At what age do we stop Baptizing our children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[/quote]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything? [/quote]

Her willingness is the result of her faith-no?
 
[quote:f72522e743][i:f72522e743]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:f72522e743]
[/quote:f72522e743]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything? [/quote]

Her willingness is the result of her faith-no? [/quote]

Absolutley:saint:
 
[quote:bbaca7efb8][i:bbaca7efb8]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:bbaca7efb8]
[quote:bbaca7efb8][i:bbaca7efb8]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:bbaca7efb8]
[/quote:bbaca7efb8]

good point, but what if grammy is willing but just has not yet made a prersonal profession, I mean doesn't your faith (if you are the household head) count for anything? [/quote:bbaca7efb8]

Her willingness is the result of her faith-no? [/quote]

Absolutley:saint: [/quote]

Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other... but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Tertullian says :

"Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other..."

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that "she could care less one way or the other" then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON"T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says "well everybody else is doing it" then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at.

Tertullian says: "but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession."

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:4e62ef3e34]physical[/color:4e62ef3e34] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted.

In God's [i:4e62ef3e34]Eternal[/i:4e62ef3e34] Covenant, Ricky
 
I just wanted to pause for a moment and express that I am thoroughly enjoying these convo's with Tertullian and others, Love ya guys MAAAAAAAAAAAN!

This website is like going to message board Reformed Seminary! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan]
 
[quote:7b72563f6c][i:7b72563f6c]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:7b72563f6c]
Tertullian says :

"Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other..."

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that "she could care less one way or the other" then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON"T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says "well everybody else is doing it" then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at. [/quote:7b72563f6c]

All right you agree with Reformed Baptist here...

[quote:7b72563f6c]Tertullian says: "but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession."

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:7b72563f6c]physical[/color:7b72563f6c] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted.

In God's [i:7b72563f6c]Eternal[/i:7b72563f6c] Covenant, Ricky [/quote:7b72563f6c]

All right, you agree with Reformed Baptist here, why not come all the way and join the Reformed Baptist camp and say the same thing about infants... I mean why zig, zig, zig, and than out of the blue zag.

If we need a proffesion of faith before we allow our grammies and servants who are under our household before we allow them to feel the joy of baptizing, why not allow our children that same joy?

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian
 
[quote:ce237f105c][i:ce237f105c]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:ce237f105c]
I just wanted to pause for a moment and express that I am thoroughly enjoying these convo's with Tertullian and others, Love ya guys MAAAAAAAAAAAN!

This website is like going to message board Reformed Seminary! :bigsmile:

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:ce237f105c]

I would like to state my official agreement with my brother Roldan :thumbup:
 
[quote:cc0843a977][i:cc0843a977]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:cc0843a977]
[quote:cc0843a977][i:cc0843a977]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:cc0843a977]
Tertullian says :

"Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other..."

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that "she could care less one way or the other" then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON"T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says "well everybody else is doing it" then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at. [/quote:cc0843a977]

All right you agree with Reformed Baptist here...

Roldan: Man, are you serious?

[quote:cc0843a977]Tertullian says: "but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession."

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:cc0843a977]physical[/color:cc0843a977] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted.

In God's [i:cc0843a977]Eternal[/i:cc0843a977] Covenant, Ricky [/quote:cc0843a977]

All right, you agree with Reformed Baptist here, why not come all the way and join the Reformed Baptist camp and say the same thing about infants... I mean why zig, zig, zig, and than out of the blue zag.

If we need a proffesion of faith before we allow our grammies and servants who are under our household before we allow them to feel the joy of baptizing, why not allow our children that same joy?

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian [/quote:cc0843a977]:puzzled:

Roldan: Now I know you are kidding.

Talk about reading the New into the Old.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan]
 
[quote:5da16aad8a][i:5da16aad8a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:5da16aad8a]
[quote:5da16aad8a][i:5da16aad8a]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:5da16aad8a]
[quote:5da16aad8a][i:5da16aad8a]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:5da16aad8a]
Tertullian says :

"Well, remember this is a hypotheticial case, and so all we know about her is that she is willing to go through with baptism because she could care less one way or the other..."

Roldan: Now you have introduced a different scenerio. If we KNOW that "she could care less one way or the other" then she will not be baptized for no faith is present, if we DON"T know but she has a desire to be baptized and we examine her on why she wants the sacrament and responds as if regenerate then we absolutley should baptize her. For one can only go by ones PROFESSION, but If she says "well everybody else is doing it" then no baptism. Unless you want to do like Tertullian teaches and wait like 6months or so to see fruit THEN baptize, then baptist would be more consistent in their elect only baptism's.

I don't see a problem with your example is what I am getting at. [/quote:5da16aad8a]

All right you agree with Reformed Baptist here...

Roldan: Man, are you serious? [/quote:5da16aad8a]

yep, in fact, if I recall I think I told you that once in person...

[quote:5da16aad8a][quote:5da16aad8a]Tertullian says: "but her personal faith really ought to be a secondary issue for it is the faith of the head of the household that counts, so is not he obligated to baptize anyone whom is under his household who will allow him or did Abraham get it wrong when he administered the sign of the Covenant to all those under his household regardless of age and personal profession."

Roldan: This is where the [color=Red:5da16aad8a]physical[/color:5da16aad8a] aspect of the OC should be carefully noted.

In God's [i:5da16aad8a]Eternal[/i:5da16aad8a] Covenant, Ricky [/quote:5da16aad8a]

All right, you agree with Reformed Baptist here, why not come all the way and join the Reformed Baptist camp and say the same thing about infants... I mean why zig, zig, zig, and than out of the blue zag.

If we need a proffesion of faith before we allow our grammies and servants who are under our household before we allow them to feel the joy of baptizing, why not allow our children that same joy?

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian [/quote:5da16aad8a]:puzzled:

Roldan: Now I know you are kidding.

Talk about reading the New into the Old.

[Edited on 2-16-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:5da16aad8a]

Wait a second one of the very same arguments I use, as Reformed Baptist, to show how infants could be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old but not in the New, is the exact same argument you used to show why adults could be given the Old Covenant sign in the Old without a personal profession of faith but not in the New.

I only ask for consistency, if the argument works in the case of adult household members it also works with infant household members, you cannot have your cake and eat it to.



[Edited on 2-17-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Whatup Tert? I will keep you posted on the meeting and the exact day and all that.

Tertullian: "Wait a second one of the very same arguments I use, as Reformed Baptist, to show how infants could be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old but not in the New, is the exact same argument you used to show why adults could be given the Old Covenant sign in the Old without a personal profession of faith but not in the New.

I only ask for consistency, if the argument works in the case of adult household members it also works with infant household members, you cannot have your cake and eat it to."

I see what you are saying and [i:3ee84a1d75]agree[/i:3ee84a1d75]:shocked: to an extent. What do I mean?

Well we would both agree that Father Abraham was commanded to circumcise every male under his rule. Yes?

Again that was a physical aspect, sort of like marking his possesions(servants etc...)

But, they(servants) were not the emphasis of the Covenant, but his actual children from generation to generation which still continues in the New Covenant.

hence, the physical and spiritual aspects.

Now, I know that this can be articulated better than that but it's 2:15 in the morning and I feel really lazy right now, I hope that was some kind of clarification between your view and mine with respect to the discontinuity and continuity of certain aspects of the OC.

Grace and Peace my brotha

:thumbup:
 
[quote:a637b51c94][i:a637b51c94]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:a637b51c94]
Whatup Tert? I will keep you posted on the meeting and the exact day and all that. [/quote:a637b51c94]

yes please do... thanks

[quote:a637b51c94] [quote:a637b51c94] Tertullian: "Wait a second one of the very same arguments I use, as Reformed Baptist, to show how infants could be given the sign of the Covenant in the Old but not in the New, is the exact same argument you used to show why adults could be given the Old Covenant sign in the Old without a personal profession of faith but not in the New.

I only ask for consistency, if the argument works in the case of adult household members it also works with infant household members, you cannot have your cake and eat it to." [/quote:a637b51c94]

I see what you are saying and [i:a637b51c94]agree[/i:a637b51c94]:shocked: to an extent. What do I mean?

Well we would both agree that Father Abraham was commanded to circumcise every male under his rule. Yes?

Again that was a physical aspect, sort of like marking his possesions(servants etc...)

But, they(servants) were not the emphasis of the Covenant, but his actual children from generation to generation which still continues in the New Covenant.

hence, the physical and spiritual aspects.

Now, I know that this can be articulated better than that but it's 2:15 in the morning and I feel really lazy right now, I hope that was some kind of clarification between your view and mine with respect to the discontinuity and continuity of certain aspects of the OC.

Grace and Peace my brotha

:thumbup: [/quote:a637b51c94]

"But, they (servants) were not the emphasis of the Covenant, but his actual children from generation to generation which still continues in the New Covenant"

If the emphasis of the Covenant was on the children then why only the male the children? and why not follow continuality with the Old Covenant and say that only male babies ought to be baptized in the New Covenant? You could say that the New Testament allows adult women to be baptized but how it that relevant to female infants- should we go dispensational or Covenantal on the quetion of female infants?

But even letting that pass, I think that it is really ad hoc to say that the emphasis was on the children more than the servants, God's emphasis was that all males were to receive the sign of the Covenant who were in the household of Israel. I suggest that the real emphasis is on the Covenant Lord's right to administer the sacraments of the Covenant to whom He will, if to males to males, if to disciples than disciples, if no sign then no sign, etc. Hence, I do not think that the "children emphasis" argument is really successful in avoiding the charge of inconsistency because it doesn't seem to be the emphasis at all, but the emphasis was upon the male aspect of it, and beyond that God's right to administer the sacraments of his Covenants as He commands.

Roldan, please do not take me wrong, I highly respect you and do not mind telling people that. May the Lord use you to Reform his churches!!!

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:1f31606e62][i:1f31606e62]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1f31606e62]
[quote:1f31606e62]
If the emphasis of the Covenant was on the children then why only the male the children? and why not follow continuality with the Old Covenant and say that only male babies ought to be baptized in the New Covenant? You could say that the New Testament allows adult women to be baptized but how it that relevant to female infants- should we go dispensational or Covenantal on the quetion of female infants?
[/quote:1f31606e62]

Emphasis was on ALL the cjildren. Look at all the verses that say, "To you CHILDREN." This meant both sexes. Now, if you are asking why did male children get circumcised, fine...but don't say that they emphasis was on them. They were circumcised because sin entered the world through the seed of the man. We can get into the fascinating reason why it was given to the male if you want to.

You ask why not follow continulaly? Well becasue as COVENANT theologians we say that a command is considered standing UNLESS future revelation comes along to change it. Furture revelation came alon and changed the sexes. Therefore, we are consistant with our covenant hermeneutics.

You ask how is that relevant to infants. well, because there is no MALE OR FEMALE. This accounts for ALL the members of the class entitled MALE and FEMALE. To put it into a form: Now all the members X and Y are included, M is a member of X and W is a member of Y. Therefore M and W are included.

We should go covenantal...as I have shown.

-Paul [/quote:1f31606e62]

Exactly, again I was beat to the post, thanx Paul for clearing that up for us.
 
[quote:f36c950703][i:f36c950703]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:f36c950703]
sorry to steal your thunder.. [/quote:f36c950703]

Its ok brotha, but next time I will have to gather my THEONOMIC brothas and have you stoned:lol:
 
Alright first off,
We may need to back track to remember what we are talking about, we are talking about why we cannot agree with the argument of those who advocate position "B" because of household argument, but we can accept position "A" on the basis of the same household argument,

Position "B": "baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household servants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptize this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision"

But we can find this identical argument persuasive,

Position A: "Baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household infants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptism this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision"

To make matters worse, Roldan constructed a perfectly valid critique of the argument that supports both A and B, when he mentioned that we Old Covenant had a physical aspect that is no longer present in the New and so we must no take that in to account and baptize servants on the basis of faith, so how can this argument that proves way to much and is fundamentally flawed be used to support infant baptism but not household servant baptism?

Roldan pleads that children had a special "emphasis" and this emphasis still continues into the New while this "emphasis" was not present in the case of the servants and so we must no longer continue to baptize household servants but we must continue to baptize infants.

My counter- it is a nice theory but in Scripture no such "emphasis" can be deduced from Scripture. Well, lets see if I was wrong and there is an "emphasis" about who gets the Covenant sign.



[quote:1894ea678d] Emphasis was on ALL the children. Look at all the verses that say, "To you CHILDREN." This meant both sexes. [/quote:1894ea678d].


It is hard to know what verses you are using, is this just your impression if it is, how I am I to argue against your impression but with my own impression that circumcision was given to males and the emphasis was on the male. I guess we could just trade impressions all day but let us get back to the serious arguments.

Genesis 17, over an over again emphasis the male aspect it says, "Every [b:1894ea678d] male [/b:1894ea678d] among you shall be circumcised" (v 10) and "Through out of your generation every [b:1894ea678d] male [/b:1894ea678d] among you shall be circumcised" (v. 12).

Note who got the circumcision and who didn't, Abraham, Ishmael, male household servants, Male infants, Male Gentiles who join the household, all male household members, now look at who didn't get circumcision Sarah, female household servants, female gentiles who joined the household, female infants, etc. Now I ask you what was the man differences between the groups who got it and did not get it... was it not maleness. Hence maleness was the main emphasis, because that is how God decided, so where does that children emphasis come in? It doesn't unless we read Presbyterianism between the lines.

[quote:1894ea678d] Now, if you are asking why did male children get circumcised, fine...but don't say that they emphasis was on them. They were circumcised because sin entered the world through the seed of the man. We can get into the fascinating reason why it was given to the male if you want to. [/quote:1894ea678d]

The reason was because God is Lord of the Covenant and He determines who in his Covenant gets the sign, disciples, males, none, etc/

[quote:1894ea678d] You ask why not follow continually? Well because as COVENANT theologians we say that a command is considered standing UNLESS future revelation comes along to change it. [/quote:1894ea678d]

Agree in fact this is one of my arguments if there was a special emphasis on male children than that emphasis should continue unless otherwise directly revoked!

(quote] Future revelation came along and changed the sexes. [/quote]

Where what verse? You could show me were female disciples got baptized but that is not even important to our discussion about female infants- why don't you want to follow that "special emphasis" when the argument works against your side?

[quote:1894ea678d] Therefore, we are consistent with our covenant hermeneutics. [/quote:1894ea678d]

Only if you can show a verse that specifically says, both female infants can be baptized and not just male children with that special emphasis. I would rather just say that no such male infant emphasis existed

[quote:1894ea678d] You ask how is that relevant to infants. well, because there is no MALE OR FEMALE. This accounts for ALL the members of the class entitled MALE and FEMALE. To put it into a form: Now all the members X and Y are included, M is a member of X and W is a member of Y. Therefore M and W are included. [/quote:1894ea678d]

Well obviously there was only a "special emphasis" on male children, so if you deny it exists in the New Covenant, so much for Rholdan's original counter argument... remember you are the one trying to prove that children have a special emphasis... and key word is prove... if there was a special emphasis on male infants than we should continue to baptize only male infants, if there no longer is a "special emphasis" then so much for the argument... if all children now have the emphasis where is the Scripture that directly repeals the Old Covenant special emphasis and why don't those verses prove servant household baptism? You see the burdon of proof is on you to prove these things...

[quote:1894ea678d] We should go covenantal...as I have shown. [/quote:1894ea678d]
I am the one trying to be Covenantal and read continuity if there was a spcial emphasis on male children than lets continue to baptize only male children... may be the answer to this riddle is there is no special emphasis on male children... where is the proof for special emphasis on male children.

But if I am correct and the emphasis is on "male" than if the arguement were sucessful we need to baptize servants and everyone in Christian households... the only way to escape all these absuridities is to suppose that God's right to define who gets the sign of the Covenant continues into the New and God has decided that only discples should get the sign of the Covenant.



To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

May the Lord bless both of you.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:0422806ff5][i:0422806ff5]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:0422806ff5]
Alright first off,
We may need to back track to remember what we are talking about, we are talking about why we cannot agree with the argument of those who advocate position "B" because of household argument, but we can accept position "A" on the basis of the same household argument,

Position "B": "baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household servants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptize this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision"

But we can find this identical argument persuasive,

Position A: "Baptism because it is the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to all household infants regardless of their personal profession to be disciples, why must we baptize them you ask, simple, we baptism this group on the basis that this group of people were given the Old Covenant sign of circumcision"

To make matters worse, Roldan constructed a perfectly valid critique of the argument that supports both A and B, when he mentioned that we Old Covenant had a physical aspect that is no longer present in the New and so we must no take that in to account and baptize servants on the basis of faith, so how can this argument that proves way to much and is fundamentally flawed be used to support infant baptism but not household servant baptism?

Roldan pleads that children had a special "emphasis" and this emphasis still continues into the New while this "emphasis" was not present in the case of the servants and so we must no longer continue to baptize household servants but we must continue to baptize infants.

My counter- it is a nice theory but in Scripture no such "emphasis" can be deduced from Scripture. Well, lets see if I was wrong and there is an "emphasis" about who gets the Covenant sign.



[quote:0422806ff5] Emphasis was on ALL the children. Look at all the verses that say, "To you CHILDREN." This meant both sexes. [/quote:0422806ff5].


It is hard to know what verses you are using, is this just your impression if it is, how I am I to argue against your impression but with my own impression that circumcision was given to males and the emphasis was on the male. I guess we could just trade impressions all day but let us get back to the serious arguments.

Genesis 17, over an over again emphasis the male aspect it says, "Every [b:0422806ff5] male [/b:0422806ff5] among you shall be circumcised" (v 10) and "Through out of your generation every [b:0422806ff5] male [/b:0422806ff5] among you shall be circumcised" (v. 12).

Note who got the circumcision and who didn't, Abraham, Ishmael, male household servants, Male infants, Male Gentiles who join the household, all male household members, now look at who didn't get circumcision Sarah, female household servants, female gentiles who joined the household, female infants, etc. Now I ask you what was the man differences between the groups who got it and did not get it... was it not maleness. Hence maleness was the main emphasis, because that is how God decided, so where does that children emphasis come in? It doesn't unless we read Presbyterianism between the lines.

[quote:0422806ff5] Now, if you are asking why did male children get circumcised, fine...but don't say that they emphasis was on them. They were circumcised because sin entered the world through the seed of the man. We can get into the fascinating reason why it was given to the male if you want to. [/quote:0422806ff5]

The reason was because God is Lord of the Covenant and He determines who in his Covenant gets the sign, disciples, males, none, etc/

[quote:0422806ff5] You ask why not follow continually? Well because as COVENANT theologians we say that a command is considered standing UNLESS future revelation comes along to change it. [/quote:0422806ff5]

Agree in fact this is one of my arguments if there was a special emphasis on male children than that emphasis should continue unless otherwise directly revoked!

(quote] Future revelation came along and changed the sexes. [/quote:0422806ff5]

Where what verse? You could show me were female disciples got baptized but that is not even important to our discussion about female infants- why don't you want to follow that "special emphasis" when the argument works against your side?

[quote:0422806ff5] Therefore, we are consistent with our covenant hermeneutics. [/quote:0422806ff5]

Only if you can show a verse that specifically says, both female infants can be baptized and not just male children with that special emphasis. I would rather just say that no such male infant emphasis existed

[quote:0422806ff5] You ask how is that relevant to infants. well, because there is no MALE OR FEMALE. This accounts for ALL the members of the class entitled MALE and FEMALE. To put it into a form: Now all the members X and Y are included, M is a member of X and W is a member of Y. Therefore M and W are included. [/quote:0422806ff5]

Well obviously there was only a "special emphasis" on male children, so if you deny it exists in the New Covenant, so much for Rholdan's original counter argument... remember you are the one trying to prove that children have a special emphasis... and key word is prove... if there was a special emphasis on male infants than we should continue to baptize only male infants, if there no longer is a "special emphasis" then so much for the argument... if all children now have the emphasis where is the Scripture that directly repeals the Old Covenant special emphasis and why don't those verses prove servant household baptism? You see the burdon of proof is on you to prove these things...

[quote:0422806ff5] We should go covenantal...as I have shown. [/quote:0422806ff5]
I am the one trying to be Covenantal and read continuity if there was a spcial emphasis on male children than lets continue to baptize only male children... may be the answer to this riddle is there is no special emphasis on male children... where is the proof for special emphasis on male children.

But if I am correct and the emphasis is on "male" than if the arguement were sucessful we need to baptize servants and everyone in Christian households... the only way to escape all these absuridities is to suppose that God's right to define who gets the sign of the Covenant continues into the New and God has decided that only discples should get the sign of the Covenant.



To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

May the Lord bless both of you.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote]

Tertullian, you know I love you brother, but honestly that was absolutley terrible. Man, are you kidding, your conclusion of what I said was let us baptize only males, WOW!
 
[quote:e71c1ca6f3][i:e71c1ca6f3]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:e71c1ca6f3]

Tertullian, you know I love you brother, but honestly that was absolutley terrible. Man, are you kidding, your conclusion of what I said was let us baptize only males, WOW! [/quote:e71c1ca6f3]

I did not say that was your conclusion... your position in order for your arguement to work is that infants had a special emphasis such that they have to receive the Covenant sign... while servants did not have the special emphasis... my counter to that is that infants have no innate rite to the sign of the Covenant but that God can give the Covenant sign to whom he wills, if it be males only, disciples only, ect. Infants have no "special emphasis" that they must be included in the sign administration of the Covenant of Grace, in fact not all infants were given the sign in the Old.

Hope this clarifies...

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Paul,

In all due respect. I think we are talking passed each other, please try to understand that you are jumping in the middle and that I am not debating Covenant placement but the right to have the Covenant sign (Hence I think this makes the first part of your argument something worthy of another debate) and then the last part of your arguement contradicts what Rholdan said... as I will attempt to show (with respect) below...

[quote:4a00ec743c] T-states:
[quote:4a00ec743c]It is hard to know what verses you are using, is this just your impression if it is, how I am I to argue against your impression but with my own impression that circumcision was given to males and the emphasis was on the male. I guess we could just trade impressions all day but let us get back to the serious arguments. [/quote:4a00ec743c]

well, I didn't think I would have to show that the Bible has a special emphasis on ALL the children of believer not just males...but since asked:

[lists a lot of verses]
[/quote:4a00ec743c]

I think you may have very forgivably jumped debates for none of these verses prove that children had a "special emphasis" that they must be given the Covenant sign. Indeed, surely you admit that the Covenant of Grace started before Abraham and that infants were included in the Covenant of Grace but did not get the sign, hence, infants have no innate right to the Covenant sign. It is God that gives people the right to have the Covenant and nobody has any "special emphasis" to it.

[quote:4a00ec743c] Writting on the reason for male circumcision (very simplisticly I must add), Tert said:
[quote:4a00ec743c]
The reason was because God is Lord of the Covenant and He determines who in his Covenant gets the sign, disciples, males, none, etc [/quote:4a00ec743c]

Bahnsen succinctly states:
[quote:4a00ec743c]
The ancient external rite was literally applied to the male genital organ as an indication that everyone comes into this world at birth as sinfully unclean and unacceptable in God's sight. There can be no "natural" hope for man's salvation. He must rely solely on the supernatural, gracious work of God in his behalf. [/quote:4a00ec743c] [/quote:4a00ec743c]

God of course does nothing arbitrarily as Bahnsen's quote shows, but that does nothing to prove that God had to give the sign to infants, in fact, Bahnsen seems to be reasoning that infants do not deserve the grace that the sign reveals but that God in mercy allowed them to receive it and the sign so that we would understand that nobody has any "special emphasis" that qualifies them to get the sign of the Covenant or the grace of the Covenant. God can give the Covenant sign to whom He wills... just as he can make a Covenant with whom He wills.


[quote:4a00ec743c] Then T asks for a verse which says that infant female are now included. I guess he missed my point. My argument, which is VALID, is that women are included since there is "now no male more female", since infants are female they have to be included. logically. An infant doesn't stop being a female because she is an infant! [/quote:4a00ec743c]

What position does your argument advance? Does it advance the position that infants have "special emphasis" and hence an immutable right to the Covenant sign? No, because females were included in the Old Covenant but still did not receive the Covenant sign, hence, they have no immutable right. Does it advance the position that now every women and man can be baptized? No, for surely we cannot baptize every person we meet. Then what position does it advance? It advances the position that at one time "male infants" had the "special emphasis" or immutable right to the Covenant sign but now both female and male infants have this "special emphasis."

[b:4a00ec743c] but note [/b:4a00ec743c]

note what happens to that "special emphasis" if God can both subtract or add it to a particular group of people, it is no longer a right that a person innately owns, but it is a "special emphasis" bestowed or taken away by God depending on the Covenant, but if God can give or take this "special emphasis" away each Covenant then the burden of proof now falls upon the Presbyterian to show that God has indeed continued that "special emphasis" and the Presbyterian can no longer say that it just has, because they have already admitted that God could have taken it away, so now the burden of proof belongs to both Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist to prove that the Covenant sign has been commanded to be administered to infants, and this argument must come from the New Covenant books, and clearly, if that is conceded by the Presbyterian his debate is lost.

Now the "special emphasis" seems to be God administers to whom He wills regardless of the innate qualities of the group, and so since the administrations of the Covenant has changed could have given this "special emphasis" to another group like Disciples (I would argue he did, but the point is that the Presbyterian's a concinving arguement).

[quote:4a00ec743c] Furthermore, and actually devastating to your thesis about the emphasis on male inclusion is that circumcision was only ONE covenantal sacrement...women WERE included in the passover meal! This fact alone destroys you argument. (I say that objectively brother, don't mean to sound rude). [/quote:4a00ec743c]

I do not see how it is even relevant to the present discussion let alone a destructive to my position, all this proves to me is that God can dedicate who gets his sacrament, in one sacrament we could chose only males in another he could chose both males in females... you see this is what you would expect if my view was true... but on your view that "infants" have "special emphasis" and must begiven the Covenant sign why do not you administer the infants to the Lord's Supper and why were not all infants given the Covenant sign in the Old, you see this argument creates a big problem for you than it does for me.

[quote:4a00ec743c][quote:4a00ec743c]
the only way to escape all these absurdities is to suppose that God's right to define who gets the sign of the Covenant continues into the New and God has decided that only disciples should get the sign of the Covenant. [/quote:4a00ec743c]

I'm afraid the "absurdities" are only self-imposed. Furthermore, God has commanded that the covenant sign be given to the children because women are now not distinguished from men. In covenant theology we recognize additions rather than subtractions, i.e., the covenants are additive not subtractive. [/quote:4a00ec743c]

So should we continue to have priests and alters in our worship services after all they were in the Old Covenant and the Covenant is additive not subtractive... of course not, in reality there is no such principle as the Covenant is only additive and never subtractive... an adoption of such principles would contradict the book of Hebrews when it subtracts the sacrifices. And since the rest of your argument rests upon a premise that is faulty your argument from that premise holds no water.


[quote:4a00ec743c] Since we had the male infant ingredeant..and now have the ADDED command that women and men are not distinguished...we have the sum of male and female. God TOLD us that there is no male nor female...and I must stress again, I don't need a verse saying infant since female infants are still women! [/quote:4a00ec743c]

Well so much for the "infant emphasis" Rhodan talked about, because if God had to amend it so that it covered all infants it was not the "infant" that the Old Covenant emphasized but the male-ness, hence it is artificial to assume an "infant emphasis" instead we should emphasis a "male emphasis" and then apply your female principle and say that now both male and female may receive the sacrament, but since infants have no "special emphasis" anymore than any other group composed of male and female, we are back to the same dilemma Rhodan's argument tried to get us out of, we are no stuck trying to show why household infant can be baptized on the household argument, but not household servants on the household argument. Clearly, if Paul's, your arguments are successful this dilemma has not been answered by Rhodan.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

Love you both in Christ
:saint:

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by Tertullian]
Click to expand...
 
Tertullian, There is one obvious point that I must say that you are ENTIRELY and EMPHATICALLY wrong! And I am 120% that you are wrong on.


My name is Roldan not Rhodan:lol:
 
Christ is the fullfilment of the Old testament sacrifices. So their is no need for anymore sacrifices. No subtraction here, Christ's Sacrifice = the old.

Correct me if im wrong.
 
[quote:031f41342d][i:031f41342d]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:031f41342d]
Tertullian, There is one obvious point that I must say that you are ENTIRELY and EMPHATICALLY wrong! And I am 120% that you are wrong on.


My name is Roldan not Rhodan:lol: [/quote:031f41342d]

Please forgive my bad spelling, I think we have gone back in forth in this issue and have come to opposite conclusions, we will just have to let the readers decide.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:7ddfdc796b][i:7ddfdc796b]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:7ddfdc796b]
Tertullian,

Sorry for jumping in and posting irrelevant material. But I guess we disagree, I think those passages do show that children have a special place in the covenant, and I think that your argument that the emphasis was on males is true ine ONE SENSE. But my counter that women were allowed to receive ONE of the sacrements kidof lessens your arguments force. Anyway, as you said maybe we can pick it up on another thread..I'll let you continue with Ro brother

-Paul [/quote:7ddfdc796b]

Thanks, Paul for your willingness to talk these issues out with me... I pray that the Lord continue to edify me through your words...
 
[quote:f7652e68e0][i:f7652e68e0]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:f7652e68e0]
Christ is the fullfilment of the Old testament sacrifices. So their is no need for anymore sacrifices. No subtraction here, Christ's Sacrifice = the old.

Correct me if im wrong. [/quote:f7652e68e0]

What do you mean by "subtraction?" Surely God's people practice them at one time but now we no longer practice them, hence that is what I meant by "subtracted" for they have been subtracted from our worship serverses. Also Roldan even said that the practice of household servants receiving the Covenant sign automaticially and without personal profession of faith has been subtracted in the New.... I think it is safe to say that there are subtracted.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
Whats up tertiliono.

You said:
"So should we continue to have priests and alters in our worship services after all they were in the Old Covenant and the Covenant is additive not subtractive... of course not, in reality there is no such principle as the Covenant is only additive and never subtractive... an adoption of such principles would contradict the book of Hebrews when it subtracts the sacrifices. And since the rest of your argument rests upon a premise that is faulty your argument from that premise holds no water."

"What do you mean by "subtraction?" Surely God's people practice them at one time but now we no longer practice them, hence that is what I meant by "subtracted" for they have been subtracted from our worship serverses."


ME:
Maybe i didnt make myself clear.
Christ REPLACED the old testament sacrafices. I thought you knew that.
:puzzled:
 
[quote:3d1ed124d4][i:3d1ed124d4]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:3d1ed124d4]
[quote:3d1ed124d4][i:3d1ed124d4]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:3d1ed124d4]
Tertullian, There is one obvious point that I must say that you are ENTIRELY and EMPHATICALLY wrong! And I am 120% that you are wrong on.


My name is Roldan not Rhodan:lol: [/quote:3d1ed124d4]

Please forgive my bad spelling, I think we have gone back in forth in this issue and have come to opposite conclusions, we will just have to let the readers decide.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:3d1ed124d4]

No problem, I was just kidding and to your second assesment I Agree

You are a passionate man of God and will always want you as an ally, if I spelled that right.

See you on Sat. 7pm. at Holy Trinity?
 
[quote:b903548eeb][i:b903548eeb]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:b903548eeb]
[quote:b903548eeb][i:b903548eeb]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:b903548eeb]
Whats up tertiliono.

You said:
"So should we continue to have priests and alters in our worship services after all they were in the Old Covenant and the Covenant is additive not subtractive... of course not, in reality there is no such principle as the Covenant is only additive and never subtractive... an adoption of such principles would contradict the book of Hebrews when it subtracts the sacrifices. And since the rest of your argument rests upon a premise that is faulty your argument from that premise holds no water."

"What do you mean by "subtraction?" Surely God's people practice them at one time but now we no longer practice them, hence that is what I meant by "subtracted" for they have been subtracted from our worship serverses."


ME:
Maybe i didnt make myself clear.
Christ REPLACED the old testament sacrafices. I thought you knew that.
:puzzled: [/quote:b903548eeb]

Alright I agree I can with that, (I think I said that but whatever the case may be that is what I meant). So in the end we both disagree with the principle that the Covenant administration is only additive and not subtractive, for example we both agree, that the coming of Christ "abrogated" (Westminster Confession) the ceremonial part of the law. Therefore, there are both subtractions and additions in the administration of the One Covenant of Grace.

Hence, the premise of "nothing is abraged (subtracted) but only added" in the Covenant, is faulty and so no complelling arguement can be deduced that utulizes this principle

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:b903548eeb]

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?
4 5 6
Replies
178
Views
13K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
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