Read my thread about this very subject and do some self-examination. You haven't been insulted Don, you've been challenged and your feelings are hurt. You need to learn the difference.
Bad Arguments for Credo Baptism
- Thread starter terry72
- Start date
- Status
Read my thread about this very subject and do some self-examination. You haven't been insulted Don, you've been challenged and your feelings are hurt. You need to learn the difference.
I don't recall our Lord saying of the children of the world, "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Such an affirmation creates a world of difference between them.
Upon further examination, I repent of saying I would only interact with those who have a backbone on the issue. I should have chosen more careful and less incidiary language. Please forgive me.
That said, I don't find your treatment of the Scriptures credible here and I think you need to be more willing to engage the consequences of what you're saying. It makes absolutely no sense for Christ to use those outside the Kingdom as a model for the type of faith that a person needs to receive Christ with. Nowhere is the pagan ever, ever, ever used as an example for saving faith. To brush this aside with a "...well pagan kids do it all the time..." is simply not credible in light of Romans 8.
gwine
Puritan Board Sophomore
How about Rahab?
Comments from JFB:
Notice she says Jehovah your God, not Jehovah our God (although you and I both know that Jehovah is everyone's God.) Reading Joshua 2 gives me the impression that she was a pagan.
I'm defining a pagan as a person "according to the flesh". Rahab clearly expresses confidence in Yahweh and is even commended in Hebrews for her faith. Rahab, Ruth, and a number of others are not pagans any more than you are in that you were brought near after being afar off.
Terry,
I would like to comment on this portion from the post #3 you linked in your OP.
I am not sure why you say this would be a logical mistake, or why premise 1 is necessarily a example of circular reasoning. The Baptist is trying to make a statement about the nature of baptism. The very nature of baptism is that it requires a believer, just as the very nature of baptism is that it requires water. You might disagree that the premise can be proven from the bible, but I fail to see how this is an example of circular reasoning, or how this falls into the logical pitfall you addressed in your other posts.
I would like to comment on this portion from the post #3 you linked in your OP.
I am not sure why you say this would be a logical mistake, or why premise 1 is necessarily a example of circular reasoning. The Baptist is trying to make a statement about the nature of baptism. The very nature of baptism is that it requires a believer, just as the very nature of baptism is that it requires water. You might disagree that the premise can be proven from the bible, but I fail to see how this is an example of circular reasoning, or how this falls into the logical pitfall you addressed in your other posts.
"The steward spoken of is not even a child?"
How can I even respond to that? I guess my point is entirely irrelevant, because here is what I did find:
*I quoted Jesus making a model for Christians out of wicked God-haters who cannot please God
AHA! But I couldn't find:
* Christ making a model for Christians out of wicked God-haters who cannot please God.....who are also really young!
Last edited:
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
Rich, so you are saying that "the sons of light" are Pharisees? Seriously? That means we must change the meaning of every passage containing "sons of light".
Since I'm not an expositor here is something I did find:
"Most unbelievers are wiser in the ways of the world then believers("sons of light," Jn. 12:36; Eph 5:18) are toward the things of God." -Dr. John MacArthur
terry72
Puritan Board Freshman
Mark, thanks for the reply. I'm not necessarily saying that the syllogism itself is circular, but rather the argument is used in a "circular" way, or rather that it "begs the question". The statement in premise one is what is in dispute, therefore it is assumed without proof, therefore the conclusion "Infants cannot be baptized" does follow from the premises yes, but it follows from premise 1 which is assumed, so the argument is used in a circular fashion. It certainly begs the question. Now one can try to prove premise 1 through other arguments like the one discussed in part 1&2, but I think it is obvious that those kind of arguments are glaring fallacies.
All I would be willing to grant is if premise one is true, "Believers only", then and only then does the conclusion, "infants cannot be baptized", would certainly follow, but premise one is not proven, only asserted and therefore the argument, as to it's use, fails, because it begs the question. And, of course, I am of the opinion that it cannot be proven from scripture, hence my first 2 articles on the subject.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry
Last edited:
elnwood
Puritan Board Junior
Jesus is not saying "use pagan children as a model" in Matthew 18, he's saying to use children as a model of humility. You don't have to be a child of the covenant to show humility.
I've just about said all I have to say on this issue, and others have supported the discussion well, but I just wanted to say that I accept your apology and hope to have fruitful discussions in the future. Peace out.
B.J.
Puritan Board Freshman
What I find interesting about this Baptist argument, which is the one I hear most often, is it forces the Baptist to exclude infants from the New Covenant. In which case, if they died in infancy, they would be in hell.
Of course, most Baptist dont believe that. I fact I don't know one that does. My closest Baptist friends believe God elects all infants. While others, like me when I was Baptist, believe you can't really know whether or not the are saved. However, neither option is open for Baptist who maintain the above syllogism for their case. I must confess, it was exhuasting being a Baptist.
Jeremy & Andrew:
Luke 16:
"Children of the light" here refers to those in the Covenant but the specific comparison is the unfaithfulness of the steward (read Pharisee) and how at least this pagan was shrewder than the Pharisees.
Now that I'm through dealing with that, let me point out that it matters not in the least. If you weren't so hasty to prooftext you'd realize you hadn't found a single verse that dealt with what I stated:
Not.
At best, the pagan is shown to be shrewder than those who are completely squandering what's been given them who are so blind that they can't see that they're going to have to give account. I would never argue that there are even pagans that far excel the civic righteousness of a believer but one needs to actually read and understand what the challenge is here or they embarass themselves.
Luke 16:
"Children of the light" here refers to those in the Covenant but the specific comparison is the unfaithfulness of the steward (read Pharisee) and how at least this pagan was shrewder than the Pharisees.
Now that I'm through dealing with that, let me point out that it matters not in the least. If you weren't so hasty to prooftext you'd realize you hadn't found a single verse that dealt with what I stated:
To which Jeremy stated that the shrewd man is an example of saving faith?
Not.
At best, the pagan is shown to be shrewder than those who are completely squandering what's been given them who are so blind that they can't see that they're going to have to give account. I would never argue that there are even pagans that far excel the civic righteousness of a believer but one needs to actually read and understand what the challenge is here or they embarass themselves.
Well, even if you won't respond then maybe somebody else can cover up this bare assertion with Scripture. The idea that a person can be outside of Christ and show the humility and faith that is the qualitative type of faith required for salvation needs more than just a statement unsupported by Scripture. A parable simply does not cut it. It begs the question in this case.
If, after reading my posts, you genuinely believe that is what I am saying, then there is no further point in dialog on this one. I have been abundantly clear, and yet you continually misconstrue it.
My entire post hinged on the fact that he was NOT a believer. If he was a believer, my argument would be worthless. So no, I never said any such thing.
The formulation strikes me as odd and defective:
Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
No doubt some Baptists use it, but I sure wouldn't. I think both premises are wrong. Alternatively, baptism can be said to be for those who express belief, but not necessarily for all believers (thief on the cross, for instance). And infants can believe (and be saved), yet are unable to express it.
Perhaps it is better stated:
1. Examples of Baptism in Acts indicate that the early practice of baptism was upon a clear expression of belief, either for an individual or for a household. (People proclaimed belief [even Simon], or the Holy Spirit descended upon the ones to be baptized indicating they believed [Acts 10:44-48], or we are simply told that they believed [Crispus and his household, Acts 18:8]).
2. In our day, we don't have the Holy Spirit telling us who believes, so we cautiously rely upon proclamation.
3. Infants, although they may in some way believe, do not generally proclaim that belief.
4. Therefore, following what seems to be a cautious application of the early church practice, we don't baptize infants.
I acknowledge hedging. For instance, I don't think I've demonstrated that the practices found in Acts are normative. I'm assuming that. Nevertheless, this seems to be where an honest defense of Credobaptism lies.
Premise 1. Baptism is for believers only.
Premise 2. Infants are not believers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
No doubt some Baptists use it, but I sure wouldn't. I think both premises are wrong. Alternatively, baptism can be said to be for those who express belief, but not necessarily for all believers (thief on the cross, for instance). And infants can believe (and be saved), yet are unable to express it.
Perhaps it is better stated:
1. Examples of Baptism in Acts indicate that the early practice of baptism was upon a clear expression of belief, either for an individual or for a household. (People proclaimed belief [even Simon], or the Holy Spirit descended upon the ones to be baptized indicating they believed [Acts 10:44-48], or we are simply told that they believed [Crispus and his household, Acts 18:8]).
2. In our day, we don't have the Holy Spirit telling us who believes, so we cautiously rely upon proclamation.
3. Infants, although they may in some way believe, do not generally proclaim that belief.
4. Therefore, following what seems to be a cautious application of the early church practice, we don't baptize infants.
I acknowledge hedging. For instance, I don't think I've demonstrated that the practices found in Acts are normative. I'm assuming that. Nevertheless, this seems to be where an honest defense of Credobaptism lies.
Exactly so. You only underline the fact that your example did not answer my challenge. There are no pagans used as exemplars of faith. Your example was irrelevant to the discussion.
In case you forgot what you claimed:
In other words, you were supposedly demonstrating to me that you had an example of precisely what I was claiming did not exist.
You did not have an example and thank you for admitting that you failed to provide one.
terry72
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello, victor, how are you brother? I find your reply interesting, because while claiming that you would never use the same argument, you then proceed to do exactly that.
You said:
Your first premise looks like this:
1. The bible gives example of only believers being baptized.
Then you said:
Your second premise looks like this:
2. Infants don't meet the qualification of a believer as defined in premise 1.
Therefore you said:
You conclusion from the first two premises looks like this:
Conclusion 3. Therefore Infants should not be baptized.
This is exactly the same "form" of argument, victor, and it fails for the same reasons. You are "begging the question" in your first premise. This is what is in dispute, i.e. believers only baptism.
But, besides that your conclusion cannot follow anyway, because what is positively true of "proclaiming believers" cannot be concluded negatively about Infants based on the fact that they do not "proclaim". You conclusion is false, because you are committing a logical fallacy.
You are still drawing negative conclusion when the category of premise 1 and the category of premise 2 are different, therefore your conclusion does not necessarily follow no more than in the following argument.
Premise 1. Squirrels have tails.
Premise 2. Dogs are not squirrels.
Conclusion 3. Therefore dogs don't have tails.
This is the categorical fallacy you are commiting along with your "begging the question".
Sorry, brother, but you must go back to square one and try again, because your "honest defense of Credobaptism" fails for the same reasons.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry
Last edited:
Thanks for your cheerful reply, but I think you misstated my point. I don't say that infants are disqualified from the category of believers, but of "expressers."
We baptize "expressers", and I, at least, acknowledge that infants could be believers, just that we can't tell at that point without the Holy Spirit telling us.
I'm off for a long commute, but I'll be glad to discuss later.
Vic
terry72
Puritan Board Freshman
Enjoy your commute, vic, I'll go ahead a reply and maybe you can read it when you get back.
You have not helped your case. I understood your qualification "proclaimer/expresser", but for argument sake I'll grant you this. It still does not save your argument, it still commits the same fallacies of "begging the question" and the same categorical fallacy as well. it would look like this:
Premise 1. Those who proclaim their belief are to be baptized.
Premise 2. Infants cannot proclaim their belief.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot or should not be baptized.
This is still the same argument as:
Premise 1. Believers are to be baptized.
Premise 2. Infants cannot believe.
Conclusion 3. Infants cannot be baptized.
All you did was replace believer with expresser/proclamer....but the form is the same, and commits the same categorical fallacy. And if you state it this way:
Premise 1. Proclaimers only are to be baptized.
Premise 2. Infants are not proclaimers.
Conclusion 3. Therefore infants cannot be baptized.
This way it begs the question.
Sorry, vic, try again brother.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry
P.S. I say the following not just pick on vic, but this illustrates my point of hard hard it is to reconize bad arguments and it is even harder to stop using them. This is what I realized as a credo and therefore when I saw how bad my arguments were, I had no choice but to abandon my credo position.
Thanks, vic, for your interaction with me on this, I mean no disrespect to you. It;s just an honest disagreement.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Terry,
I think Vic was taking an honest stab at it. The point is the missing of the category mistake concerning the subjects.
There is yet another way to see the fallacy of this argument:
Premise 1: Believers are to be baptized
Premise 2: Infants are not believers
Ergo: Infants are not to be baptized
In order to be a valid argument form the subject of the Pr1 must be found in the predicate of Pr2. This provides the necessary link or bridging between the two premises to draw the conclusion between the subject of the second premise and predicate of the first premise. Otherwise it’s simply none sense.
E.g.:
Premise 1: All men (S1) are mortal (P1)
Premise 2: I (S2) am a man (P2)
Ergo: I (S2) am mortal (P1) – linked by the common S1 and P1. S1 is universal and P2 is a subset of S1.
Looking at the baptistic argument:
Premise 1: [Believers] (S1) [are to be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are not believers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are not to be baptized] (P3)
Here we easily can see that S1 and P2 are not the same and P2 is not a subset of S1.
Or:
Premise 1: All men (S1) are mortal (P1)
Premise 2: I (S2) am NOT a man (P2)
Ergo: I (S2) am NOT mortal (P1) – doesn’t follow.
That is to say a “all man” is not a “not man”. In fact a “not man” is the logical antithesis of a “man”, as in “being” and “not being” or “true” Vs. “false” follow similarly. It’s the most fundamental rule of logic. Thus, a “believer” and a “not believer” are not the same thing and as such they cannot draw the conclusion of S2 and P1 together.
To show it more ridiculous to make it HIGHLY obvious:
Premise 1: [Believers] (S1) [are to be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are FISH] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are not to be baptized] (P3)
Though I what I’m about to go through does not prove the point because baptism is not “real” because the receiver has faith, but is objective visible Gospel and true and real because it has God’s name annexed to it, but perhaps it is the Baptist position. The issue of the receiver having or not really having faith is for all intensive irrelevant to the reality of baptism. Because we MUST see that the issue is not just a simple manner of logic, but an issue at the heart of the Gospel, where the devil ALWAYS means to attack. Only faith shows this.
What if we state it in more negatives:
Premise 1: [Unbelievers] (S1) [are to not be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are unbelievers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are to not be baptized] (P3)
You could put “unprofessors” in as well for “unbelievers”.
This shows at the HEART of credo doctrine on this it is not of faith but of sight, a theology of glory not of Cross.
Here the logic at least flows. But you have to accept a number of basics being applied to the premise:
1. It still doesn’t answer the question about baptism being real due to the name of God and Gospel annexed into the water rather than the one having faith. It does the most damage here.
2. It assumes, assumes mind you, infants cannot be believers.
3. It assumes a differing covenant arrangement here and now. In other words it seeks subvert faith which is by its very nature eschatological and in the tension of suffering until by attempting to bring down “heaven” here and now, the regenerate church. Fundamentally it is EXACTLY the same mistake the Judiazers made, Rome made in “Christendom” and all forms of attempting to MAKE and FORCE the kingdom to be HERE right now in fullness. At the end of the day it damages faith, not helps it.
Thus, the real flaw is not the logic here (in this example), but it usurps the true reality of the Gospel in the water, for it is visible Gospel. We see this if we look at it this way:
Premise 1: [Unbelievers] (S1) [are to not receive the Gospel] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are unbelievers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are to not receive the Gospel] (P3)
Because in reality for infants of believers to NOT receive baptism is the same thing as saying they cannot receive the Gospel, but must muster up some “conversion experience” (theology of glory) to then later receive the merit of baptism.
At the end of the day the logic, that is human reason can only take the rebuttals so far. Only saving faith can reveal the real devilry at hand, subversion of Christ in the Sacraments. And that’s exactly what ends up happening. Because when we see Christ exampling infants as the kingdom of God, and the promise is to you and your infants, and true worship has been created by God through infants and etc…all sorts of sophisticated “stamping out” of the light of these Gospels must be made. Suddenly the promise is to the adjective modified “spiritual” children and so forth. You have to DO that to sustain the “doctrine”, else you are in trouble.
On the other hand when infants receive the Gospel in the water, we say to ourselves, “So that is what God is like…that is what receiving by faith REALLY means…His mercy is simply overwhelming.”
At the point of the sacrament of baptism, it is at the end of the day, two different religions – I emphasize at the point of the sacrament of baptism this is so, not necessarily at the point of the naked Word preached.
Blessings,
Ldh
I think Vic was taking an honest stab at it. The point is the missing of the category mistake concerning the subjects.
There is yet another way to see the fallacy of this argument:
Premise 1: Believers are to be baptized
Premise 2: Infants are not believers
Ergo: Infants are not to be baptized
In order to be a valid argument form the subject of the Pr1 must be found in the predicate of Pr2. This provides the necessary link or bridging between the two premises to draw the conclusion between the subject of the second premise and predicate of the first premise. Otherwise it’s simply none sense.
E.g.:
Premise 1: All men (S1) are mortal (P1)
Premise 2: I (S2) am a man (P2)
Ergo: I (S2) am mortal (P1) – linked by the common S1 and P1. S1 is universal and P2 is a subset of S1.
Looking at the baptistic argument:
Premise 1: [Believers] (S1) [are to be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are not believers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are not to be baptized] (P3)
Here we easily can see that S1 and P2 are not the same and P2 is not a subset of S1.
Or:
Premise 1: All men (S1) are mortal (P1)
Premise 2: I (S2) am NOT a man (P2)
Ergo: I (S2) am NOT mortal (P1) – doesn’t follow.
That is to say a “all man” is not a “not man”. In fact a “not man” is the logical antithesis of a “man”, as in “being” and “not being” or “true” Vs. “false” follow similarly. It’s the most fundamental rule of logic. Thus, a “believer” and a “not believer” are not the same thing and as such they cannot draw the conclusion of S2 and P1 together.
To show it more ridiculous to make it HIGHLY obvious:
Premise 1: [Believers] (S1) [are to be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are FISH] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are not to be baptized] (P3)
Though I what I’m about to go through does not prove the point because baptism is not “real” because the receiver has faith, but is objective visible Gospel and true and real because it has God’s name annexed to it, but perhaps it is the Baptist position. The issue of the receiver having or not really having faith is for all intensive irrelevant to the reality of baptism. Because we MUST see that the issue is not just a simple manner of logic, but an issue at the heart of the Gospel, where the devil ALWAYS means to attack. Only faith shows this.
What if we state it in more negatives:
Premise 1: [Unbelievers] (S1) [are to not be baptized] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are unbelievers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are to not be baptized] (P3)
You could put “unprofessors” in as well for “unbelievers”.
This shows at the HEART of credo doctrine on this it is not of faith but of sight, a theology of glory not of Cross.
Here the logic at least flows. But you have to accept a number of basics being applied to the premise:
1. It still doesn’t answer the question about baptism being real due to the name of God and Gospel annexed into the water rather than the one having faith. It does the most damage here.
2. It assumes, assumes mind you, infants cannot be believers.
3. It assumes a differing covenant arrangement here and now. In other words it seeks subvert faith which is by its very nature eschatological and in the tension of suffering until by attempting to bring down “heaven” here and now, the regenerate church. Fundamentally it is EXACTLY the same mistake the Judiazers made, Rome made in “Christendom” and all forms of attempting to MAKE and FORCE the kingdom to be HERE right now in fullness. At the end of the day it damages faith, not helps it.
Thus, the real flaw is not the logic here (in this example), but it usurps the true reality of the Gospel in the water, for it is visible Gospel. We see this if we look at it this way:
Premise 1: [Unbelievers] (S1) [are to not receive the Gospel] (P1)
Premise 2: [Infants] (S2) [are unbelievers] (P2)
Ergo: [Infants] (S2) [are to not receive the Gospel] (P3)
Because in reality for infants of believers to NOT receive baptism is the same thing as saying they cannot receive the Gospel, but must muster up some “conversion experience” (theology of glory) to then later receive the merit of baptism.
At the end of the day the logic, that is human reason can only take the rebuttals so far. Only saving faith can reveal the real devilry at hand, subversion of Christ in the Sacraments. And that’s exactly what ends up happening. Because when we see Christ exampling infants as the kingdom of God, and the promise is to you and your infants, and true worship has been created by God through infants and etc…all sorts of sophisticated “stamping out” of the light of these Gospels must be made. Suddenly the promise is to the adjective modified “spiritual” children and so forth. You have to DO that to sustain the “doctrine”, else you are in trouble.
On the other hand when infants receive the Gospel in the water, we say to ourselves, “So that is what God is like…that is what receiving by faith REALLY means…His mercy is simply overwhelming.”
At the point of the sacrament of baptism, it is at the end of the day, two different religions – I emphasize at the point of the sacrament of baptism this is so, not necessarily at the point of the naked Word preached.
Blessings,
Ldh
(After I wrote what is below, I saw Larry's post. I thought it was pretty good too, but I think I have dealt with the infants are unbelievers issue. I probably won't have time to do anything more for a while.)
Terry, first off, I want to acknowledge that I agree with Paul Manata's statement of another fallacy:
If that is all we have to go on, I agree it is fallacious.
Ugh. Seattle corridor on a Friday evening. At least I had a good and pleasant dinner with my wife. Even broke open some of my homemade 2006 vintage wine that I just bottled two days ago. Life is pleasant.
If that's all I did, then I would concede. But I think that is not all I did. The Edwards argument relied upon the assumption that infants can be saved, therefore either Premise 2 is wrong (infants can in fact believe) or the implicit "only" believers of Premise 1 is wrong. Edwards and you attack Premise 1 and grant Premise 2 (at least for the sake of argument). I attack Premise 2 and grant that it is possible that infants can believe. So the refutation of my formula is not valid on those grounds.
I agree with what is stated here in the first link as well:
There is indeed a category error here, because the initial premise does not exclude baptism for infants who fail to meet the requirements for adults. Fair enough.
The second link you provided is similar, and the syllogism is almost identical:
1.Believers are to be baptized.
2. Infants cannot believe.
3. Therefore Infants are not to be baptized.
I have no problem with the discussion, as far as it goes.
But I want to make sure you understand what I'm thinking so I'll treat the Mark passage:
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
First, I'll state (but not use for discussion) that, contextually, it looks like this passage may be applicable to all persons who can demonstrate a response (I know, it says "creature", and I think there is something important there, but I leave that aside). If that is the case, the same argument used by you above applies: it is only talking about the category of adults and says nothing about infants. If it is not directed toward infants or others who cannot demonstrate belief (one way or another), then we cannot say that the last clause "he that believeth not shall be damned", applies to infants either.
Setting that aside, I see 16:16 setting out at least three true statements:
1. If you believe and are baptized, you shall be saved.
2. If you do not believe, you will be damned, even if you are baptized.
3. No information is given about if you believe but are not baptized. It is left for elsewhere for this question to be answered. (And I think we agree it has been answered that unbaptized believers can be saved).
So I think Mark 16:16 says nothing on the question whether baptism should be restricted (or not) to certain people. At best, it implies that if you are a believer, baptism normally accompanies that condition.
I suppose, I'm still trying to figure out why. If we take Premise 1 as given, I hope we can agree that the syllogism itself is valid. If not, I'm going have to really try to figure out what you are saying.
But I think (as set out in link 3 of your OP) you are saying that Premise 1, by including "only", is making an unwarranted assumption. Am I right?:
But I'm not smuggling the premise "believers only" from the conclusion. Rather I'm gleaning from evidence an inference. I admit that the inference may well be faulty, but I get it from outside the syllogism: that is, from the expressed practices in Acts. And I acknowledged that it was a cautious premise at that.
It's sort of like the regulative principle. Under that, we don't do more than what God prescribes. I grant that there are legitimate issues about the scope of this principle, but the principle is accepted, even if question-begging. (Sort of like accepting the existence of God because the Bible, being the Word of God, tells us so).
Similarly:
We should obey God's commands as stated in the Bible.
The Bible commands us to baptize (all nations, even, after teaching them—OK, maybe that "after" is begging the question too).
Therefore we should baptize.
Circular? Of course. Invalid? No, I don't think so.
So, where are we? In some cases, begging the question is unavoidable. I admit Scripture doesn't say "you shall only baptize believers". But from that silence can we indiscriminately swing to the other end of the spectrum and baptize everyone, whether they believe or not? What about infants of nonbelievers? It seems a stretch to me—even though my mother told me that I was baptized as an infant and acknowledges that neither she nor my father ever proclaimed a belief in Christ.
I'll grant that Simon, in Acts 8:13, was baptized. Peter, later, seems to think he wasn't a believer. But even here, the event seems to establish a pattern of baptism based upon proclaimed belief..
Elsewhere we assume to get guidance from practices in Scripture, especially in Acts. Certainly the observance of the Lord's Day on the first day of the week is drawn primarily from such practices set out.
Blessings to you as well. I appreciate the discussion. I'll keep on keeping these things in my heart.
Vic
Terry, first off, I want to acknowledge that I agree with Paul Manata's statement of another fallacy:
If that is all we have to go on, I agree it is fallacious.
Ugh. Seattle corridor on a Friday evening. At least I had a good and pleasant dinner with my wife. Even broke open some of my homemade 2006 vintage wine that I just bottled two days ago. Life is pleasant.
If that's all I did, then I would concede. But I think that is not all I did. The Edwards argument relied upon the assumption that infants can be saved, therefore either Premise 2 is wrong (infants can in fact believe) or the implicit "only" believers of Premise 1 is wrong. Edwards and you attack Premise 1 and grant Premise 2 (at least for the sake of argument). I attack Premise 2 and grant that it is possible that infants can believe. So the refutation of my formula is not valid on those grounds.
I agree with what is stated here in the first link as well:
There is indeed a category error here, because the initial premise does not exclude baptism for infants who fail to meet the requirements for adults. Fair enough.
The second link you provided is similar, and the syllogism is almost identical:
1.Believers are to be baptized.
2. Infants cannot believe.
3. Therefore Infants are not to be baptized.
I have no problem with the discussion, as far as it goes.
But I want to make sure you understand what I'm thinking so I'll treat the Mark passage:
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
First, I'll state (but not use for discussion) that, contextually, it looks like this passage may be applicable to all persons who can demonstrate a response (I know, it says "creature", and I think there is something important there, but I leave that aside). If that is the case, the same argument used by you above applies: it is only talking about the category of adults and says nothing about infants. If it is not directed toward infants or others who cannot demonstrate belief (one way or another), then we cannot say that the last clause "he that believeth not shall be damned", applies to infants either.
Setting that aside, I see 16:16 setting out at least three true statements:
1. If you believe and are baptized, you shall be saved.
2. If you do not believe, you will be damned, even if you are baptized.
3. No information is given about if you believe but are not baptized. It is left for elsewhere for this question to be answered. (And I think we agree it has been answered that unbaptized believers can be saved).
So I think Mark 16:16 says nothing on the question whether baptism should be restricted (or not) to certain people. At best, it implies that if you are a believer, baptism normally accompanies that condition.
I suppose, I'm still trying to figure out why. If we take Premise 1 as given, I hope we can agree that the syllogism itself is valid. If not, I'm going have to really try to figure out what you are saying.
But I think (as set out in link 3 of your OP) you are saying that Premise 1, by including "only", is making an unwarranted assumption. Am I right?:
But I'm not smuggling the premise "believers only" from the conclusion. Rather I'm gleaning from evidence an inference. I admit that the inference may well be faulty, but I get it from outside the syllogism: that is, from the expressed practices in Acts. And I acknowledged that it was a cautious premise at that.
It's sort of like the regulative principle. Under that, we don't do more than what God prescribes. I grant that there are legitimate issues about the scope of this principle, but the principle is accepted, even if question-begging. (Sort of like accepting the existence of God because the Bible, being the Word of God, tells us so).
Similarly:
We should obey God's commands as stated in the Bible.
The Bible commands us to baptize (all nations, even, after teaching them—OK, maybe that "after" is begging the question too).
Therefore we should baptize.
Circular? Of course. Invalid? No, I don't think so.
So, where are we? In some cases, begging the question is unavoidable. I admit Scripture doesn't say "you shall only baptize believers". But from that silence can we indiscriminately swing to the other end of the spectrum and baptize everyone, whether they believe or not? What about infants of nonbelievers? It seems a stretch to me—even though my mother told me that I was baptized as an infant and acknowledges that neither she nor my father ever proclaimed a belief in Christ.
I'll grant that Simon, in Acts 8:13, was baptized. Peter, later, seems to think he wasn't a believer. But even here, the event seems to establish a pattern of baptism based upon proclaimed belief..
Elsewhere we assume to get guidance from practices in Scripture, especially in Acts. Certainly the observance of the Lord's Day on the first day of the week is drawn primarily from such practices set out.
Blessings to you as well. I appreciate the discussion. I'll keep on keeping these things in my heart.
Vic
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Sticky
