At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You've got to be kidding

Greetings Tyler,

It's been an interesting discussion so far and I've personally learned a lot about why I believe in paedobaptism. You are well aware of my reasoning. For I begin with church membership to prove my point and I openly believe that a person's covenant membership entitles them to the covenant sign of baptism. For adult believers, I think baptism is necessary for entering the New Covenant. For children, I think they are included by virtue of their parent's relationship with God.

It is my opinion that T.E. Watson's conclusion is incorrect about the New Covenant. His reasoning ends up reading his interpretation of the Old Covenant into the New Testament. He does so with his conclusion that covenant relationship doesn't imply covenant sign; ironically, I think I succeeded in disproving Watson's argument using the Regulative Principle. Personally though, my argument about church membership implying baptism can be proven more directly than the round about proof I employed using the Regulative Principle. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:2-3, tells us that the Israelites were all baptized into Moses in the red sea and makes a threatening analogy against the Corinthian church and I don't think this would make much sense without presupposing that all church members were baptized into Christ. I think there is more biblical evidence for this but this should suffice for now since I am simply expressing my personal opinion at the moment.


[quote:9269e1bdbe][i:9269e1bdbe]Originally posted by Tertullian.[/i:9269e1bdbe]
[quote:9269e1bdbe]
1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4.) Infants are church members.
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.

Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism."
[/quote:9269e1bdbe]

I think we are in agreement

[quote:9269e1bdbe]
If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct?
[/quote:9269e1bdbe]

That is essentially correct-however...

An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign.

I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right?

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[/quote:9269e1bdbe]


I think its funny that every time I think we are ready to go on to the next step in the debate you make a statement that sets me back to square 1. At first, I thought you agreed with your representation of my arguments and I certainly agreed with it. But then you write that part stating "...but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign...." Well, which is it? Do you agree with my set of premises which explicitly prove "3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized," or no? I'm confused about your response. If there is nothing I can do to persuade you of this proposition that "all church members are baptized" than I'll never persuade you of infant baptism. Yet, in this post you seem to affirm that you both disagree and agree with that proposition. Could you please clarify? If you don't accept the premise "Therefore, all church members are baptized" then I will have to politely throw in the towel on the issue. There is no reason to even debate whether the Old Covenant predicts that children will be members of the church if you don't see any direct link between church membership and baptism. Not to mention the fact, we both have entirely different sets of presuppositions and assumptions that we are bringing to the issue that cause us to view the facts in different ways. It will take far too much time and energy to break down these epistemological walls. So as I already said, if you don't see the link between church membership and baptism, nothing I say will be meaningful or persuasive to you, so I will bow out of the discussion altogether, at least for now.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins
 
[quote:d02505b02b]
I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered.

[/quote:d02505b02b]

Brother, everything I said in that paragraph about children being arrows and vines and gifts from God can be found in Proverbs and the Psalms.
 
[quote:f88920d458][i:f88920d458]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:f88920d458]
[quote:f88920d458]
I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered.

[/quote:f88920d458]

Brother, everything I said in that paragraph about children being arrows and vines and gifts from God can be found in Proverbs and the Psalms. [/quote:f88920d458]

No doubt they do teach that children special; but what do these verses teach about how to adminster baptism? (I don't even find the word baptism in any of those verses do you?) Remember all those verses could be said about Jewish daughters yet they did not the get the Covenant sign, hence a Reformed baptist is no more obligated to baptized their infants then the Jews were to give the covenant sign to their daughters.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Jayson Rawlins

[quote:678760e7e2]

[i:678760e7e2]Originally posted by Tertullian [/i:678760e7e2].
[quote:678760e7e2]:

1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4.) Infants are church members.
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.

Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism." [/quote:678760e7e2]


I think we are in agreement
[quote:678760e7e2]


If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct? [/quote:678760e7e2]



That is essentially correct-however...

An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign.

I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right?

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:678760e7e2]

To this arguement of mine you responded:

[quote:678760e7e2] I think its funny that every time I think we are ready to go on to the next step in the debate you make a statement that sets me back to square 1. At first, I thought you agreed with your representation of my arguments and I certainly agreed with it. But then you write that part stating "...but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign...." Well, which is it? [/quote:678760e7e2]

What I have virtually attempted to prove is that both arguments of your are contradictory for this arguement, "infants are members of the church members because the Old Covenant says so" and this arguement which correctly using the regulative principle of worship runs, "all church members get the Covenant sign, because every instance in the New Covenant reveals that all church members are given baptism" contradict. How so? Because if you prove that infants were church members then it would no longer be true that every instance of church members would be baptized- hence- the regulative principle would no longer force us to conclude that every group of church members were baptized. Hence, I think this is a dilemma that shows that you cannot have your cake and eat it also. We cannot say that all church members get the sign because every instance of church members gets the sign in the New Covenant... and we cannot say that infants are church members who do not have an instance of getting the covenant sign.

[quote:678760e7e2] Do you agree with my set of premises which explicitly prove "3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized," or no? [/quote:678760e7e2]

Based on your regulative principle argument I would have to agree with it so long as it is not assumed that infants are not church members but if we assume that they are then I would have to disagree with it using that same regulative principle because it is just as dangerous to add as it is to subtract.

[quote:678760e7e2] I'm confused about your response. If there is nothing I can do to persuade you of this proposition that "all church members are baptized" than I'll never persuade you of infant baptism. [/quote:678760e7e2]

Your regulative principle arguments works fine, unless you can prove that infants were church members, then your argument no longer works.

[quote:678760e7e2] Yet, in this post you seem to affirm that you both disagree and agree with that proposition. Could you please clarify? [/quote:678760e7e2]

That is because I feel your two arguments contradict each other, that if I agree with one I must reject the other.

[quote:678760e7e2] If you don't accept the premise "Therefore, all church members are baptized" then I will have to politely throw in the towel on the issue. There is no reason to even debate whether the Old Covenant predicts that children will be members of the church if you don't see any direct link between church membership and baptism. [/quote:678760e7e2]

I think you are starting to see Watson and I's point, Scripture itself never assumes that Covenant members must all get the sign... Watson and I see basic continuity between the Covenants and so we see no reason to stop assuming that unless Scripture changes that... now if infants are not church members then your regulative principle argument would prove that all church members must get the sign... however if infants are members then your regulative principle would no longer work because no we have an example of a group that Scripture never records getting the sign.

[quote:678760e7e2] Not to mention the fact, we both have entirely different sets of presuppositions and assumptions that we are bringing to the issue that cause us to view the facts in different ways. It will take far too much time and energy to break down these epistemological walls. So as I already said, if you don't see the link between church membership and baptism, nothing I say will be meaningful or persuasive to you, so I will bow out of the discussion altogether, at least for now. [/quote:678760e7e2]

You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant... because by proving infants are church members you have undermined your own regulative principle of worship arguments that runs all example of baptized groups get baptized in the New Covenant, because if what you are saying is true then infants who would be a baptized group become a clear counterfactual to the claim that all church member groups Scripture records as being baptized. So if you come up with a new argument that all church members get the sign and then prove that infants are church members then you would have a sound argument.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Sounds great

Hello Tyler,

Now I understand.

You wrote:
"You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant."

Well, I'll be honest with you. I kind of always took that for granted so it might take some time before I can give something substantial; although, I have been trying to accumulate some texts. Anyways, I accept the challenge.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins
 
[quote:5800ccd951][i:5800ccd951]Originally posted by Goosha[/i:5800ccd951]
Hello Tyler,

Now I understand.

You wrote:
"You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant."

Well, I'll be honest with you. I kind of always took that for granted so it might take some time before I can give something substantial; although, I have been trying to accumulate some texts. Anyways, I accept the challenge.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins [/quote:5800ccd951]

Alright sounds good... remember you have to come up with two arguements that prove that 1) All church members get the Covenant sign and 2) Infants with Christian parents are church members. And these arguements must have mutually supporting premises... I am looking foreward to hearing from you... May the Lord guide our search for truth in his Words of Life.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:0fbb86b06c]
Tyler/Tertullian has been taking some big pieces. Unfortunately, for him, he has let our pawns advance and we are now in a position where a checkmate is one move away. His king is on his own back row blocked by re-enforced pawns, and we have one pawn who is going to cross the last flank and become a queen; which will inturn, allow us to obtain a checkmate.
[/quote:0fbb86b06c]

:lol: That was a very long, but very creative way of saying that you can disprove someone's position. You're awesome, Paul.
 
Paul,

You wrote, "Therefore, the sacrement of baptism is to be given to the Church. We know that letters are written to churches where, Paul for example, writes about their baptism. Paul, writting to churches, assumes that the church members have been baptized. "

When Paul wrote to the church at Rome, he wrote about their baptism. For example, Romans 6:3-4 says, "Or do you do not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Paul is not only assuming that they were baptized. He is also assuming that they are saved as well. Verse 6 of the same chapter says that our old man was crucified with Him. If their old nature is dead, they must have been saved.
 
Paul,

I have never changed my position upon what the Paedobaptist needs to do to prove his case as I wrote earlier,

To make progress in the controversy between credobaptism and paedobaptism the question must be asked what exactly the paedobaptist needs to prove in order to satisfy the regulative principle of worship. Theologian Karl Barth provides an excellent outline of the three ingredients to the argument that the reformed paedobaptist need to articulate in order to make their case that Scripture, when viewed as a whole, clearly commands the practice of the baptism of the children of Christians. Barth's criteria may be summarized as follows (1) The necessity of infant baptism must be established by a command of God and that God has commanded this can shown either by just and necessary inference which proves that when God commanded "this" he also intended "that" that or by a direct command found in Scripture (2) The case must be presented calmly and clearly (3) What needs to be proved must be proved and not something else. When all three of these criteria are fulfilled then the Reformed Baptist demand for a command to be baptized infants will have been sufficiently answered by Reformed Paedobaptist. Yet as Barth showed, and I will try to show, these criteria were not meet by either the reformers or their prodigy after them. Only the criteria of a command will suffice because the demands of the Regulative Principle of Worship will not be fulfilled by vicious circular that appeal to the authority of the reformers or Westminster Standards for no matter how prestigious they are they cannot properly be utilized since the very truth of their conclusions is what needs to be proved and established.

With that let us exaimine your post

[quote:1f33ab9123] Checkmate!

Tyler/Tertullian has been taking some big pieces. Unfortunately, for him, he has let our pawns advance and we are now in a position where a checkmate is one move away. His king is on his own back row blocked by re-enforced pawns, and we have one pawn who is going to cross the last flank and become a queen; which will inturn, allow us to obtain a checkmate. How so? [/quote:1f33ab9123]
It is a shame that these types of arguments get turned into a battle of wits rather then a humble quest for truth we ought all to examine our hearts and see if the Lord is pleased with our speech... love edifies but knowledge only puffs one up.... It also appears that you have failed case 2 because this type of polemic is anything but loving this is not a sport like chess we are talking about God's holy word and the sacraments... I apologize if I lead anyone to think that I thought I was smarter then Paul I am not he has walked with God longer then I have... and walking with God does tend to bring spiritual knowledge... but even the best of us have our blind spots.


therefore let me continue to address the rest of your post not that I have hopefully got across that I do not want to play a sport but to be edified in godly concersation.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Tyler has come to this position:
[quote:1f33ab9123]

You can convince me though, you just need to come up with an argument that all church members get the Covenant sign in the New Covenant [/quote:1f33ab9123]


Just so there is no mistake, he writes again:
[quote:1f33ab9123]

So if you come up with a new argument that all church members get the sign and then prove that infants are church members then you would have a sound argument.[/quote:1f33ab9123]


So, is everbody clear? Tyler has made two challenges: (1) Show that all Church members get the sign, and (2), prove that infants were considered/or are church members, then we will have a sound argument. This is what I will attempt to do. I will begin with 1 first. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
I have been open and honest laying down the criteria that need to be established if God has indeed commanded all church members to be baptized and infants are church members then it follows that infants are to be baptized because the regulative principle of worship would be satisfied... I only wish some Presbyterians on this board would be honest and continue to examine this issue with an open heart and Bible and carefully read what both sides are saying before they pounce... I thank you Paul for taking the time to read my posts and analyze my post but I still think that you have not proved either of the premises that you want to make and I hope to give you my reasons below.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Are all church members entitled to the sign?

We can ask the question this way: "Is the sacrement of baptism intended (or given to) for the whole church?" Or, "do all covenant members have a right to the covenant sign?" Let us engage on a brief journey of theological history. That is, how have, and do, theologians answer this question? [/quote:1f33ab9123]

I think your whole presentation could be reduced to these on if all church members are to be given the sacraments to these two quotes; and I just do not see how any of it is relevant to the question are all sacraments to be given to all church members...

[quote:1f33ab9123]The Westminster Confession of Faith says, in Ch. XXVII

[quote:1f33ab9123]I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.[5]
[1] ROM 4:11 . GEN 17:7

[2] MAT 28:19 1CO 11:23

[3] 1CO 10:16 11:25 ,GAL 3:27 ,3:17

[4] ROM 15:8, EXO 12:48 . GEN 34:14

[5] ROM 6:3-4, 1CO 10:16, 21 . [/quote:1f33ab9123]

The Londom Baptist Confession states:

[quote:1f33ab9123]
XXXIII.

Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king.

Matt. 11:11; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Rom. 1:7; Acts 19:8,9, 26:18; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Rom. 10:10; Matt. 18:19,20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5. [/quote:1f33ab9123][/quote:1f33ab9123]

And you conclude


[quote:1f33ab9123] Therefore, the sacrement of baptism is to be given to the Church. We know that letters are written to churches where, Paul for example, writes about their baptism. Paul, writting to churches, assumes that the church members have been baptized... Therefore, since the Bible tells us that the sacrement of Baptism is for the entire church, and if we can show that infants/children were considered members of the church, then it would follow that infants/children have the right to be baptized. I will now procede to prove the antecedent, assuming that number 1 of Tertullian requests has been more than satisfied. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
Actually, all Tertullian needs to do is note that all these objections could be raised against the Jews not giving the sign to their Jewish daughters... was not circumcision given to Israel to separate them from the world, was not circumcision given to Israel to show regeneration, was not circumcision the Old Covenant sacrament? Therefore, if these verses present a problem for the Reformed Baptist then the presented a problem of the Jew who did not circumcise his daughter... All I can say is that not one single Confession or Person Paul quoted every tried to argue that God had commanded circumcision or baptism to be given to all Church members... sure it was for the church just as circumcision was for Israel; but that proves nothing... God put a rainbow in the sky for all men yet no person was required to ware the sign personally... the bottom line is where does God command all church members to be baptized?

As a Reformed Baptist I can use Goosha argument from the Regulative Principle to support it but as I have already shown one infants are assumed as Covenant members that argument no longer prove that all church members must be given the sign.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Are infants/children considered church members?

So, since I have satisfied number one, of Tertullians requests, all that's left is to show that infants/children were/are considered members of the New Testament church. We should all be in agreement that infants were considered members of the Old Testament church, and we could argue, as B.B. Warifed did:
[quote:1f33ab9123]

The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established his Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His church and as such entitled to its ordinances. -B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant baptism," in "Studies in Theology" 1981 reprint, 9.408. [/quote:1f33ab9123] [/quote:1f33ab9123]

Why are they entitled Warfield? Not even in the Old Covenant were all the infants entitled for it was males? Warfield never tells where he got this from yet he basis his whole argument upon it... I guess not even geniuses are beyond the power of human tradition.

[quote:1f33ab9123] And this seems fine to me. I believe that, in accordance with covenant theology's hermeneutic, this would count as good and necessary inference. Unfortunately, though the baptist says he will accept inference, what he ends up doing is looking for an explicit statement-in the New Testament-evidencing their dispensational tendancies. Now, I cannot offer a verse which says, "Infants are church members" but I will try to show, by just the New Testament, that it considered infants/children memebers. It will be an inference, I'd say, of the same level as women and the Lord's supper. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
You are just poisoning the well, where have I ever said that I will not except an inference? I just reject the identity between circumcision and baptism and I do not think that Presbyterian can even account for their belief that all church members must get the sign.... They must borrow this from the Reformed Baptist side but it is about time they accounted it without using Reformed Baptist capital... Furthermore why do you not apply this continuity principle in the matter of church membership=baptism after all this was not true in the Old Covenant so where is your verse to correct what you view as a big mistake of God's part when he picked a sign but only ordered half of the Covenant church to receive it.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Remember, all I need to do is show that infants/children were considered church members. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
Well you still have to show were God commanded all church members to be baptized?
[quote:1f33ab9123] I am not supposed to prove that they are members of the New Covenant. Although, many believe that church memebrs are members of the New Covenant, including many of the above scholars. That is, the New Covenat is made up of both elect and non-elect members (cf. John 15, Heb. 10, I Cor.5, etc). I will at least offer some brief reasons to show that the children of believers are New covenant members....even though all I need to prove is that they are church members for it to be a "sound" argument.. [/quote:1f33ab9123]
This is a tangent that I do not think really need to be said because it is a completely different subject; it is always suspicious in debate when the person who is suppose to be proving "A" starts talking about "B" and even admits that he is getting off topic... after all if one really had a case for "A" wouldn't he want to develop it? (just food to ponder)

[quote:1f33ab9123] I will start with Ephesians 6:1-3:
[quote:1f33ab9123]

1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3"that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land." [/quote:1f33ab9123][/quote:1f33ab9123]

Paul are you suggesting that Paul wrote this letter to little infants who could not yet read or understand? I mean have you made an assumption here that Paul can only write letters to church members but why assume that? Furthermore Reformed Baptist Dagg has robbed this argument of its force along time ago when he wrote:

[quote:1f33ab9123]
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.

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.

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:1f33ab9123]

I think Daggs objections should be answered before we take Ephesians as proof that children are church members.

[quote:1f33ab9123] Now, I have satisifed reguest number 2. Therefore, on Tertullians own terms, I have given a sound argument. My last argument was valid and certainly applies for the good and necessary inference criteria-that Tertullian adhers to(?). Now the reader should take note of what Tertullian will do. I assume that he will not be persuaded. But you will note the presuppositional nature of his commitment. You will also see that there is no way i could prove it without an explicit example. I will then point out the women-Lord supper dielma, and he will say that it is commanded by virtue of discipleship. This is still inference! When will the baptist stop playing both sides of the fence?

in Christ,
-Paul [/quote:1f33ab9123]

Paul, I notice that you try to warn the reader ahead of time that I will not agree and come up with a reason... Do I detect a hint of insecurity with your arguments that you felt the need to poison the well against me before I even responded?

Paul, I am sure that the careful reader has already noted that all of your arguments that all church members get the Covenant even when added together does not produce even one command in Scripture to baptize all church members and on top of this all your arguements could with equal force be argued against Jews not circumcising their women, yet in spite of all your arguments the Jew's felt no need to circumcise women, so why should the Reformed Baptist feel obligated because of your arguements to baptize infants?

(Now the careful reader will note that I have accepted Goosha's Regulative Principle that proves church members get the sign, but as I already showed Goosha the Paedobaptist undermines that very argument when the say that children are church members- hence only Reformed Baptist can say that church members get the sign... Paul's attempt to find a new argument for church membership appear to me to bevery questionable and flawed)

Hence, Paul still has not proved "Premise 1" and Paul did not prove "Premise 2" in fact Paul seemed not to even acknowledge that Reformed Baptist have already answered that question in the past, instead Paul brought up a few weak arguments but I have always held to the philosophy that it is better to present your opponents strongest arguments then his weakest ones- therefore Paul proved neither premise 1 or 2.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:446bd5fa13]
[b:446bd5fa13]Objection #2:[/b:446bd5fa13] "But it is referring to the elect because it says they are saints and follow Jesus."

[b:446bd5fa13]Answer:[/b:446bd5fa13] Oh, so did the elect have red dots on their forehead and they made all the non-red-dot-havers go outside? Also, we read: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings" If saints means elect ones then how did they know who to kiss? And, "Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings." How did they know who to greet? Did the saints have a red dot on their forehead? Therefore, it does not follow that saint equals elect.
[/quote:446bd5fa13]

If the saints are not necessarily the elect, then why does Paul in the book of Ephesians address the saints and say that they were chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before Him?
 
Tyler....

I believe the command you're searching for is found in Matthew 28. Disciples are to be baptized.

Incidentally, I don't think it wise for you to adopt a position that the paedobaptist simply follows tradition. For one, it opens you up to scrutiny. Are there no traditions you follow? And two, because of all the links we have showed you that you refuse to see, or cannot see, whichever the case, you know that paedobaptism flows from the Scriptures instead of requiring a proof text. Infant inclusion is from the beginning and is never abrogated. In fact, it is put forward with an exclamation point with Christ.

If it is tradition that we cling to, should we ignore Jesus' words and actions toward little children? It is not as if He did not realize that they were Adam's sons. It is not as if He did not see their hearts. It is not as if He did not know whether or not they were His own. It is not as if He did not know whether the Spirit would enliven them.

He did not see a spark of faith or potential in them, because if they were not yet regenerated, they were dead in trespasses and sins, just like the pharisees to whom He did not have good things to say.

So why would Christ treat a tiny sinner any different than a grown-up one? These were children of believers.

How do you answer? Why does it look like tradition to you, when we are only doing as Christ commands - baptizing disciples - and why should we not treat the children of believers as Christ did?

Look past the wooden erection of case law, because that is just what you are arguing from. It has little to do with the RPW because God has not forbidden us to treat our infants thusly, but has given us a solid command to inaugurate our children into the covenant community. And this command is not abrogated.

So your claim that we are ignoring the RPW in this case does not have warrant. God did command us to include our children. And the female children as well. The virgins of Israel were afforded a special and delicate place. They were honored, not cast aside. They were just as much a part of the covenant community as were the sons. They did not receive the sign, because it was not through their flesh that men were born. They carry the seed but do not implant it. They were purified through their covenant head.

Now they are purified just as men are, by the washing of water. Their covenant head is Christ while in submission to their fathers and their husbands.

None of this is tradition, for tradition's sake. It is in the Word of God that these things are spoken and commanded. Because it is in the Word, it is a godly tradition, not man-made. If God commanded it, and has not undone it. Then it stands.

In Christ,

KC
 
[quote:76852e6172]
Actually, all Tertullian needs to do is note that all these objections could be raised against the Jews not giving the sign to their Jewish daughters... was not circumcision given to Israel to separate them from the world, was not circumcision given to Israel to show regeneration, was not circumcision the Old Covenant sacrament? Therefore, if these verses present a problem for the Reformed Baptist then the presented a problem of the Jew who did not circumcise his daughter...
[/quote:76852e6172]

If circumcision was to set Israel apart from the other nations, would you care to explain how Jewish daughters were set apart since they allegedly were not circumcised?

[quote:76852e6172]
I only wish some Presbyterians on this board would be honest and continue to examine this issue with an open heart and Bible and carefully read what both sides are saying before they pounce
[/quote:76852e6172]

Some of us are former Baptists and know what the issues are, Tertullian. Some of us had the audacity to actually embrace paedobaptism being convinced from Scripture. There is nothing dishonest about coming to a different conclusion than you do. Your position isn't quite so obvious as you try to make it sound.
 
Tertullean: There are two types of branches. Both are said to be "in" Christ. Even the ones that do not bear fruit and are eventually cast into the fire. How do Baptists account for the "in me" phrase of Jesus ? ? ? ?



John 15


I Am the True Vine

1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 [b:013c0727c2]Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. [/b:013c0727c2]3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 [b:013c0727c2]If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.[/b:013c0727c2] 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
 
[quote:bf15106872][quote:bf15106872][i:bf15106872]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:bf15106872]
[quote:bf15106872]
Actually, all Tertullian needs to do is note that all these objections could be raised against the Jews not giving the sign to their Jewish daughters... was not circumcision given to Israel to separate them from the world, was not circumcision given to Israel to show regeneration, was not circumcision the Old Covenant sacrament? Therefore, if these verses present a problem for the Reformed Baptist then the presented a problem of the Jew who did not circumcise his daughter...
[/quote:bf15106872]

If circumcision was to set Israel apart from the other nations, would you care to explain how Jewish daughters were set apart since they allegedly were not circumcised?[/quote:bf15106872] [/quote:bf15106872]

That is easy not all people in the Old Covenant had to receive the sign for the sign to be effective in doing what it was suppose to do. I mean do you deny that circumcison made Israel different then the nations around her or do you deny that women were not circumcised?

[quote:bf15106872][quote:bf15106872]
I only wish some Presbyterians on this board would be honest and continue to examine this issue with an open heart and Bible and carefully read what both sides are saying before they pounce
[/quote:bf15106872]

Some of us are former Baptists and know what the issues are, Tertullian. Some of us had the audacity to actually embrace paedobaptism being convinced from Scripture. There is nothing dishonest about coming to a different conclusion than you do. Your position isn't quite so obvious as you try to make it sound. [/quote:bf15106872]

Point well taking I was never challenging the sincerity of Paedobaptust just their Scriptural validity.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:060b200d2a]
That is easy not all people in the Old Covenant had to receive the sign for the sign to be effective in doing what it was suppose to do. I mean do you deny that circumcison made Israel different then the nations around her or do you deny that women were not circumcised?
[/quote:060b200d2a]

I deny that women were not circumcised, as I argued a long time ago. The question is WHY was circumcision able to set the entire nation of Israel apart from the nations if not every person had to receive it?

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
[quote:befbe1ccbb][i:befbe1ccbb]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:befbe1ccbb]
Tertullean: There are two types of branches. Both are said to be "in" Christ. Even the ones that do not bear fruit and are eventually cast into the fire. How do Baptists account for the "in me" phrase of Jesus ? ? ? ?



John 15


I Am the True Vine

1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 [b:befbe1ccbb]Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. [/b:befbe1ccbb]3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 [b:befbe1ccbb]If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.[/b:befbe1ccbb] 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. [b:befbe1ccbb]8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. [/b:befbe1ccbb]9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. [/quote:befbe1ccbb]

I see so we are both in agreement that true Disciples are not cutt off, after all those who were cutt off proved not to be Disciples.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian



[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Paul,

[quote:8e9368bb80] the shorter version:

The westmister and London divines as well, as Jewett, Grudem, Berkof, Dabney, Murray, Shedd, et al have said that baptism is for all church members. as well as gave verses. Thus Tertullian has to disagree with the top pedigree if both camps to hold his position. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

Actually, I do agree that church members get the sign but that is because I am not Paedobaptist and can use the Regulative Principle of worship stated by Goosha, but as I already noted Paedobaptism if it were true would undermine that argument so the Paedobaptist need to find a new argument.

Secondly, not one of the quotes you provided proved anything more than that baptism is for church members... now does it follow that all church members must be baptized from just that premise of course not. Note circumcision was for Israelites but it did not follow that all Israelites had to be baptized (ex. women)

[quote:8e9368bb80] I proved that infants were considered church members by the fact that Jewish Christians had their infants circumcised and were thus members of their parents churches. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

So you either think women were not Jewish or you just made a historical mistake either way you would be wrong.

[quote:8e9368bb80] These synogogue's were called churches. Therefore, certain new testament churches had infant members! [/quote:8e9368bb80]

Again, what does church membership have to do with who get the sign... after all using your analogoy women infants did not get the sign even though they were church members in Jewish synagogues. Besides I still have serious doubts about this whole approach I mean we might as well say that all servants of Christians are Christians because all slaves of Jewish male servatns were circumcised but you don't accept that argument so why should I find your argument persuasive about infant membership?

[quote:8e9368bb80] Tyler, I feel that you didn't even address my post. Premise one was more than satisfied and you, who said to attack your oppenants strongets argument, didn't even address my argument that proved that infants were considered members of first century churches. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

I feel that I did. Your arguments were useless because I could agree with everything the guess you quoted wrote and still believe what I believe.

[quote:8e9368bb80] And, go and re-read Warfields argument, you totally butchered it. [/quote:8e9368bb80]

Please reread my response I think you misunderstood me

[quote:8e9368bb80] Finally, I have no ill feeling and I just wrote the beginning of my post the way I did to make it more interesting. I apologize if you were offended. And, no matter what you may think, we are debating. So, since you are sensative to those things I will try not to phrase what I right in a way that would offend you. I just thought it was an interesting way to put a point.

Please, re-read my post. I proved both # 1 and 2.

-Paul [/quote:8e9368bb80]

I did and do not find them any more persuasive then I did before I can only note that you did not answer any of my objections but just acted like I never made them

Objection to your first premise, is that Jews did not feel any weight to administer their infant daughters the Covenant sign so why must baptize feel pressured to administered the Covenant sign because of your arguments? Also it comments a logic fallacy because it can be admitted that baptism is for members and still not be forced to baptize all church members because only some church members might get it. Just because a an orange is a fruit it does not follow that every fruit is an orange... just because baptism is for church members it does not follow that every church members is baptized.

Objection to your second premise; please answer Dagg's objections listed in my last post.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:116d8362b4][i:116d8362b4]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:116d8362b4]
[quote:116d8362b4]
That is easy not all people in the Old Covenant had to receive the sign for the sign to be effective in doing what it was suppose to do. I mean do you deny that circumcison made Israel different then the nations around her or do you deny that women were not circumcised?
[/quote:116d8362b4]

I deny that women were not circumcised, as I argued a long time ago. The question is WHY was circumcision able to set the entire nation of Israel apart from the nations if not every person had to receive it?

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:116d8362b4]

Well I am sorry I am going to have to disagree that women were circumcised... I do not know of any scholar who says that women were circumcised... what verse or verses do you have to prove that women were circumcised and so disprove 2000 years of the traditional Christian interpretation of Scripture?

I think only tradition would force us to read between the lines that circumcision was given to women.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:2043d2a8fa][i:2043d2a8fa]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:2043d2a8fa]
I believe the command you're searching for is found in Matthew 28. Disciples are to be baptized.

Incidentally, I don't think it wise for you to adopt a position that the paedobaptist simply follows tradition. For one, it opens you up to scrutiny. Are there no traditions you follow? And two, because of all the links we have showed you that you refuse to see, or cannot see, whichever the case, you know that paedobaptism flows from the Scriptures instead of requiring a proof text. Infant inclusion is from the beginning and is never abrogated. In fact, it is put forward with an exclamation point with Christ.

If it is tradition that we cling to, should we ignore Jesus' words and actions toward little children? It is not as if He did not realize that they were Adam's sons. It is not as if He did not see their hearts. It is not as if He did not know whether or not they were His own. It is not as if He did not know whether the Spirit would enliven them.

He did not see a spark of faith or potential in them, because if they were not yet regenerated, they were dead in trespasses and sins, just like the pharisees to whom He did not have good things to say.

So why would Christ treat a tiny sinner any different than a grown-up one? These were children of believers.

How do you answer? Why does it look like tradition to you, when we are only doing as Christ commands - baptizing disciples - and why should we not treat the children of believers as Christ did?

Look past the wooden erection of case law, because that is just what you are arguing from. It has little to do with the RPW because God has not forbidden us to treat our infants thusly, but has given us a solid command to inaugurate our children into the covenant community. And this command is not abrogated.

So your claim that we are ignoring the RPW in this case does not have warrant. God did command us to include our children. And the female children as well. The virgins of Israel were afforded a special and delicate place. They were honored, not cast aside. They were just as much a part of the covenant community as were the sons. They did not receive the sign, because it was not through their flesh that men were born. They carry the seed but do not implant it. They were purified through their covenant head.

Now they are purified just as men are, by the washing of water. Their covenant head is Christ while in submission to their fathers and their husbands.

None of this is tradition, for tradition's sake. It is in the Word of God that these things are spoken and commanded. Because it is in the Word, it is a godly tradition, not man-made. If God commanded it, and has not undone it. Then it stands.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:2043d2a8fa]

I do not object to tradition per say I reject to unscriptural tradition... we all have our tradition I do not deny but that only means that we need to examine them with Scripture and be willing to admit that we could be wrong.

I am having a hard time buying this whole women were circumcised federally bet could you please give a me a verse that teaches that? If not we are back to man-made tradition again only worse, now we are using more man-made tradition to prove man-made tradition- This is always dangerious consider women who added a extra tradition here and there and now look where she be? I do not want to make the same mistake do you? If not I suggest you bring some Scriptures to the table... start be proving this federal circumcison from Scripture.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
Tertullian,

[quote:81fe597d3a]
I do not know of any scholar who says that women were circumcised... what verse or verses do you have to prove that women were circumcised and so disprove 2000 years of the traditional Christian interpretation of Scripture?
[/quote:81fe597d3a]

:lol:

Wow! And this from the same person who immediately said this afterward:

[quote:81fe597d3a]
I think only [i:81fe597d3a]tradition[/i:81fe597d3a] would force us to read between the lines that circumcision was given to women.
[/quote:81fe597d3a]

I cannot help but laugh at that statement. I'm not making fun of you, don't get me wrong. I just can't believe somebody who chides paedobaptists for appealing to their forefathers, saying "not tradition, but Scripture alone!" like you have done would even begin to make an argument like this. (By the way... all this tradition stuff you imply about paedobaptists is getting old. I could just say that you are following the traditions of your anabaptist fathers.)

If I wanted to, I could simply respond with the following quote from your own lips:

[quote:81fe597d3a]
I guess I do not have enough pictures of reformers on my wall but I just do not see it nor will I accept the resolution that because the majority says so it must be true
[/quote:81fe597d3a]

Now, because I am a more honest paedobaptist than that, I am not content to leave the argument there. You said before that not everyone in the nation of Israel had to receive the sign for the sign to do its job. Of course, you HAVE to say that to affirm both that circumcision set Israel apart from the nations and that women and Israel were not circumcised. But I asked you why the women of Israel were still set apart from the world even without receiving the sign in their flesh, as the men were to do. I ask you this first because you are right, on the one hand. Women didn't receive the sign in their flesh, yet the sign still did it's job. But on the other hand, you cannot account for why this is the case. I have proposed that it is the case because of the principle of federal headship, or put a more common way, the household concept. [I am indebted to Robert R. Booth's book [u:81fe597d3a]Children of the Promise[/u:81fe597d3a] for many of the ideas that are discussed below... it is an excellent read on the subject of infant baptism.]

God has ALWAYS worked according to this principle, even before the institution of circumcision. Scripture is full of examples in which the term "household" is understood as including all those who are under the authority of the head of the covenantal family unit. As the head of the household went, so did the family, every member being effected. God showed favor to Noah and as a result his family went with him into the ark (Gen. 7:1). The Lord plagued all of Pharaoh's house for the sin of Pharoah himself (Gen. 12:17). All who were born in Abraham's house or were slaves were to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12-13, 23, 27). God spared Lot's family on account of Lot himself (Gen. 19:16). The Lord closed all the wombs of the women in Abimelech's household because of Abimelech's sin individually. (Gen. 20:17-18). As a result of the sin of Simeon and Levi, Jacob said, "I shall be destroyed, I and my household" (Gen. 34:30). Households were spared death where the blood of the Passover lamb was applied to their doorposts (Ex. 12:27). The Levites were numbered according to their household membership (Num. 3:15). Joshua made his decision to serve the Lord and thus his family was required to do the same thing (Josh. 24:15). God judged the house of Eli because of the sins of his sons (1 Sam 3:12-14). David brought God's judgment upon his whole house because of his sinful conduct with Bathsheba (2 Sam. 12:10). Achan's entire family was stoned with him because of his personal sin of stealing silver and gold (Josh 7:15, 24-25). God promises to punish the wicked, "visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations" (Ex. 34:7). To say that federal headship has no support in Scripture is to deny the facts.

What I have described above is the OT outlook on the household concept leading up to the NT period of the early church. Federal headship has much relevance to the issue of baptism because we find instances of "household baptisms" in the NT. We have household baptisms recorded in Acts, included Cornelius and his house (10:48; 11:14), Lydia and her house (16:15), the Philippian jailer and his house (16:33), Crispus and his house (18:8), and in 1 Cor. 1:14-16 we have the baptism of Stephanus and his house. On what basis should we say that the term "household" is defined differently in the NT than it was in the OT? The first century culture of the church did not just fall out of heaven without a historical context or worldview, so I don't believe there is much warrant for making a distinction between the households of the OT and the households of the NT. It is simply unthinkable that the worldview of the first century audience suddenly transformed from a federal to an individualistic mindset just because they are living in the book of Acts and not the book of Genesis. One very good example of the household concept in the NT is the feeding of the multitudes. In these instances, the heads of the household were counted rather than the entire family. This makes perfect sense if the federal headship concept is true.

So in short, paedobaptists see the household baptisms of the NT as being the continuing principle of federal headship. Every individual in the house was baptized because of the faith of the federal head of the home. Just as in the case of Joshua who said, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord", this was true in the NT as well. The head of the household made the decision to serve the Lord for the other members of his house. Whether there were actually any children present in the households in Acts is really irrelevant to the issue of federal headship, and much ink is wasted trying to prove that there were or weren't. I believe that the paedobaptist position has OT and NT history and culture working in its favor here.

Now of course, none of what I have said above is persuasive to a Baptist. In fact, they all go to great lengths to exegete these passages showing that the people believed before they were baptized, and low and behold, it just so happens that everybody in the house came to a consensus and decided to believe all at the same time and then be baptized! Now, is this position exegetically possible? It is one alternative, but it is unlikely given the fact that, as I said before, these texts that record these baptisms do not come to us in a vacuum, apart from a historical and covenantal context. But of course, this usually doesn't phase a Baptist either since they are usually willing to see more discontinuity between the covenants than I am willing to see. But this doesn't change what was in the minds of the first century audience. (This is really where the issue gets tough because this is where the differing presuppositions and assumptions of credo and paedobaptists are at the forefront... This is also where I usually get lost in the debate because I have no clue how to get past these epistemological barriers.)

Now, you have tried to counter this federal headship argument by showing that you could just as easily say that the infants of believers are federally set apart by the adult's baptism, though the infants must later be truly baptized after they have made a profession of faith. But I and Paul have both argued that the idea that one person's baptism can cover another person is a concept that is completely foreign to Baptist theology. It gives the "federal baptism" a different meaning altogether from the water baptism that the child receives later in life. But this would not be a continuing pattern of federal headship because in the OT the sign of circumcision meant the same thing for both the males who received the sign in their flesh and the females who received the sign through the federal headship of their father/husband. The women of Israel were set apart from the rest of the world without receiving circumcision in their flesh, not because it was just that way, but because of this principle of federal headship. The women of Israel were truly set apart from the pagan nations and granted full membership in Israel, able to partake of the Passover, because they were counted as circumcised. This makes PERFECT sense under this principle, and the principle itself, as I have demonstrated, is perfectly justifiable by Scripture.

Also, for the sake of those who may be reading over this thread who are searching through the issues, I would just like to point out that many of the arguments Tertullian has raised against what the paedobaptists in this thread have been arguing are NOT necessarily positions that Tertullian himself holds to, but are simply arguments that, for the sake of argument, a Reformed Baptist can raise in order to get out of baptizing their infants. This "federal baptism" idea is one of those arguments. I would just ask the reader to consider which is more likely to be true, the arguments given here in favor of paedobaptism, or these unique "for the sake of argument" arguments that Tertullian has raised that not even he himself always agrees with.




[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
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......
 
luvroftheWord

I know what your position is, your arguement rests upon the premise that all church members must get the Covenant sign... os then you have to restort to a federal circucumsion for women that not one verse teaches... now you were suppose to prove that all church members get the Covenant sign not just assume that they do in then try to prove federal circumcision... in order to prove federal circumcision you must base it on a different premise then every covenant member must get the sign... for that is the very assumption that I am proving and saying is wrong... and then you bring up federal circumcision- but when asked why you hold to federal circumcision you say that you hold to it because all church members must get the sign... do you notice the circular arguement here?

Federal circumcison-proves-that all church members get the sign

All church members get the sign-proves- that women had a federal circumcision.

I do not think these arguements prove your position I think they state your position- so now that we know what your position is where is the proof?

Also, for anyone reading these posts note that I can only say that if you accept federal circumcison though no Bible verses ever teaches it- then why not accept the same arguement for infants- it is true that Reformed Baptist do not hold to federal baptism for infants because no Scripture teaches it but- the same could be said of the federal circumcison- so if you can accept one tradition without Scripture why not two or three or four? So why not just think that infants are covered by this federal theology? (I see no reason why not if we can accept women federal circumcison)

I think it is safe to conclude that the arguement above all arguements for infant baptism is that John Calvin said this... that it exlains why we have to invent a theology of federal Covenant sign administration- when no Scripture supports it- to prove a tradition of all Covenant members must get the sign because of some human right- again a tradition nowhere taught in Scripture- to support another tradition (infant baptism) which is nowhere expressely commanded in Scripture. Tradition no taught in Scripture always adds more tradition until we can nolonger remember or care if verses supporit it.

We all have our tradition but it is dangerious to argue tradition for the sake of tradition.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:12d8aa143e][i:12d8aa143e]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:12d8aa143e]
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:12d8aa143e]

I have got to go to work right now but I wll get to work on a response when i come back
 
Paul

That was a superb post!:thumbup:

I really can't see how any baptist can refute that. Of course they will try but it will just be red herings and a bunch of "i disagree's" and like you stated

"the argumentative style of the credo to my post is essentialy, this: "I didn't see you prove anything." Which can be translated thus, "Whatever my net don't catch aint fish."

I predict some outrageous hermenutics on its way.
 
Tertullian,

Wow. I am stunned by your last post. I don't even know where to begin a response. I just spent almost three hours last night and early morning putting that last post together, looking up Scriptures and putting my thoughts together only to have you not only dismiss my post, but misrepresent my argument altogether. I don't know if I want to waste anymore time on this.

[quote:70208552d6][i:70208552d6]Originally posted by Tertullian.[/i:70208552d6]
I know what your position is, your arguement rests upon the premise that all church members must get the Covenant sign... os then you have to restort to a federal circucumsion for women that not one verse teaches... now you were suppose to prove that all church members get the Covenant sign not just assume that they do in then try to prove federal circumcision... in order to prove federal circumcision you must base it on a different premise then every covenant member must get the sign... for that is the very assumption that I am proving and saying is wrong... and then you bring up federal circumcision- but when asked why you hold to federal circumcision you say that you hold to it because all church members must get the sign... do you notice the circular arguement here?
[/quote:70208552d6]

That is NOT how I argue for federal headship at all. Anyone that really reads my last post will notice right away that no part of my argument for federal headship rests on the premise that all covenant members get the covenant sign. I went right to the OT to show the federal headship principle as it occurs ALL OVER THE PLACE in the Scriptures. It is upon those Scriptures that I built a case for the principle, and assuming basic continuity between the OT and NT, then applied the principle to the NT in the household baptisms. If anything was simply assumed in my last post it was the idea of continuity, not that all covenant members receive the sign.

Nowhere have I ever said, "Because all covenant members get the sign of the covenant, federal circumcision must be true." That is not my argument, and never has been my argument. All I have to do to prove that is refer you to EVERY other post I've ever written in this messageboard on this subject. And there are many. I was the 11th person to register on this board back when it started up in 2002. I've been around this carousel a time or two.

And by the way, this federal headship idea isn't my own invention. Do a search for posts by Webmaster and KC and other paedobaptists on this board and you'll see similar arguments.

[quote:70208552d6]
I think it is safe to conclude that the arguement above all arguements for infant baptism is that John Calvin said this... that it exlains why we have to invent a theology of federal Covenant sign administration- when no Scripture supports it- to prove a tradition of all Covenant members must get the sign because of some human right- again a tradition nowhere taught in Scripture- to support another tradition (infant baptism) which is nowhere expressely commanded in Scripture. Tradition no taught in Scripture always adds more tradition until we can nolonger remember or care if verses supporit it.

We all have our tradition but it is dangerious to argue tradition for the sake of tradition.
[/quote:70208552d6]

Yeah, paedobaptists and their traditions. If it weren't for Calvin there wouldn't be paedobaptists. I don't have the time or inclination to debate this issue with somebody who does not respect my position (and the position of people in this board and Christians all over the world) any more than this last quote shows.

Sorry to leave you hanging, guys, but I've had enough of this.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord]
 
Things the make you go hmmmm......

Does church membership imply that a person is baptized?

I choose to take this question on because the question, "Where does God command all members of the covenant to be baptized?" begs the question. This question already assumes both discontinuity and a preconceived conclusion from that discontinuity. I wish to provide at lest some basis for the idea the church membership implies baptism.

Here is my attempt:

If you are in the church, then you are in Christ (Galatians 1:22).
If you are in Christ, then you are His disciple (John 15:2,8).
If you are a disciple, then you are baptized (John 4:2, Matthew 28:19,20).
Therefore, if you are in Christ, then you are baptized.


If you grant my interpretation of the scriptures above, I think we have pretty good idea that to be in Christ is to be a disciple and a church member.
If you are in the visible church, then you are in Christ (in covenant).
If you are in Christ, then you are baptized.
Therefore, if you are in the visible church, then you are baptized (by implication only).

Another line:
I also think an argument can be constructed from 1 Corinthian 10:2-3 "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food." I don't think Paul would have mentioned the idea of everyone in Israel's baptism into Moses and then using that as a basis for threatening the Corinthian church if he didn't see a pretty strong parallel. Thus, I think in this text Paul assumes that all the Corinthians were baptized like all of Israelites were baptized.

The arguments of above are by no means deductive (subject to interpretive and logical fallacies). However, I do think they at least swing the pendulum in favor of the first premise of a syllogism arguing for paedobaptism.

1.) Church members were required to be baptized.
2.) Infants of believers are church members.
C.) Therefore, Infants of believers were required to be baptized.

If my line of reasoning is correct, then I also think that the bible authorizes us to see children as Disciples of Christ since (according to my study) the bible makes no distinction between church memberships and discipleship.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins
 
Goosha

Thanks for the response,

I always appreciate your humble manner I feel that at the very lest you have definitely proved something that needs to be noted Paedobaptism can be presented calmly without recourse to "I have proved my case but I know that Baptist will use his sophistry..." I thank you for that... you have probably presented the most persuasive and humble case I have read throughout these discourses... May the Lord guide his Church into truth.

[quote:750fc88ab0] Things the make you go hmmmm......

Does church membership imply that a person is baptized?

I choose to take this question on because the question, "Where does God command all members of the covenant to be baptized?" begs the question. This question already assumes both discontinuity and a preconceived conclusion from that discontinuity. I wish to provide at lest some basis for the idea the church membership implies baptism. [/quote:750fc88ab0]

Now remember Goosha I do as a Confessional Reformed Baptist teach that all church members ought to be baptized but that is because I accept your argument based on the Regulative Principle that runs something like this that the Regulative Principle teaches that we must not add or subtract to Scripture but follow their examples and commands, every recorded instance of Church member was baptized: therefore we ought to baptize all church members" This I believe is a solid argument for the baptism of all church members, I think another one would be the baptism of Christ but since that presuppose the doctrines of the Reformed Baptist I will not bring that up but continue to press the one you made.

Unfortunately as I already noted this argument of yours can only work on a Baptist model in fact a Paedobaptist undermines this argument which is the only basis non-credobaptist can use. For consider your syllogism:

1.) Everyone in the New Covenant Church is baptized as per the Regulative Principle.
2.) The Bible teaches that the children of believers are apart of the New
Covenant Church.
Conclusion: The children of believers are to be baptized into the church.

Now we can see that premise 2 contradicts premise 1 because if infants were indeed church members then the New Testament would have an instance of a church member not receiving the sacrament of baptism and thus we would have a defeater for premise 1 if premise 2 was true but if premise 1 was not true we have no basis to include infants as members because baptism is allegedly the initiation rite of church membership according to many paedobaptist... for if it is true that we can add to worship Scripture what is not expressly outlined in Scripture we cannot worship God by baptizing infants if he did not command (anymore Reformed Baptist could stop worshipping God in that way could if God did command).

Now I want to examine your attempts to come up with a better supporting argument for "premise 1" then the one that has been used by Reformed Baptist and I think inconsistently by Paedobaptist for as you already noted this about your arguments "The arguments of above are by no means deductive (subject to interpretive and logical fallacies). However, I do think they at least swing the pendulum in favor of the first premise of a syllogism arguing for paedobaptism" now according to the Westminster Standards the type of inferences to establish a command need to be "just and necessary" but you have admitted that your inferences are not just and necessary but only inspire sympathy to the "1 premise" so clearly according to the Westminster Standards it would be wrong to worship God based on a "Inference" that could possibly and admittedly be in error! Therefore, I think that is sufficient to show that you still need to develop a better argument and I hope you do because it is only a lack of command that keeps me a Credobaptist.


[quote:750fc88ab0] Here is my attempt:

If you are in the church, then you are in Christ (Galatians 1:22).
If you are in Christ, then you are His disciple (John 15:2,8).
If you are a disciple, then you are baptized (John 4:2, Matthew 28:19,20).
Therefore, if you are in Christ, then you are baptized. [/quote:750fc88ab0]

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 5:8, 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:750fc88ab0] If you grant my interpretation of the scriptures above, I think we have pretty good idea that to be in Christ is to be a disciple and a church member.
If you are in the visible church, then you are in Christ (in covenant).
If you are in Christ, then you are baptized.
Therefore, if you are in the visible church, then you are baptized (by implication only). [/quote:750fc88ab0]

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? But more probably you would chose to argue that all those whom are "in Christ" whom the command to be baptized has reference to; hence we are back again to Watson's original point it is the command of God that gives a person the right to be baptized not being in Christ or church membership (if the two are taken together as is possible depending upon context I think but is not necessarily true depending on context, see my above discussion of the context of John 15.)

[quote:750fc88ab0] Another line:
I also think an argument can be constructed from 1 Corinthian 10:2-3 "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food." I don't think Paul would have mentioned the idea of everyone in Israel's baptism into Moses and then using that as a basis for threatening the Corinthian church if he didn't see a pretty strong parallel. Thus, I think in this text Paul assumes that all the Corinthians were baptized like all of Israelites were baptized. [/quote:750fc88ab0]

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-

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.

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!!! So it is a to way street in the end and once again we come to Watson's observation that church membership does not equal baptism unless we drop Paedobaptism because the only argument that proves church membership equals baptism presupposes Reformed Baptist doctrine.

[quote:750fc88ab0] The arguments of above are by no means deductive (subject to interpretive and logical fallacies). However, I do think they at least swing the pendulum in favor of the first premise of a syllogism arguing for paedobaptism.

1.) Church members were required to be baptized.
2.) Infants of believers are church members.
C.) Therefore, Infants of believers were required to be baptized.

If my line of reasoning is correct, then I also think that the bible authorizes us to see children as Disciples of Christ since (according to my study) the bible makes no distinction between church memberships and discipleship. [/quote:750fc88ab0]
I think these inference are not the type need to hang a whole doctrine upon because they cannot pass the scrutiny of the Regulative Principles worship "just and necessary" demand. Also, the inferences I think prove to have some fatal or else troublesome flaws even if they were presented as meeting the standard's demands.

Hope this helps

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:69e0b6180d][i:69e0b6180d]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:69e0b6180d]
Tertullian,

Wow. I am stunned by your last post. I don't even know where to begin a response. I just spent almost three hours last night and early morning putting that last post together, looking up Scriptures and putting my thoughts together only to have you not only dismiss my post, but misrepresent my argument altogether. I don't know if I want to waste anymore time on this.

[quote:69e0b6180d][i:69e0b6180d]Originally posted by Tertullian.[/i:69e0b6180d]
I know what your position is, your arguement rests upon the premise that all church members must get the Covenant sign... os then you have to restort to a federal circucumsion for women that not one verse teaches... now you were suppose to prove that all church members get the Covenant sign not just assume that they do in then try to prove federal circumcision... in order to prove federal circumcision you must base it on a different premise then every covenant member must get the sign... for that is the very assumption that I am proving and saying is wrong... and then you bring up federal circumcision- but when asked why you hold to federal circumcision you say that you hold to it because all church members must get the sign... do you notice the circular arguement here?
[/quote:69e0b6180d]

That is NOT how I argue for federal headship at all. Anyone that really reads my last post will notice right away that no part of my argument for federal headship rests on the premise that all covenant members get the covenant sign. I went right to the OT to show the federal headship principle as it occurs ALL OVER THE PLACE in the Scriptures. It is upon those Scriptures that I built a case for the principle, and assuming basic continuity between the OT and NT, then applied the principle to the NT in the household baptisms. If anything was simply assumed in my last post it was the idea of continuity, not that all covenant members receive the sign.

Nowhere have I ever said, "Because all covenant members get the sign of the covenant, federal circumcision must be true." That is not my argument, and never has been my argument. All I have to do to prove that is refer you to EVERY other post I've ever written in this messageboard on this subject. And there are many. I was the 11th person to register on this board back when it started up in 2002. I've been around this carousel a time or two.

And by the way, this federal headship idea isn't my own invention. Do a search for posts by Webmaster and KC and other paedobaptists on this board and you'll see similar arguments.

[quote:69e0b6180d]
I think it is safe to conclude that the arguement above all arguements for infant baptism is that John Calvin said this... that it exlains why we have to invent a theology of federal Covenant sign administration- when no Scripture supports it- to prove a tradition of all Covenant members must get the sign because of some human right- again a tradition nowhere taught in Scripture- to support another tradition (infant baptism) which is nowhere expressely commanded in Scripture. Tradition no taught in Scripture always adds more tradition until we can nolonger remember or care if verses supporit it.

We all have our tradition but it is dangerious to argue tradition for the sake of tradition.
[/quote:69e0b6180d]

Yeah, paedobaptists and their traditions. If it weren't for Calvin there wouldn't be paedobaptists. I don't have the time or inclination to debate this issue with somebody who does not respect my position (and the position of people in this board and Christians all over the world) any more than this last quote shows.

Sorry to leave you hanging, guys, but I've had enough of this.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:69e0b6180d]

I think we are best to drop this topic... we have made our points and neither one finds the other persasive... but may the Lord bless your studies at RTS.
 
Paul,

1) In regards to your post I have noticed that your proof for premise "1) All church members must be baptized" was presented as if I did not think that, what I said or meant to say is that the Paedobaptist must use Reformed Baptist tactics to prove that... only Goosha's regulative Principle argument has been successful and Goosha arguement was the one advanced I think by the Confessions- but as I have already shown Paedobapist undermine that very argument when they assert that infants are church members because according to Goosha'a argument all instances of church members in the New Testament were baptized- but if the Paedobaptis is right infants since they are members according to Paedos disprove that premise- hence paedos no longer have a good argument for that position.

Now did you address that argument by presenting an alternative argument that proves infants can have church membership? Nop, you just proved that Reformed Baptist and Paedobaptist agree that Church members get the sign... but did my position say otherwise... nop in fact that is what I said- I said both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist believe that but only Reformed Baptist can account for it... unless you have an alternative argument that does not Presuppose the Reformed Baptist position... therefore your argument is not really an argument in fact it was something I agreed with from the very beginning but could you please account for the practice on Paedobaptist grounds?

After all, I find it strangely puzzling that we are only allowed to use the New Testament and not infer from the Old Covenant to see if church membership guarantees the covenant sign... I mean why can not we Reformed Baptist use the same strategy to see who gets the sign infants or adults?

PS- Proving that church members get baptized does not prove what needs to be proved because just because all oranges are fruit it does not follow that all fruit are oranges... so just because all baptized are church members it does not follow that all church members are baptized in just purely logicial grounds.


2) As for Ephesians proving that infants are church members because Paul gives a command to children who can understand what he is writing showing that Paul had no reference to infants but to children who had faith and could understand language... I do not even think that proves that we have a just and necessary inference that Scripture teaches that these children were infants, and if it is children with faith it does not follow that they were only children with Chrsitian parents and that all children with Christian parents are Christian, after all, Dagg showed the fallacy behind that argument which has yet to be dealt with.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-24-2004 by Tertullian]
 
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