have two questions for you in order to keep this focused.
1.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are "in Christ" in any way?
2.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are not disciples even by profession?

Cordially,
Jayson Rawlins
 
Goosha,

It is always a happy occasion when two brothers in Christ trade Scripture together in an effort to discover truth is it not? I still have serious objections however to the idea that simply being "in Christ" demands you be giving the Covenant sign apart from a Command of Christ. I have attempted to respond to your question below. Also, I do not think that John 15 will be of must support in proving that Disciples can be unregenerate because this passage actually teaches what the requirements of true discipleship is and it is not mere baptism or membership in a local church... these may be necessary but they are not sufficient for the true test is Christ sanctifying them by his word and then them bearing fruit- only when these two things happen do we have a Disciple but more on that below.

[quote:4e348b84bd] Tyler,

You wrote:
"Again the conclusion does not follow because it does not follow that if you are in Christ you are baptized unless of course you want to say that no Old Covenant saint was ever in Christ?"

I do believe people in the Old Testament were in Christ (Ephesians 2:12); however, the Old Testament saints were brought into Christ through circumcision. That's what it means to be apart of the "commonwealth of Israel." [/quote:4e348b84bd]

But what about before circumcision was administered would you then say that no one was "in Christ" like Noah or would you say that you say that Noah was "in Christ" apart from Baptism and circumcision meaning that it is improper to just assume that because a person is "in Christ" they must be baptized or circumcised. Also, consider the case of women who were "not circumcised" in any meaningful way, or what about babies who die who have not been baptized or circumciced would you think that they could be saved and if so would they be saved in yet not be "in Christ?" If no to any of these cases then we cannot just assume that all who are in Christ are given a "Covenant sign"

[quote:4e348b84bd] You wrote:
"The phrase "in Christ" is very vague after all in context Jesus was using a metaphor not entering into a discourse about who was a church member so we out not to turn the passage into something it is not but always be cautious about drawing conclusions from Jesus teachings on subjects different from Jesus was teaching. Now I also note that Jesus clearly says that the branches that were in him but cutt off proved not to be Disciples in John 15:8, so then clearly it is not sufficient to be "in Christ" in the metaphorical sense that Christ used the phrase because Christ tells us that they were not disciples. So premise 2 fails because it is not true that if "you are in Christ" in the metaphorical sense of John 15 that you are a Disciple because Christ teaches otherwise and Christ ought to be regarded as the best interpreter of his own parable."

[quote:4e348b84bd] 1.) I prefer not to see the phrase "in Christ" or as the text actually states "in me" as vague. My argument is based off a unity in the usage of the phrase "in Christ." I grant that the bible speaks of a person's relationship with Christ differently in different places. However, the places where I pointed out the phrase have essentially the same basic idea-they all carry the basic idea of "identification." [/quote:4e348b84bd][/quote:4e348b84bd]

When I called the word "vague" it was not to dismiss it or trivialize but to show that Christ meant this phrase to be taken as a figure or metaphor not literally. Indeed Christ goes to great lengths to show that these branches are not his Disciples in verse 8, and if they are not his Disciples then they are not his period and they are not identified with Christ... Christ does not lose his sheep He is to good of a Shepherd to lose his sheep. Therefore, ultimately we need to see the phrase "In me" as a metaphorical expression meant to convey those who were not true disciples or Covenant members but were merely people who experiences some privileges but will be punished most severely for their deceit and wickedness... to identity Christ with these unregenerate lairs is jumping beyond the import of Christ discourse and actually undermines Christ own interpretation of the passage... "By this is My Father glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My Disciples" (15:8) and "every branch that does not bear fruit He takes away" (15:2)

I think Christ distinction in verse 4 is so important it is those whom Christ abides in and whom abide in him that bear fruit it is them that Christ is identified with and only them for all those whom Christ is identified with or abides with will bear fruit and those whom Christ does not abide with are the ones that Christ does not abide with... Clearly Christ was not speaking metaphorically not literally when he said those whom he does not abide with are not his Disciples were "cutt off" from him... that question we need to ask ourselves is how does a person prove to be a disciple and prove not to be a disciple?

[quote:4e348b84bd] 2.) As far as John 15 stands, I have derived two basic points. The first point is that some branches don't bare fruit and are yet "in me (Christ)" in some manner (This of course is not agriculturally sound since branches can't even exist apart from a vine). Again, I think this is a term of identification. The dead branches are those who claim to be Disciples of Christ and the ones that bear fruit are genuine disciples. Or else, how could they both be connected to Christ? What do disciples and non-disciples have in common that would place them both together on the vine? Since scripture clearly indicates that all disciples receive baptism (whether those who claim to be or those who are genuinely), I am suggesting that both kinds of branches are placed (identified) in Christ through discipleship and baptism. If I am correct, then to be a disciple is at minimum to be baptized. [/quote:4e348b84bd]

A tree is know by its fruits is it not, so a good tree bears good fruit because it is a good tree and a bad tree bad fruit because it is a bad tree. Now we can begin to see what Christ is saying, Christ was not saying that his Disciples become his disciples by good works but prove to be Disciples because of their works. These false Disciples were not Christ Disciples but only pretenders and they will be judged by God for their deceit, yet this does not mean that they were identified with Christ because they claimed to be regenerated, indeed, being baptized is not a minimum to be a Disciple the whole point of Christ discourse is to prove exactly the opposite for Christ has taught that his Disciples never perish but bear fruit that will last throughout eternity... Christ never lost what he never had and he never was identified in any important sense with these false pretenders of truth.


[quote:4e348b84bd] Also, since we are now debating scripture, it would be helpful if you provide a positive interpretation. In order to help this along, I have two questions for you in order to keep this focused.

1.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are "in Christ" in any way? [/quote:4e348b84bd]

I accept the historic reformed interpretation of these verses outlined by these commentators

[quote:4e348b84bd]

[b:4e348b84bd] John Gill [/b:4e348b84bd]
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit...
There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine; the one sort are such who have only an historical faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed; they are such who only profess to believe in him, as Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only; they submit to outward ordinances, become church members, and so are reckoned to be in Christ, being in a church state, as the churches of Judea and Thessalonica, and others, are said, in general, to he in Christ; though it is not to be thought that every individual person in these churches were truly and savingly in him. These branches are unfruitful ones; what fruit they seemed to have, withers away, and proves not to be genuine fruit; what fruit they bring forth is to themselves, and not to the glory of God, being none of the fruits of his Spirit and grace: and such branches the husbandman

[b:4e348b84bd] John Calvin [/b:4e348b84bd]
2. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit. As some men corrupt the grace of God, others suppress it maliciously, and others choke it by carelessness, Christ intends by these words to awaken anxious inquiry, by declaring that all the branches which shall be unfruitful will be cut off from the vine. But here comes a question. Can any one who is engrafted into Christ be without fruit? I answer, many are supposed to be in the vine, according to the opinion of men, who actually have no root in the vine.

[b:4e348b84bd] Augustine[/b:4e348b84bd] Commenting on John 15:8

For if herein God the Father is glorified, that we bear much fruit, and be made the disciples of Christ, let us not credit our own glory therewith, as if we had it of ourselves. For of Him is such a grace, and accordingly therein the glory is not ours, but His. Hence also, in another passage, after saying, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works;" to keep them from the thought that such good works were of themselves, He immediately added, "and may glorify your Father who is in heaven."4 For herein is the Father glorified, that we bear much fruit, and be made the disciples of Christ. And by whom are we so made, but by Him whose mercy hath forestalled us? For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.5 (Augustine)

-Note Augustine says that Disciples are made by Christ and will bear good works for they are his workmanship- hence it follows that those who do not bear fruit are not Christ Disciples. [/quote:4e348b84bd]

Moving on to your next question:

[quote:4e348b84bd] 2.) Do you think that the branches that bear no fruit are not disciples even by profession? [/quote:4e348b84bd]

No a Disciple only by profession is no more a Disciple than a monopoly one dollar bill is a certified US Dollar bill, and Dr. James White has done a wonderful job of explaining why this is. I encourage you to read the full article http://aomin.org/John15.html but here is Whites summary of the reasons why the branches in him are not Disciples of Christ.

[quote:4e348b84bd] Summary of Exegesis:
So what can we say regarding the teaching of the Lord Jesus in John 15? And specifically, why should any Bible-believing person reject the idea that the words of the Lord, especially regarding fruitless, rejected, and burnt branches, lead us to believe that salvation is anything less than the perfect, infallible work of a Perfect, Infallible Savior (John 6:37-39)?
The words of the Lord Jesus do not lead us to believe the branches which are taken away (v. 2) and burned (v. 6) are disciples. In fact, one cannot maintain such an interpretation in light of the following considerations:

1) Christ differentiates between those who are "clean" by the Word which is spoken to them and the branches that are taken away: there is no such thing as a true disciple who is not cleansed by the Word;

2) The Lord limits the realm of true discipleship to those who abide in Him. The branches taken away in v. 2 and burned in v. 6 do not abide in Christ and hence are not disciples;

3) Jesus gives no indication that there is a major exception to verse 5, where there are those who abide in Him and yet do not bear fruit (reinforcing the distinction inherent in the entirety of the passage);

4) the Lord defines fruit bearing as the only evidence of discipleship (v. 8). Since the branches that are taken away and burned bore no fruit, it follows inevitably that they are not, by Jesus' own definition, disciples;

5) Jesus spoke these words not to cause His disciples sorrow but to give them joy (15:11). The centrality of the Father and Son in bringing out the fruitfulness of the Vine brings joy; interpreting these words so as to refer to true disciples losing their salvation does not;

6) the focus upon Christ as the source of all spiritual life picks up the same theme found in John 6 (as the Bread of Life). It is completely backwards to take a passage that presents the work of the Father in glorifying Himself in bringing forth fruit in Christ's people and see it as a passage teaching the opposite, that is, the Father's failure to bring forth fruit and hence lose one-time true believers. (James White) [/quote:4e348b84bd]

Hence, we can conclude that John 15 does not teach that unregenerate are Christ Disciples but rather the reverse and so we can conclude with the words of Calvin: "To the same effect is the latter clause, that you may become my disciples; for he declares that he has no one in his flock who does not bear fruit to the glory of God". (Calvin)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-25-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Paul,

[quote:4a125a89bf] Tertullian,

Thanks for agreeing to number 1. [/quote:4a125a89bf]
Well hold on a second I have not just handed you the debate quite yet. Indeed I as a Reformed Baptist do not teach that Church members have an innate right to the Covenant sign that God is obliged to appease, but I say that God can chose whom gets the Covenant sign and that God has chosen out of share Grace to allow Disciples to get the Covenant sign- also I think only Disciples are in the church- hence only members of the church get baptized. Now using this standard God's command to baptize is still what ultimately allows someone to be baptized and nothing more not less.
You on the other hand have got to provide a "command of baptism" that says that "all church members" which you says includes more than Disciples but their children also are to be baptized. The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all church members because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members, you on the other hand, want to say that infants are church members- hence where is the command to baptize all church members- Us reformed Baptist only needed to prove that Disciples get baptized and that only Disciples are church members to conclude that all church members are baptized- but that route is not open to the Presbyterians... so clearly they need to account from Scripture for their belief that all church members are to be baptized (as the Reformed Baptist can do).

Therefore "premise 1" needs to be expanded and elaborated you have only done half the work for we now know what your position is but we have still to hear the prooof.

[quote:4a125a89bf] All that's left was to prove #2. I gave a few examples, though you just want to deal with the ephesians passage. (btw, both sides have inference interpreting that vs. But my argument, which you haven't addressed, is that I proved that certain first century Christian churches had infant members. You have not delt with this. You throw out red herrings. Forget the slaves, and girls, and all the rest, all YOU ASKED was for me to show that their were infant members! That's it. Are you now requalifying? [/quote:4a125a89bf]
First off, I am not convinced that they were infants Paul was addressing and second off you need to do more than just prove that some infants could be church members you need to prove that all children of Disciples are church members... this clearly cannot be inferred from the Ephesians passage as Dagg pointed out whose objections I think must be answered before you can continue to use these verses in Ephesians as support for your position-

[quote:4a125a89bf] Here is the argument again:
[quote:4a125a89bf] Last, but certainly not least, Christian Jewish parents still circumcised their infants (Acts. 21:21) and was still a sign of true relationship to God (Rom. 2:29). Even the great Baptist sophist Paul King Jewett recognized this (though he then tries to use it to argue for credobaptism, but his rebuttle is not the point of my argument)! By circumcising them it meant that they were members of their parent's synagogues and we know that believing Jews assembled in Christian synagogues (Jas. 2:2). These synagogues were also considered Christian churches (Jas. 5:14). Therefore, we know that certain first century churches had infant members! (cf. Douglas Wilson, To A Thousand Generations, pgs 122-123). [/quote:4a125a89bf][/quote:4a125a89bf]

Now remember, my position is that only a command from God gives a person the right to administer the sacrament not church membership alone... now God had commanded circumcision of male infants... but what about female infants they did not get the sign... hence we can conclude that church membership does not mean that a person must literally get the Covenant sign. What was the difference between male and females infants was it church membership or God's command? Clearly it was God's command.

Therefore, "premise 1" has not be proved for we still have no reason to accept both Paedobaptism and the position that all New Covenant members are to be baptized only a Reformed Baptist position can account for those believes. Also, as far as I can see "premise 2" has not be prove either because Dagg has shown that infants were not the intended recipients of Paul's command but were probably regenerated children who had faith and could community in langue- children in such a position is fully accountable with the Baptist understanding- and proves nothing about all infants of Christian parents are church members. Also, the observation that infants were church members (i.e. citizens of Israel or part of Abraham's household) is acknowledge by both sides but proves nothing about the who is part of the metamorphic Spiritual Israel- and worse- these facts only seem to confirm the belief that Presbyterians cannot account for why all church members must be baptized because e as these facts prove being in Covenant does not guarantee the literal application of God's Covenant sign (ex. women in Old Covenant)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
Not only is Paul correct, but he is showing the credos that they are demonstrating a view that they cannot rpove by Scripture, where Paul has, bu Scripture made an argument they seem to keep missing.


[quote:d2727ab83a]
In fact Tyler has shown that he doesn't even understand it.
[/quote:d2727ab83a]

Sorry Tyler, but thus far he is right. You need to be able to show, not by probability, but by Scripture that "profession" is that which warrants discipleship. The moment you do that two things will happen 1) you will find something that no other Baptist since baptists have been around have been able to do, and 2) you would have put together a very good Arminian argument.

Either way you lose the argument here.

(This is a helpful thread. Everyone should go back read through it).
 
Paul,

Good response in general but I do not think that it was directed at me... therefore in order to get back on track I have decided to go point by point- all my words and quots are in bold to make it easer to tell them apart.

[quote:36313c39a9] Tyler,

Let us examine your arguments:

You said:
[quote:36313c39a9] Indeed I as a Reformed Baptist do not teach that Church members have an innate right to the Covenant [/quote:36313c39a9]


Well, lets not pretend that this is because of your reformed baptist views. Here is what your pedigree teaches:
[quote:36313c39a9]

What are the different activities within the life of the church that God uses to bring blessing to us? What do we miss if we neglect involvment in a local church? [He then list 11 means of grace and the third is baptism] -Grudem, Systematic Theology, pgs. 950-51. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9]
To this Church He hath made His promises, and giveth the signs of His covenant, presence, acceptation, love, blessing and protection. Here are the fountains and springs of His heavenly graces flowing forth to refresh and strengthen them. -LBC
[/quote:36313c39a9]


So, what can we glean from Grudem and the London divines? It is painfully obvious that both of these reformed baptists teach that covenant signs are what God has commanded to be given to his church! Note: the LBC says, "to the church He hath given these signs. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Paul you are trying to fit a square where a circle belongs just because you cannot deal with an argument is no excuse to add to your opponents argument and then defeat what you added? Where have I denied that all church members are to be given the sacraments? Did not I definitively state:

[quote:36313c39a9] ]Reformed Baptist do not teach that Church members have an innate right to the Covenant sign that God is obliged to appease, but I say that God can chose whom gets the Covenant sign and that God has chosen out of share Grace to allow Disciples to get the Covenant sign- also I think only Disciples are in the church- hence only members of the church get baptized. (Tertullian) [/quote:36313c39a9]

How can you continue to ignore this statement of mine and act as if my position is that not all church members get baptized? Do I agree with Jewett and do I agree with Grudem of course but I think it is just irresponsible not to quote the rest of Jewett where he virtually says what I have says; Therefore to quote the rest of Jewett:

[quote:36313c39a9] Of course, the sign of this new covenant belongs to the covenantess. But who are they? Those who can say, "We have a Christian for our father" (John 8:33.)? Not so. The convenatees are not those who are [i:36313c39a9] born [/i:36313c39a9] into the covenant, those whose father and mother have the law "written upon their hearts," but those who [i:36313c39a9] themselves [/i:36313c39a9] have had this experience, having been born again by the Spirit of God. This subjective, inward, existential, experiential, spiritual change is the hallmark of the new covenant. It is not, then, a false, unbiblical subjectivism, but a true, biblical one which reserves baptism for those who will both confess Jesus Christ with their mouths and also believe in their hearts that God has raised him from the dead (Rom. 10:9) [/quote:36313c39a9]

Clearly in context, Jewett has virtually repeated what I said, God has commanded all new covenant members to be church members and all new covenant members to be baptized, hence, all church members are commanded to be baptized. Jewett says nothing about new covenants having an innate right to baptism divorced from a Command of God.

It would be a mistake to assume cause and effect when the evidence only warrants correlation the regulative Principle of worship clearly stipulates that only a command from God can justify the administration of baptism- so is the London Baptist Confession inconsistent then to say that all church members are baptized of course not- why? Because Christ has ordered all Disciples to be baptized and only Disciples are to be church members... there is nothing in consistent here. The London Baptist divine would have been repulsed I think by the idea that we can do what ever we want like baptize ourselves on our own authority on the basis of covenant membership alone. Jewett agrees that all new covenant are to be baptized because he also believes that only the regenerate are new covenant members.
Paedobaptist, however, must assume cause and effect that is covenant membership causes the right to be baptized even without a command from God. Though they come to the same conclusion that Reformed Baptist came to (i.e. all new covenant members are to be baptized) they got to the right conclusions with bad reasons and hence even a good conclusion if it has a bad reason backing it turns out to be a bad conclusion. Can you account for your assumption that all church members are baptized because of an innate right based on the Covenant membership divorced from a command from God? This question has been ignored, neglected and retreated from but the careful reader will note that so far no Paedobaptist has been able to account for this tradition and probably most Paedobaptist do not even realize they have this tradition which shows the danger of accepting one tradition with Scriptural support... we soon become insensitive to accepting as Scriptural truth stuff nowhere taught in Scripture and thus we no longer even need a reason from Scripture to support our cherished beliefs.

The Reformed Baptist can account for his belief from Scripture that the all new covenant members ought to be baptized the Paedobaptist just assumes it without every accounting for it- The difference between these two approaches to Scripture is black and white. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, what does this have to do with your above statement that church members do not have an innate right to the sign? it has to do with your misunderstanding of what the church is. It has to do with your underdeveloped view of ecclesiology. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] We all limit what the church I limit it in quantity you limit it in quality- I think the New covenant is a great Covenant founded upon the promises of God that Christ ensures we get- you view the New Covenant as applying to both saved and non-saved as something like a host of spiritual privileges that are not really conclusive in regards to salvation because Christ can fail to ensure that God's promises apply to all his people... Therefore let us stop saying the one sides limits the church we both do the question is which way to we (or rather Scripture) wants to limit it- quality or quantity?[/b:36313c39a9]
[quote:36313c39a9] Let's note a few things:

(1) The church is not some building in Florida.

(2) The church is made up of its members.

(3) By logical implication when one says, "the church" they are saying, "all the members."

(4) So, in essence, the above might as well be saying that the sacrement of baptism is given to all the members of the visible church.

(5) Therefore, you as a reformed baptist, must say that--if the sacrement of baptism is given to the Church then all the members (who are the church) have a right to the sign. You have to. By pure logic. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] The careful student will notice that Paul has produced an "ought" from an "is" for Paul produces a "right" from the way things are done. If we accepted this argument might we might as well say that Hitler had a "right" to kill people because he historically killed peopled. In truth this argument confuses correlation with cause and effect;
"All X is Y, Y refers to X, therefore, whatever applies to X applies to Y" now Paul implies but never states that therefore we can assume that if X has a right to baptism so does Y. But is this really what Paul wants to prove after all is this not what my position states? After all was it not I who said,
"Disciples are commanded By God to be baptized and as such Disciples have a right to baptism, church members are Disciples, and therefore church members are baptized"
So how has Paul furthered the debate? Has he answered my objections against Paedobaptist using this argument? Nop... the silence is shocking after all did not I clearly say:
"Now using this standard God's command to baptize is still what ultimately allows someone to be baptized and nothing more nothing less. You, Paedobaptist on the other hand have got to provide a "command of baptism" that says that "all church members" which you says includes more than Disciples but their children are also to be baptized. The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all church members because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members, you on the other hand, want to say that infants are church members- hence where is the command to baptize all church members- Us reformed Baptist only needed to prove that Disciples get baptized and that only Disciples are church members to conclude that all church members are baptized- but that route is not open to the Presbyterians... so clearly they need to account from Scripture for their belief that all church members are to be baptized (as the Reformed Baptist can do).
Why does not Paul answer these objections perhaps it is the same reason the thief does not find the police man? Therefore in order to make progress in this debate Paul you must provide an alternative argument that defends that "church members have a right to the covenant sign on the basis of covenant members divorced from a command from God" All you have done is said that God commanded one group to be baptized and this group is also a church member... therefore you have not proved an "innate right" but ultimately a command of God as the basis for the baptism of church membership: Hence we can agree with Watson after all:
[quote:36313c39a9] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and [i:36313c39a9] the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God [/i:36313c39a9] . It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:36313c39a9]
Therefore in order to establish infant baptism a person needs to prove that God has commanded infants to be baptized and not that infants are covenant members... [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, you qualify:
[quote:36313c39a9]

The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all church members because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]


First, at the crucial point, I must note that you have not provided verses to prove this view. The view that only disciples are church members, that is. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] I basis this on the fact that only Disciples are commanded to join local churches (see Heb 10:25) although it is true that Scripture does not prohibit other people like atheist from joining the local church the regulative principle demands that we only sanction what Scripture commands and not add traditions like the practice "atheist church members" which originates not from the command of God but the will of man. Therefore, I have showed a verse where Scripture command Disciples to join the church but can you produce a verse where Scripture commands infants to join the church or more realistically parents to join infants to the church? [/b:36313c39a9]
[quote:36313c39a9] Secondly, you must again be forced to requalify. You have said that only those who have faith are church members. Now, how do you know who has faith? If one truly has faith then they are elect. So, upon analysis you are saying that only elect are church members. But this is false. I Corinthians 5 tells us that there are non-elect who make up the same lump as the elect. Furthermore, it tells us that when the are "purged from among them" that is the church judging...its members! So, Paul tells us that there are non-elect church members. [/quote:36313c39a9]
[b:36313c39a9] I agree that only new covenant members are part of the invisible church... I think you are confusing these two churches you see the London Baptist of Faith following Scripture distinguishes between the visible and invisible Church. Now those who are in the Visible church are not necessarily part of the New Covenant or Visible Church but only appear to be part of that New Covenant Church while the Church awaits Christ return. I Corinthians 5 proves nothing more than that a member of the Visible Church was temporary expelled because of immoral behavior unbecoming of even the pagans around them. This in no way proves that Christ failed as someone High Priest or that man can sin and so fall from his election but only that people who appeared to belong to Christ and of the elect were really not of them. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] So, what you must mean is that only those who make a profession of faith are church members. Therefore, we can retranslate your statement thus: (I will add my remarks via bold print)
[quote:]

The Reformed Baptist is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all professing church members because he thinks that only professing Disciples (That is someone who professes to repents and has professed faiths) are professed church members...professedly [/quote:36313c39a9]

This is not very impressive.

Also, the problem here is that there is nothing new going on here. Adults have always had to profess faith! Furthermore, where is the scriptural proof for this?!? [/quote]
[b:36313c39a9]Well first off you are describing the visible Church not the invisible church and I note that you are right the visible church is composed of those who profess... so far from being unimpressive this shows that infants who do not profess to be Disciples are not part of the Visible Church. I would think that would be significant to this debate... I am surprised that you do not think that it is important. Of course Scriptural proof for this is found when Christ teaches that no everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord..." will be saved for though these professed to have the inward reality they in truth were never known by Christ. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] you write:
[quote:36313c39a9]

second off you need to do more than just prove that some infants could be church members you need to prove that all children of Disciples are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]


Prove that all children of disciples are church members? O.K. How bout this:

All members of the new covenant are entitled to the covenant sign.

All children of disciples are members of the new covenant.

Therefore, all children of disciples are entitled to the covenant sign. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Of course I would not accept a vicious circular argument like this... I asked you prove that children of Disciples are new covenant members and you assume it in your premises. Only someone who was already a Padobaptist would find this argument persuasive but that is not surprising at all. [/b:36313c39a9]
[quote:36313c39a9] Would you accept this valid argument? Even Jewett would: [/quote:36313c39a9]
The question is not would I but would you?
[quote:36313c39a9]

Of course, the sign of this new covenant belongs to the covenantees. But who are they? -Paul King Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace, pg. 228 (1980 reprint edition). [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Now I have already quoted the rest of Jewett's statements and they show that Jewett follows the Confessions in affirming the Regulative Principle of worship... Jewett says that Christ has commanded the baptism of the regenerate and that only the regenerate are church members... now if you follow Jewett then we have established that the Command of God and not the Covenant membership is the basis behind the New Covenant seal. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, are are children in the new covenant?

Deuteronomy 30:1 "So it shall be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind in all nations where the LORD your God has banished you, 2 and you return to the LORD your God and obey Him with all your heart and soul according to all that I command you today, you and your sons, 3 then the LORD your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. . . 6 "Moreover the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.
• Jer 32:37 "Behold, I will gather them out of all the lands to which I have driven them in My anger, in My wrath, and in great indignation; and I will bring them back to this place and make them dwell in safety. 38 "And they shall be My people, and I will be their God; 39 and I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me always, for their own good, and for the good of their children after them. 40 "And I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts so that they will not turn away from Me.
• Zech 10:6 "And I shall strengthen the house of Judah, And I shall save the house of Joseph, And I shall bring them back, Because I have had compassion on them; And they will be as though I had not rejected them, For I am the LORD their God, and I will answer them. 7 "And Ephraim will be like a mighty man, And their heart will be glad as if from wine; Indeed, their children will see it and be glad, Their heart will rejoice in the LORD. 8 "I will whistle for them to gather them together, For I have redeemed them; And they will be as numerous as they were before. 9 "When I scatter them among the peoples, They will remember Me in far countries, And they with their children will live and come back. • Joel 2:1 Blow a trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, For the day of the LORD is coming; Surely it is near, 2 A day of darkness and gloom, A day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, So there is a great and mighty people; There has never been anything like it, Nor will there be again after it To the years of many generations. . .15 Blow a trumpet in Zion, Consecrate a fast, proclaim a solemn assembly, 16 Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, Assemble the elders, Gather the children and the nursing infants. Let the bridegroom come out of his room And the bride out of her bridal chamber. . . 27 "Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel, And that I am the LORD your God And there is no other; And My people will never be put to shame. 28 "And it will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. 29 "And even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
• Jer 31:33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." 35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: 36 "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, " Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever. " 37 Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD.
• Isa 59:20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD. 21 "And as for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: " My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring, "says the LORD," from now and forever. "
• Mal 4:5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."

In the new covenant's fulfillment and full disclosure, the New Testament apostles included the generational principle (the "you and your seed" concept) in their explanation of the new covenant.
• Luke 1:17 "And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
• Luke 2:48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. 50 "AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM.
• Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
• Acts 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself."
• Acts 3:25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.' • Acts 13:32 "And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'THOU ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE.'
• Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. . .16 For this reason it is by faith, that it might be in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU" in the sight of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

Now, the onus is on you to prove that God has removed infants from the church. In the OT they were considered members. In the NT they were considered members. Show me the explicit removal of them. How do I know that first century churches had infant members?

Christian Jewish parents still circumcised their infants (Acts. 21:21) and was still a sign of true relationship to God (Rom. 2:29). Even the great Baptist sophist Paul King Jewett recognized this (though he then tries to use it to argue for credobaptism, but his rebuttle is not the point of my argument)! By circumcising them it meant that they were members of their parent's synagogues and we know that believing Jews assembled in Christian synagogues (Jas. 2:2). These synagogues were also considered Christian churches (Jas. 5:14). Therefore, we know that certain first century churches had infant members! (cf. Douglas Wilson, To A Thousand Generations, pgs 122-123). [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Alright- here is where Christ explains how you get in the New Covenant:

"Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh but the spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, "you must be born again." The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit" (John 3:5-8)

"Yet to all who receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- children not born of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God (John 1:12-13)

You see your mistake in using the passages that you did is to realize that Old economy contained both shadow and spiritual aspects that must be kept distinct from one another... Abraham has two sets of children one spiritual one physical... during the Old economy the two overlapped but always remained separated and during the New economy the shadowy has disappeared. Abraham had both spiritual children and physical children (see Galatians 4:21-31). As Spurgeon explains:

[quote:36313c39a9] "Well," says one, "a difficulty suggests itself as to your views, for an argument is often drawn from the fact, that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children." Now observe the type, and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham is circumcised; you draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not cavil at the conclusion; but ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Rom 9:8, "They who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are the counted for seed." As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham's seed. Whether eight days old in grace, or more or less, every one of Abraham's seed has a right baptism. But I deny that unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by his grace, but as yet they are "heirs of wrath even as others." At such times as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts they are of Abraham's believing seed; but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief or are yet incapable of faith and repentance. The answering person in type of Abrham is, by the confession of everybody, the believer, and the believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to avow that fact by his public baptism in water, according to the Saviors own precept and example" [/quote:36313c39a9]


Therefore in order to become a child of God we must be born again or regenerated. This is why we are not to give the sacrament of baptism to the physical decedents of Abraham as Jewett explains:


"...All Israelites had a right to the sign of circumcision by virtue of their participation in the earthly blessings of the covenant community: they were citizens of the nation of Israel by birth. However, since this outward form of the covenant was done away in Christ, to baptize indiscriminately in the New Testament age is either to abuse discipline in administering the right or to be guilty of hypocrisy" (Jewett 102) [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Tyler, where is the command that infants have ever been removed! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] removed? How can God stop what he never started? The Spiritual children of Abraham have always been those regenerated not born of flesh... are you asking where God has abrogated the shadowy aspects of the old economy which included the physical children of Abaraham? I answer in the book of Hebrews chapter 10 verse 1. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] If what you say is true, "that ONLY disciples are church members," then these Christian Jewish churches were in error! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] I agree and disagree... I disagree with your interpretation of history and think that the accurate interpretation of history reveals that these Christian Jews continued to circumcise their children not on the bases of their New covenant status but on the basis of Christian liberty... but if your interpretation is correct then yes they were wrong for it is always wrong to worship God in way he has not commanded. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9]Remember, you said that:

[quote:36313c39a9]because he thinks that only Disciples (That is someone who repents and has faiths) are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]


Now, since you don't believe that infants can repent and have faith then you must conclude that the first century church was in error! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Well that is assuming that your interpretation of history is correct... but I do not think it is... but if it was then we are in agreement they are in error because Covenant membership alone does not secure baptism but only a command of God secures it. Also, if they joined their infants to the church apart from a command of God they were in error... [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Regardless of me showing boys, girls, slaves, martians, creatures from the nether regions...whatever(!)..., that doesn't matter. Don't you see that if I even show that ONE infant was considered a church member that would decimate your definition of the ONLY ones who can be church members. Since you don't believe that infants can repent and have faith, and since you believe that only those who are church members are those who repent and have faith then ONE example disproves your position. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Why if your case is so strong must you resort to tradition to prove tradition... why not just use Scripture to justify this alleged Scriptural tradition? Instead you have got to appeal to a possible erroneous interpration of history which at worst is wrong and which at best only proves to me that you are not alone in your error but had first century company... imagine if I tired to argue that Gentiles did not circumcise their children hence they did not view their children as infants you would object but if so why do you expect me to accept your argument?.. The bottom line is that this is not an argument from Scripture but an argument from speculation as such holds no weight in a Reformed theology [/b:36313c39a9]


[quote:36313c39a9] Even worse, you contradict yourself. here's how:

you said:
[quote:36313c39a9]

second off you need to do more than just prove that some infants could be church members you need to prove that all children of Disciples are church members [/quote:36313c39a9]

...and...

[quote:36313c39a9]

I think only Disciples are in the church [/quote:36313c39a9] [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] This is not a contradiction [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, if NO non-disciples may be church members (and you say that infants cannot be disciples) then, on the square of oposition, the "E" statement's contradiction MUST BE false. Now, if I showed that even ONE infant was considered a church member that contradicts "E". So, the "I" statement would be, "some non-disciples are church members." Therefore, if you say that I have even proved that ONE infant can be a church member, let alone ALL children of disciples, then you have contradicted your "E" statement. Thus, you cannot allow me to prove that even SOME are. Do you see this? [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] So what you are saying is that you do not feel you have to prove all of the Presbyterian position but only half of it and then you ask Reformed Baptist to embrace all of it? Do not you see that a Reformed Baptist could accept that if God were to supernaturally proclaim that this specific child is to be baptized and joined to the church a Reformed Baptist could baptize that child and join him to his church and be completely consistent with the spirit of the Reformed Baptist tradition which teaches that only on a command from God do we worship him. Therefore on purely logical grounds Reformed Baptist could admit that one infant was to be baptized and still not baptize all infants of Disciples as Paedobaptist require. [/b:36313c39a9]


[quote:36313c39a9] This gives my above argument about certain first century churches having infant members new force. You cannot run from it by saying, "oh, you need to prove that all children are members." This is what we have been talking about by "not addressing" my arguments. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Now I understand by "not addressing my argument" you merely meant that I did not agree with your arguments and attempted to rebut them- interesting terminology.- In truth I have addressed these for I have said that proving that God only commanded one infant to be baptized does not prove that God commanded all infants to be baptized... furthermore proving tradition with more but only ancient tradition and historical speculation is not compelling all to anyone who embraces sola Scriptura as the basis for doctrine. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] So, you either need to one (redefine your definition of disciple. Or, (2) Directly refute my argument (and you CANNOT do this by mentioning girls, slaves, or whatever. Hopefully I have made my point.[/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Nop. I could just as easily argue that since Gentiles did not circumcise their infants they viewed them as non church members... but this probably not persuasive to you and so you can see why this is not persuasive to me. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Now, regarding Eph 6: You cite Dagg
[quote:36313c39a9]

But the probability is, that the children whom Paul addressed were members of the church. The command, "Obey your parents in the Lord," is so expressed, as apparently to imply that the obligation was to be felt and acknowledged by them, because of their relation to the Lord. The children to whom Paul addressed this command must have possessed intelligences to apprehend its meaning, and piety to feel the force of the motive presented in these words, "For this is well pleasing unto the Lord" Timothy, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures. Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to church membership. [/quote:36313c39a9]


The problem here is that he does not get into whether they were members since infancy. He has assumed that a profession needs to be made to be a member. He did not prove that in the quote you attributed to him. Indeed, my above argument proves that profession is not necessary for membership. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] 1) we notice that you can no longer sustain just a reading of Ephesians to prove your case but most bring in assumptions (I think you have not proved) to interpret the passage a different way... hence this passage viewed in isolation form the differing assumptions of Reformed Baptist or Presbyterians proves nothing one way or the other for either side... all and all this passage is not conclusive but is the victim of being interpreted by at lest one flawed hermeneutic and which assumptions are flawed must be proved in another place hence we can safely dismiss your argument from Ephesians as question bagging since you have to assume Paedobaptism to interpret the text that way. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] You write:
[quote:36313c39a9]

but what about female infants they did not get the sign... hence we can conclude that church membership does not mean that a person must literally get the Covenant sign. What was the difference between male and females infants was it church membership or God's command? Clearly it was God's command. [/quote:36313c39a9]

Yes, and in the New Testament the sign is to be given to both genders. And, you can say that church membersghip does not include that they get the sign, but you would be disagreeing with the top pardo's [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9]Amen[/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] and credo's on this! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] I reject that assertion and note that no Reformed Baptist to my knowledge says that we can baptize apart from a command of God but has argued instead that God has commanded all Disciples to be baptized, and all church members are Disciples, hence all church members are to be baptized- Note it is still the command of God that ultimately determines who gets the sign not who is a church member. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] So, your position requires you to abandon your top pedagree. [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Why? I agree with them- and confess- that a command of God alone is the sufficient base for the giving of the sign. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Furthermore, we are talking about the NEW COVENANT Church. It does you zero good to keep hanging on to the OT. Thus the fundamental hermaneutical error of Tertullian: He judaizes the new and Christianizes the old! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] I note how quickly Paedos drop their "Covenant" polemic when it works against their position showing that it is the practice that seeks the arguments not the arguments that seek their conclusions. If I am guilty of being Covenantal then I embrace that charge and plead guilty as charged. [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] [quote:36313c39a9]

. Also, as far as I can see "premise 2" has not be prove either because Dagg has shown that infants were not the intended recipients of Paul's command but were probably regenerated children who had faith and could community in langue- children in such a position is fully accountable with the Baptist [/quote:36313c39a9]

Now, did anyone catch this? Re-read the above argument. Essentially premise two has not been proven by me since Dagg has shown that the Ephasis children were probably regenerate. Oh, so now I am supposed to be refuted by probability?!?! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] Yes, we admit that we could be wrong in how we interpreted theses verses but we think that it is a safe bet to think that Paul was talking to regenerate who had faith and could understand Greek. Remember in context the probability Dagf is talking about is if these children was not to church members or church members and Dagg says probably church members but we cannot be certain [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9]Furthermore, this begs the question. It assumes that a child is a member of a church when they are regenerate (or at least when they profess to be). This is what's in question. So, even if you show that they were regenerate it does nothing to show when they became members...unless(!) you ASSUME a credo scheme! [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] So in other words these verses do not present a problem for the credo scheme as you first alleged but can be interpreted consistently with a credo scheme- so now that this is established where is the argument against the credo position and where is the argument in favor the Paedopsoiton? [/b:36313c39a9]

[quote:36313c39a9] Therefore, my argument has not even been addressed. In fact Tyler has shown that he doesn't even understand it. Yes, I haven't given a verse that says "children are church members" but the inference I have drawn is a cruching weight on the shoulders of credoism.

-Paul [/quote:36313c39a9]

[b:36313c39a9] You have not given a verse that says that children were in the church which is what I asked you to do instead you brought an inference which is by no means a necessary inference and hence according to the Standards cannot be used to justify a doctrine...

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/b:36313c39a9]
 
[quote:f481464eec][i:f481464eec]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:f481464eec]
Not only is Paul correct, but he is showing the credos that they are demonstrating a view that they cannot rpove by Scripture, where Paul has, bu Scripture made an argument they seem to keep missing.


[quote:f481464eec]
In fact Tyler has shown that he doesn't even understand it.
[/quote:f481464eec]

Sorry Tyler, but thus far he is right. You need to be able to show, not by probability, but by Scripture that "profession" is that which warrants discipleship. [/quote:f481464eec]

I think when you used the word "probablity" you were following Paul who had misquoted or taken out of context Dagg, was only saying that it is possible that these people were not church members but they most probably were... he was not saying what Paul seemed to interpet him as saying- namely that he thought he could probably be wrong about this verse not teaching that the children were unregenerate.

Therefore, I think that you should read these posts more carefully and make sure you that you understand what both sides are saying instead of just reading one side- this will help reduce mistakes like these in the future.

[quote:f481464eec] The moment you do that two things will happen 1) you will find something that no other Baptist since baptists have been around have been able to do, and 2) you would have put together a very good Arminian argument.

Either way you lose the argument here. [/quote:f481464eec]

Actually, the "profession" is a circumstance not an element, for example suppose that we could read hearts and know who had faith and who did not... then we would not need a profession but because we are human and can only baptize based on a profession because we cannot read hearts we have to adapt to the situation- Presbyterians no less then Baptist do this- only one does it to the parents the other to the actual person.

Also, I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions? Clearly if my circumstance arguement is not valid both sides are in deep trouble unless a new arguement is developed because we are then left with two choices either stop baptizing or drop the regulative principle of worship- Personally I will accept the premise that profession is a circumstance not an element what about you?

Secondly, I learned this arguement from Spurgeon so I did not invented this is the historic Reformed Baptist position I think.

[quote:f481464eec] (This is a helpful thread. Everyone should go back read through it). [/quote:f481464eec]

Thanks I think, I can only add that everyone should be sure to read both sides....

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
Tyler writes:
"Also, I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions?"

We do not "rely" or base our placing the sign upon the child because of the parents profession per se, but more on the command of God to place the sign on covenant members. For all we know, the parents may not be in the internal covenant.
 
[quote:06781582cb][i:06781582cb]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:06781582cb]
Tyler writes:
"Also, I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions?"

We do not "rely" or base our placing the sign upon the child because of the parents profession per se, but more on the command of God to place the sign on covenant members. For all we know, the parents may not be in the internal covenant. [/quote:06781582cb]

Has not Paul Manata already disposed of this type of reasoning because that is equlivant to a Reformed Baptist saying that we Baptize upon a command of God not a human profession. Of course this is true in theology upon both the Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian camps... but the question must be asked in practice how do both sides apply this command in daily church service? The answer is that in order to comply with God's command we must baptize based on human profession of the individual (if we are Baptist) or the parents profession (if we are Presbyterian)

Here is Paul's argument:

...you must again be forced to requalify. You have said that only those who have faith [or parents have faith] are church members. Now, how do you know who has faith [or whose parents have faith]? If one truly has faith then they are elect. So, upon analysis you are saying that only elect are church members. But this is false. I Corinthians 5 tells us that there are non-elect who make up the same lump as the elect [i.e. the visible church]. Furthermore, it tells us that when the are "purged from among them" that is the church judging...its members! So, Paul tells us that there are non-elect [visible] church members.

So, what you must mean is that only those who make a profession of faith [or whos parents make a profession of faith] are church members. Therefore, we can retranslate your statement thus: (I will add my remarks via bold print)

The Reformed Baptist [and Presbyterian] is consistent to teach that baptism belongs to all professing church members [or parents who profess to be church members] because he thinks that only professing Disciples (That is someone who professes to repents and has professed faiths) [or parents who profess to be church members] are professed church members...professedly

Therefore... I repeat again without hesitation:

"I have never critiqued Presbyterians for relying upon professions from parents so why do you critique Reformed Baptist of relying on professions?"

[Edited on 3-26-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Paul

[quote:8be3773c98] Tyler, you told Webmaster

"I think when you used the word "probablity" you were following Paul who had misquoted or taken out of context Dagg, was only saying that it is possible that these people were not church members but they most probably were... he was not saying what Paul seemed to interpet him as saying- namely that he thought he could probably be wrong about this verse not teaching that the children were unregenerate.

Therefore, I think that you should read these posts more carefully and make sure you that you understand what both sides are saying instead of just reading one side- this will help reduce mistakes like these in the future."

this is just a little something before I address your post later

Tyler, I actually was quoting YOU! This is what YOU siad...NOT Dagg. Therefore, I think that you should read these posts more carefully and make sure that you understand who I am quoting. And, regardless of what you say, you confused deduction and induction. Furthermore, inductuve words like "probability" is only as strong as the next peice of evidence. My infant church member argument refuted the "probability." Moreover, you should know, as a presuppositionalist, that "probability" and thinks like, "what is more likely" are determined by your presuppositions. ...Anyway

-Paul [/quote:8be3773c98]

Paul I don't even recall using the words "probability" or "probably" and a simple survey of the relevant data shows that Webmsaster was referring to your post and you had quoted Dagg statement that said:

[quote:8be3773c98] Because children were addressed in an epistle directed to a church, it does not necessarily follow that they were members of the church. As parents were required to bring up their children ion the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the same epistle that enjoined this duty from the Lord, might appropriately contain a direct command from the Lord, requiring the children to obey their parents. IN performing the duty enjoined on them, the parents would naturally and properly take their children with them to the public worship of the church, where the apostolic epistles would be read in their hearing. The fact, therefore, that an apostolic command was addressed to them, and claimed the right of commanding them in the name of the Lord.

[b:8be3773c98]But the probability is, that the children whom Paul addressed were members of the church. The command, "Obey your parents in the Lord," is so expressed, as apparently to imply that the obligation was to be felt and acknowledged by them, because of their relation to the Lord. The children to whom Paul addressed this command must have possessed intelligences to apprehend its meaning, and piety to feel the force of the motive presented in these words, "For this is well pleasing unto the Lord" Timothy, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures. Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to church membership. [/b:8be3773c98]

The argument contains a fallacy which deserves to be noticed, in the assumption, that the children who were commanded to obey, and the children who were to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, were the same. Masters were commanded how to treat their servants, and servants were commanded to obey their masters; but it would be wrong to infer that no masters were so commanded but those who had pious servants, or that no servant commanded but those who had pious masters. On the contrary, those servants who had believing masters are distinguished from those who had believing masters are distinguished from the whose masters were unbelievers; and yet the latter class were commanded to obey, as well as the former. The relation of master and servant existed, in some cases, when both of the parties were members of the church; and, in other cases, when one party was in the church and the other party out of the church. No proof exists, that the relation of the parent and child may not have been divided in the same manner. Parents were not commanded to bring up their children in nurture and admonition of the Lord because the children were church-members; and children were not commanded to obey their parents because the parents were church-members. The supposition, therefore, that the children in the two cases were the same, is an assumption without proof. [/quote:8be3773c98]

Unfortunately you only quoted the part that is in bold and gave the false impression that Dagg thought that Paul was possibly referring to unregenerate but probably was not- that is not what Dagg said that is not what I said but that is what Webmaster interpreted us as saying based upon your post- I am not sure if you or him made the mistake but the point is that we all (myself included) need to read both sides not just limit ourselves to ourside.

PS your infant church member did not refute the Dagg's probability because again the probability that Dagg was talking about is not the probablity you are talking about. Dagg was simply saying that it was more probably that these children were regenerated believing Christians of young age who had faith and could speak Greek and Dagg certianly agreed that it was not infant church members who could neither understand Paul's command nor could have faith. Besides you still have not addressed his argument which is below the part you sited about the fallacy employed by Paedobaptist who use this arguement.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
For your information

Hi Tyler,

I've been looking over the 1 Corinthians 10:2 passage to see if I was drawing something from the text that wasn't there and I'm convinced that my original theory seems justified.

You write:

"Yes but that paves the way for Paedocommion as well because they all drank the same spiritual food as well, but the Westminster clearly teaches that this is not a necessary inference despite the word "all" so why ought a Reformed Baptist be persuaded by the word "all" when the Westminster Divines rejected Paedocommuion despite that same word? I think that answer is that Reformed Baptist are under no more obligation to acknowledge that all were baptized from this position then that all are to be given the Lord's Supper. Therefore, church membership no more implies baptism then it does the Lord's Supper- but that is another issue-"

I hope you realize that I never made the argument above. I am arguing that 1 Corinthians 10 proves that all members of the visible church were baptized. If the Corinthian church was not, at least, all baptized, then the passage becomes unintelligible because Paul uses Israel's baptism and participation in a communion as the basis for his warning. This passage was not meant to prove infant baptism or paedo communion. You can make sense of this passage even though not all of the Corinthians took the Lord's Table; however, this passage becomes unintelligible once it's denied that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized. Here is what the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible has to say,

"1 Cor. 10:2 They were all baptized into Moses. Because Christian baptism stresses the union of the believer with Christ, Paul used the language of baptism to draw a correspondence between Old Testament Israel and the Corinthian church (see note on 5:12-13). All the Israelites of the exodus generation went through the ordeal and deliverance of this event (which involved crossing through the water) by virtue of their identification with their leader, Moses. Note the repetition of the word "all" in verses 1-3 (also 12:13)...[b:dd9b46c614]All the members of the visible church in Corinth had been baptized into Christ [/b:dd9b46c614] and therefore had tasted God's deliverance, but that was no guarantee that God would be pleased to save all of them."

You wrote:

"Getting back to the matter at hand, I think Paul is not talking about the issue who is a church member and so it is dangerous to draw conclusion about church membership from a passage Paul intended to teach on a different subject with. Yet, to draw the analogy properly we can notice that infants could not have possibly literally have taking the manna because they were still drinking milk and had not physically matured to the point- so now we know by inference that when Paul said all partook of the Lord's Supper he had no reference to infants, so it is also safe to infer the word all can be used in such a manner that it has no reference to infants therefore it becomes vain to press the word "all" to say that infants had to be church members because we can see that Paul can use the word "all" in the same context without reference to infants."

Again, I never made this argument. I only seek to prove what the passage clearly implies and that is all the members in the Corinthian church were baptized and perhaps many and if not most of them partook of the Lord's Table.

"In fact, I suppose a Reformed Baptist could argue that since Paul used the word "all" without reference to infants but said "all" referring to church members we can infer that infants are not church members!!!"

I think this is funny. You bought into my main point that all the church members at the Corinthian church were baptized but you went beyond what the text warranted or at least that's what you seem to think that I did. Friend, I never even thought of using this as some magic verse proving infant baptism. I don't even think this proves either infant baptism nor paedo communion but only that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized. Anyways, I just wanted to throw this in. There is plenty for you to respond to out of Paul's posts so I won't extend this longer than it needs to be.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins
 
Goosha,

Now that we have decided that these passages cannot be used to maintain the practice of infant baptism-which was I side issue for I agree with you that you never really ever attempted to utilize these verses as a reason for the practice of infant baptism but that you had utilized them for the conclusion that all church members are baptized. I will attempt to address your argument or else expand upon my interpretation of these verses. Therefore I will respond to your argument which you summarized quit nicely here:

[quote:4a107ba0ac] I hope you realize that I never made the argument above. I am arguing that 1 Corinthians 10 proves that all members of the visible church were baptized. If the Corinthian church was not, at least, all baptized, then the passage becomes unintelligible because Paul uses Israel's baptism and participation in a communion as the basis for his warning. This passage was not meant to prove infant baptism or paedo communion. You can make sense of this passage even though not all of the Corinthians took the Lord's Table; however, this passage becomes unintelligible once it's denied that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized. Here is what the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible has to say,

"1 Cor. 10:2 They were all baptized into Moses. Because Christian baptism stresses the union of the believer with Christ, Paul used the language of baptism to draw a correspondence between Old Testament Israel and the Corinthian church (see note on 5:12-13). All the Israelites of the exodus generation went through the ordeal and deliverance of this event (which involved crossing through the water) by virtue of their identification with their leader, Moses. Note the repetition of the word "all" in verses 1-3 (also 12:13)...[b:4a107ba0ac]All the members of the visible church in Corinth had been baptized into Christ [/b:4a107ba0ac]and therefore had tasted God's deliverance, but that was no guarantee that God would be pleased to save all of them.

...I never made this argument. I only seek to prove what the passage clearly implies and that is all the members in the Corinthian church were baptized and perhaps many and if not most of them partook of the Lord's Table." [/quote:4a107ba0ac]

Now I will begin to address what I think to be some problems with this particular approach. First off you wrote:

"You can make sense of this passage even though not all of the Corinthians took the Lord's Table; however, this passage becomes unintelligible once it's denied that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized"

But why is that? Baptism is not even the main focus on these passages the Lord's Supper is, so it seems to follow that if they were not all given the Lord's Supper they would not be able to relate to what Paul was saying... but this leaves us in two directions for we can either limit church membership to Disciples or we embrace paedocommunion.

Worse still if we think that infants were church members they could not relate to Paul's analogy anyway since they could not yet speak Greek so if we want to press that this analogy only makes sense if all the church members could relate to it then again we are forced to affirm that all the church members were not infants.

Yet most important above all this is that I just do not think that this is a good argument to rest the basis for the administration of baptism to all church members. Clearly Christian were baptizing other Christians when first Corinthians was not yet in circulation, I mean during the first centuries the popular Christian may have never have even seen this passage his entire life yet they still baptized church members so this cannot really be the basis for Christian baptism of church members. So there is a reason which is the basis for the baptism of church members and it has no relation to this passage.

Lastly, I think this passage would not be compelling to someone who accepts that infants were church members but did not think that church membership was a basis for baptism because nowhere in the text does it actually say that church membership was the basis for either the Israelites baptism or the Corinthians baptism... Paul's point was that God punishes sinners even if the have experienced Covenant privileges and that was all Paul's analogy was meant to say... to draw conclusions about an innate right to baptism divorced from a command from God to baptism is foreign to this passage.

[quote:4a107ba0ac] You wrote:

"In fact, I suppose a Reformed Baptist could argue that since Paul used the word "all" without reference to infants but said "all" referring to church members we can infer that infants are not church members!!!"

I think this is funny. You bought into my main point that all the church members at the Corinthian church were baptized but you went beyond what the text warranted or at least that's what you seem to think that I did. Friend, I never even thought of using this as some magic verse proving infant baptism. I don't even think this proves either infant baptism nor paedo communion but only that all the members of the Corinthian church were baptized.. [/quote:4a107ba0ac]

Well, I think these verses could be utilized to prove that only Disciples were church members because only Disciples can partake of the Lord's Supper, yet you would probably not find that argument persuasive but I think is where we would have to go if your right. Remember, the Apostle Paul clearly teaches that all church members in Israel had the Lord's Supper so we can conclude if the analogy is to apply to the Corinthians that they must of all had the Lord's Supper... but this still does not prove that the basis for the Lord's Supper was their church membership... could we not just as easily say that just as Israel was commanded by God to enter through the water and commanded to eat the manna that the New Israel is also privileged to its sacraments by a command from God and not solely their badge that says that they are a church membership and if that is true then it looks like Watson was right after all when he said:

[quote:4a107ba0ac] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God . It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:4a107ba0ac]
Therefore it is the command that needs to be proved not that infants are church members... if we are to establish the practice of infant baptism... for the idea that you can get the Covenant sign divorced from a command from God but solely on the basis of your position in Covenant is not to be found in either the Old or New. Hence, Paul's analogy could be easily understood within Watson's framework of only a command earns the right to the privilege of the sacraments... and what is compatible with Watson's view cannot be used as an argument against it.


[quote:4a107ba0ac][quote:4a107ba0ac] Anyways, I just wanted to throw this in. There is plenty for you to respond to out of Paul's posts so I won't extend this longer than it needs to be [/quote:4a107ba0ac]
Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins [/quote:4a107ba0ac]

How have I not already responded to what Paul said? What part did you think I need to address that I have not already addressed?

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Gentlemen,
Make you closing remarks as this thread has had it's day.

[img:a3b24fdd8c]http://www.semperreformanda.com/images/bangheae.gif[/img:a3b24fdd8c]

I will close it tomorrow...........
 
Exhortation

I wanted to express my deepest appreciation to all that defended the Reformed position on Covenant Theology.

You guys did a masterful job at obliterating the credo's understanding of the covenant and its signs.

I already hear the credo here "ah but your are a paedo and can't make that judgment for it's bias" but with all due respect I am no LIAR and don't need to be dishonest with biblical matters. And the truth is that watching this thread has proved that baptist theology is at its core dispensational(save the drama for your mama).

Paul, SUPERB! I have enjoyed your biblical responses.

Lotw, Also crucial points you made.

Goosha, Excellent!

Webmaster, you da man!

Terullian, I give you an A++++ for effort, but nice try, keep studying your almost there.


I will be setting up a formal debate with Tyler Hicks in the near future at a church or some place that will hold plenty of people. Anyone who lives in Florida who would like to attend feel free to contact me via email or 863-293-8984. This will be no mickey mouse debate. It will be in-depth. keep you posted.

In the name of our Sovereign King,

Richard W. Roldan
 
[quote:088f9ac9e4][i:088f9ac9e4]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:088f9ac9e4]
Scott,

Can you close it on sunday morning? (Or late Saturday night?)

I will be posting my final response tomorrow.

Thanks.

-Paul

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:088f9ac9e4]

Paul, I will let you have the last word,

All I can say is that anybody reading these posts objectively will note that when asked for a command to baptize babies they have not been able to produce it... for when they said that God commanded circumcision to be given to male infants we can infer that means baptize all infants with Christian parents... but I simply noted that circumcision is not baptism there is an analogy there but not identity... I then explained why Col 2:11-12 cannot be used to justify the identity... and I listed my reasons... but the Paedo response... Well that is not what Calvin said.

Then I argued that the whole Paedo concept will infants are in covenant therefore they must be baptized is wrong because you can be in covenant and still not be baptized... as Watson observes:

Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99)

Hence, I argued that this route is not really worth debating about because it ultimately proves nothing about who is to be baptized... hence in order to prove infant baptism the Paedo needs to prove that God has commanded it... and so far they have not been able to provide a command...



KC- arguement ran but Calvin said I would rather side with Calvin then with you so even though I will not answer your objections concerning Col 2:11-13 I am right because Calvin is on my side.

LOTW- women were federaly circumcised. Note- even if it was true so what? But I see no compelling reason to accept this once it is no longer just assumed that people must be given the covenant sign who are in covenant.

Paul Manata- Has said that he assumes infant baptism to be true and that is why he holds to it. Paul has not responded to Dagg's arguement again using Ephisians... nor has Paul actually delt with my position about why all church members are to be given the sign- note I said because God has commanded it- Paul says because they are church members- But Paul has not yet seen the difference between these to positions and so his arguements can not really be considered an arguement against my position on that issue.

Webmaster- Has just ponitificated that he likes what Paul said and that is not an arguement or if it is it is not a logicial arguement

Roldan- Has just ponitifcated that he likes what Paul said and that is not an arguement or it is is it is not a logicial arguement

Goosha- Has said that Watson's arguement is interesting but he does not accept it but I do not think has been able to undermine it to date.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
Paul'
You're up to the plate.................
[img:87ac16090a]http://www.semperreformanda.com/images/browsmiley.gif[/img:87ac16090a]

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Tyler...

[quote:d06b58b0ed]KC- arguement ran but Calvin said I would rather side with Calvin then with you so even though I will not answer your objections concerning Col 2:11-13 I am right because Calvin is on my side.[/quote:d06b58b0ed]

I forgive you in advance for your butchery of my argument. I read every post on this thread and I did not mention Calvin once. You did when you commented about his thinking that the earth was the center of the universe. I asked you how you knew it wasn't.

But I did not mention Calvin nor did I even type his name in this thread. I did not cite him when discussing the Colossians 2 passage.

It kinda shows how much you pay attention to the arguments.

My argument was that circumcision and baptism are intertwined in God's economy, that infants are included in the covenant because they were never abrogated out of it, and that the great commission commands us to baptize disciples, which our children are.

I did mention that the Reformation made these things clear and proved that it is not mere tradition, but that it is biblically warranted.

In Christ,

KC
 
Well, since I was a part of this debate for a while, I will also offer some closing statements.

First, all throughout this debate Tertullian has been building and tearing down strawmen. He has assumed that the assumption that is crucial to mine, Paul's, Jayson's, and KC's position is that there is an identity between circumcision and baptism. He seems to believe this is the point on which the paedobaptist position stands or falls.

Tertullian has said:

[quote:e5b0156484]"for example you could start by proving that baptism and circumcision are identical which is the basis for the whole inference to begin with."

"No, you need to prove that circumcision is identical to baptism"

"I see no reason to 'connect circumcison and baptism' and so until you can connect the two you have no right to argue covenant continuation between two things that were never connected in the first place."[/quote:e5b0156484]

And in his final post he said:

[quote:e5b0156484]All I can say is that anybody reading these posts objectively will note that when asked for a command to baptize babies they have not been able to produce it... for when they said that God commanded circumcision to be given to male infants we can infer that means baptize all infants with Christian parents... but I simply noted that circumcision is not baptism there is an analogy there but not identity... I then explained why Col 2:11-12 cannot be used to justify the identity[/quote:e5b0156484]


Now, I have read back over this entire thread, and I don't recall any paedobaptist in here arguing for an identity between circumcision and baptism. KC did deal with Colossions 2:11-12 for a bit, but even he said the following:

[quote:e5b0156484]Because this is true, we can see that those of the circumcision and those of baptism are linked, not by the sign, but the thing signified.[/quote:e5b0156484]

That is not the identity Tertullian seems to be looking for.

Paul also said:

[quote:e5b0156484]Furthermore, circumcision is not identical...who says it is...DEPENDING on how you define identical. Noone has EVER said that baptism means to cut forskin?!.[/quote:e5b0156484]

I did not (nor do I think Goosha did) even deal with the issue of the specific relationship between circumcision and baptism because that has NEVER been my basis for believing paedobaptism. My own words from a thread from last summer should prove this:

[quote:e5b0156484]Thus, I don't think such objections as, "well why do you baptize females in the NT if only males were circumcised in the OT?" are really very strong since there isn't supposed to be a one-to-one correlation between the two signs or some type of "replacement". I hope I'm being clear in this. If not, I can try to explain more clearly later on... Keep in mind what I just said about "replacement" in the signs. But where I believe /continuity/discontinuity becomes an issue is in the way in which God works in his covenant with his people in both OT and NT. This should be the focus of the discussion and not the signs, per se.

Taken from the thread Baptism replaces Circumcision.... or does it?[/quote:e5b0156484]

So it appears that much of Tertullian's time and energy in this debate has been misdirected because this point is not as central to our positions as he wants to think it is. It may be important to many paedobaptists, but it is not important to the ones in this messageboard. He can chide us for not dealing with this point if he wants, but why defend a point you don't even embrace?

Now the only other closing remark I want to make concerns Tertullian's response to the points I was particularly concerned with in this debate. Tertullian said above concerning my argument:

[quote:e5b0156484]LOTW- women were federaly circumcised. Note- even if it was true so what? But I see no compelling reason to accept this once it is no longer just assumed that people must be given the covenant sign who are in covenant.[/quote:e5b0156484]

I believe it should be evident enough to those who have followed this thread that the "so what?" of my argument is that if I am right about what I said about federal circumcision, T. E. Watson's argument, an argument that Tertullian has relied very heavily upon, goes up in smoke.

I would also add that no meaningful response was given this argument. Tertullian tried to respond to it by making an argument for "federal baptism" in the NT. But when Paul and I both showed that this is not possible in a Baptist framework, the essense of Tertullian's response was, "Well, I don't see any reason to believe that." I would ask the reader of this thread what kind of debate this would have been if all the paedobaptists had just responded to Tertullian's arguments with "Well, I don't see any reason to believe that."

He also misrepresented my argument, saying that the reason I believe in federal circumcision is because I operate on the assumption that all covenant members get the sign. But I will just refer the reader back to my last two posts to show that this was not the case at all, but I developed my case for federalism based upon texts of Scripture where the principle was clearly seen in various contexts, with the administration of covenant signs being on of them.

I would also just re-emphasize the point that if I am right on this point, and women were circumcised in the OT, Watson's argument, and likewise, a very large portion of Tertullian's argumentation in this thread, disappears.

Blessings to Tertullian and all who were involved for their diligence in this debate.
 
Finis

I appreciated the discussion. I've learned a whole bunch and am grateful to have had the opportunity to post my thoughts.

Tyler has continued to look for a command requiring all members of the covenant to be baptized. Perhaps the reason he has not been satisfied is because he is asking the wrong question. If the bible indicates that person enters into covenant through the sign, then proving who is in the covenant would prove who receives the sign.

Also, requiring us to find a command from the New Testament that all members receive the sign assumes discontinuity. Why should God have to repeat what has already been established? In response, T.E. Watson has attempted to come up with this idea that unless God specifies who receives the covenant sign within the covenant community than that person isn't allowed (i.e. Regulative Principle). I don't find this very convincing at all since this would result in the absurd conclusion that women can't participate in the Lord's Supper (I still have not found anything convincing in Watson's argument to provide a solution for this). For where does the bible command that women disciples are required to partake of the Lord's Table? It doesn't; so, on Watson's own standard they shoudn't. However, we, as paedobaptists can confidently argue that women disciples receive the Lord's Supper by their covenant relationship with Christ.


Also, another problem with this requirement for a command, "All members must receive the covenant sign" overlooks the fact that it's the initiatory sign in first place that brings a person into the covenant or church community. Beginning with the great commission- "19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit...."This is a common motif found in Galatians 3:27 (into Christ), 1 Corinthians 1:15 (in [into-eis] my name), 10:2 (into Moses paralleled with "into Christ"-), Acts 19:3 (lit. "into what were you baptized"-), Romans 6:3 (into Christ). This idea of being "baptized into Christ" clearly implies being baptized into the church or covenant community much like circumcision was for Israel. A person who wanted to become a Jew would have to be circumcised before they could enjoy the rights of a Jew. Thus, to ask, "Where does the bible command all covenant members to receive the sign?" is not the correct question. The proper question is, "How does a person enter into the covenant?" The answer is, "baptism." I think the New Testament teaches this and is further supported by the Old Testament pattern as well.

Even though my argument from 1 Corinthian 10 may not be persuasive to you, it does demonstrate that covenant signs (sacraments) come with covenant responsibilities and this serves as the basis for threatening the members of the Corinthian Church.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-27-2004 by Goosha]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Roldan
  • Locked
At what age do we stop Baptizing our children?
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
Tertullian
T
wsw201
  • Locked
Baptizing Non-members Children
Replies
21
Views
3K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Ambrose
  • Locked
When Should We Baptise Our Children?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Dan....
D
A
  • Locked
Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?
Replies
11
Views
2K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
P
  • Locked
Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
12K
daveb
D
Back
Top