Baptist position on baptism

[MRC]

Watching the following video last night:

Video - ReformedForum.org

The argument from the Baptist was that family was re-defined in the new covenant as spiritual, so believers recieve the sign of the spirital birth (baptism) like the "typal" covenant members did in the old covenant (circumcision). He argued for 2 elections in old covenant and 1 in the new, appealing to 1 Peter 1 addressed to the elect, then in v. 20 specified as those that were born from imperishable seed (i.e. believers). I have not heard this argument before, is it popular?

 

[timmopussycat]

I don't know if it is popular or not but there are at least two Scriptures that may be held to point in that direction. It is those who have faith who are given "the right to become children of God who were born not of flesh . . . but of God." (John 1:12,13)
and it is "those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham" in Gal. 3:7.

 

[Marrow Man]

Is there an historical precedent for this argument, or is it a recent development? That is, is there an exegetical tradition that supports this view?

 

[MRC]

is there an exegetical tradition that supports this view?

That's what I am trying to ask. Would those folks on the PB that subscribe to both covenant theology and credobaptism make the argument that the gentleman in the video did? Is this a historic, baptist, reformed marriage of covenant theology and credobaptism?

 

[Marrow Man]

It's a good question to ask. We all need to beware of innovations, if that is what this truly is.

 

[MRC]

The best arugment by the Presbyterians in the video, in my mind, is that this approach has a) an over-realized eschatology and b) deminishes the continuity between old and new covenants.

 

[LawrenceU]

Try as I might I can't get anything to play beyond the advert for British butter.

 

[MRC]

Try as I might I can't get anything to play beyond the advert for British butter.

I just hit play again after the commercial and it worked. The audio for the video is:
http://reformedforum.org/ctc100/

 

[Steve Curtis]

Try as I might I can't get anything to play beyond the advert for British butter.

That would have been much preferred to the advertisement I saw when I clicked the link - it ended with two men kissing. Not quite what one would expect when navigating to a "reformed forum."

 

[MRC]

Try as I might I can't get anything to play beyond the advert for British butter.

That would have been much preferred to the advertisement I saw when I clicked the link - it ended with two men kissing. Not quite what one would expect when navigating to a "reformed forum."

Ya, I kind of had the same thought. I am not sure how advertising work on the web - is it possible they sold the space to an ad company that put an inappropiate ad on the site?

 

[py3ak]

In the Baptist Church you don't have a position on baptism - baptism has a position on you.

 

[Porter]

The argument from the Baptist was that family was re-defined in the new covenant as spiritual, so believers recieve the sign of the spirital birth (baptism) like the "typal" covenant members did in the old covenant (circumcision). He argued for 2 elections in old covenant and 1 in the new, appealing to 1 Peter 1 addressed to the elect, then in v. 20 specified as those that were born from imperishable seed (i.e. believers). I have not heard this argument before, is it popular?

Regarding this 2nd portion of your post...

There are "two elections" in the Old Covenant - one as it pertains to "national Israel" (Deuteronomy 7:6-8; Romans 9:1-5 [Jacob and Esau]), and one as it pertains to "the regenerate [the "soteriologically elect"] within that body of people" (Romans 9:6-13, [only Jacob]). There were those who were claimants to covenant inclusion by virtue of the circumcision of the flesh in the OT, and there were those who, by virtue of Christ's perfect work and their being chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, were the recipients of circumcision made without hands, made upon the heart by the Spirit. Those who can claim covenant inclusion in the NT, are only those who share the same reality - though post-calvary now - as the latter in the previous sentence. Covenant inclusion in the New Testament is not by outward sign (though baptism is emblematic of that inclusion), but by the infallible work of the Spirit upon the heart, in that circumcision made without hands, a reality made possible by the perfect particular redemption of Jesus Christ. In the New Covenant, anyone outside of the elect (in that "soteriological sense", since there is no longer a national Israel, they being cut-off [Matthew 21:41-43, etc.]) is a false claimant to covenant inclusion - if in fact they, or their parents, are claiming such a reality.

appealing to 1 Peter 1 addressed to the elect, then in v. 20 specified as those that were born from imperishable seed (i.e. believers). I have not heard this argument before, is it popular?

With regards to this portion though, the elect of 1 Peter 1:1-2 are the same as the "born again" of v.23. I would have to hear what he said to see why he was stating a differentiation. But in 1 Peter 1:1-2, Peter addresses a Christian (most likely a Jewish Christian audience) audience and identifies them by their common perfect salvation by a Triune God (elected, in the salvific sense, by the Father; sanctified by the Spirit, and saved by the blood of Christ). Then, in the context of an exhortation unto holiness, in the midst of trial and persecution, he further describes these same people by saying they were born again by incorruptible seed through the eternal word of God (a parallel statement to James' declaration: "of His own will he brought us forth by the word of truth"). So, while there are "two elections", in a sense - that of national Israel, and that of the church (and by that I mean this, the LBCF1689 definition) - there is no difference between the 1 Peter people addressed in the greeting, and those described in v.23.

 

[MRC]

The argument from the Baptist was that family was re-defined in the new covenant as spiritual, so believers recieve the sign of the spirital birth (baptism) like the "typal" covenant members did in the old covenant (circumcision). He argued for 2 elections in old covenant and 1 in the new, appealing to 1 Peter 1 addressed to the elect, then in v. 20 specified as those that were born from imperishable seed (i.e. believers). I have not heard this argument before, is it popular?

Regarding this 2nd portion of your post...

There are "two elections" in the Old Covenant - one as it pertains to "national Israel" (Deuteronomy 7:6-8; Romans 9:1-5 [Jacob and Esau]), and one as it pertains to "the regenerate [the "soteriologically elect"] within that body of people" (Romans 9:6-13, [only Jacob]). There were those who were claimants to covenant inclusion by virtue of the circumcision of the flesh in the OT, and there were those who, by virtue of Christ's perfect work and their being chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, were the recipients of circumcision made without hands, made upon the heart by the Spirit. Those who can claim covenant inclusion in the NT, are only those who share the same reality - though post-calvary now - as the latter in the previous sentence. Covenant inclusion in the New Testament is not by outward sign (though baptism is emblematic of that inclusion), but by the infallible work of the Spirit upon the heart, in that circumcision made without hands, a reality made possible by the perfect particular redemption of Jesus Christ. In the New Covenant, anyone outside of the elect (in that "soteriological sense", since there is no longer a national Israel, they being cut-off [Matthew 21:41-43, etc.]) is a false claimant to covenant inclusion - if in fact they, or their parents, are claiming such a reality.

appealing to 1 Peter 1 addressed to the elect, then in v. 20 specified as those that were born from imperishable seed (i.e. believers). I have not heard this argument before, is it popular?

With regards to this portion though, the elect of 1 Peter 1:1-2 are the same as the "born again" of v.23. I would have to hear what he said to see why he was stating a differentiation. But in 1 Peter 1:1-2, Peter addresses a Christian (most likely a Jewish Christian audience) audience and identifies them by their common perfect salvation by a Triune God (elected, in the salvific sense, by the Father; sanctified by the Spirit, and saved by the blood of Christ). Then, in the context of an exhortation unto holiness, in the midst of trial and persecution, he further describes these same people by saying they were born again by incorruptible seed through the eternal word of God (a parallel statement to James' declaration: "of His own will he brought us forth by the word of truth"). So, while there are "two elections", in a sense - that of national Israel, and that of the church (and by that I mean this, the LBCF1689 definition) - there is no difference between the 1 Peter people addressed in the greeting, and those described in v.23.

This is basically the argument that the baptist in the video gave. It was the presbyterians that argued for a differentiation on target audience for 1 Peter 1:1-2 and 1 Peter 1:23 (correction noted - sorry for the confusion), as they appealed to reasonable charity when addressing the church as it is a mix of wheat and tares.

Personally, I find this argument troubling as I clearly see two elections continuing on into the NT (just as in the OT). I also do not feel the baptist handed the objections very well regarding issues like Paul calling children of believers holy and the author of Hebrews discussing those that taste of the covenant but then fall away (Heb 6). It would be great if one of you baptist guys would engage with the video and give us your thoughts. If this is the "mainline" Reformed Baptist position I would sure like to know, as it is certainly more covenantal that much of the credo aruments I have heard to this point.

 

[Marrow Man]

Isn't "mainline" Reformed Baptist an oxymoron (i.e., the Reformed Baptist Church is not a mainline denomination)? Or are you referring to Reformed folks who are in the Southern Baptist/American Baptist/et al churches?

 

[Peairtach]

As a paedobaptist, I don't think God has given up on the natural family in the New Covenant, especially since the New Covenant is an outworking or administrative phase of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Mosaic/Old Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant unfolds beautifully and organically in the New Covenant, according to the paedo view. In the credo view we have this sudden disjunction from organic and familial to atomistic within the Abrahamic Covenant.

Also it would involve a radical re-interpretation of the promises of Scripture respecting the family and would involve God acting in a radically different way in His dealings with families.

 

[Marrow Man]

I would say that it seems pretty obvious that the family structure continues to hold in the book of Acts (the promise at the end of Acts 2; the household baptisms) even if you do not think infants were involved or those passages relate to paedobaptism.

 

[MRC]

Isn't "mainline" Reformed Baptist an oxymoron (i.e., the Reformed Baptist Church is not a mainline denomination)? Or are you referring to Reformed folks who are in the Southern Baptist/American Baptist/et al churches?

By "mainline" Reformed Baptist I am referring to what Reformed Baptists themselves would see as what is "middle of the road", "generally everyone agrees with some outliers out there" Reformed Baptist theology. I would see this as the majority subset within the Reformed Baptist camp.

While we are on the subject: What is the basic argument for credobaptism from Reformed Baptists?

 

[LawrenceU]

If I could watch the video I would be glad to engage it. For some reason all I get is, well, nothing. I'm not sure why.

 

[Porter]

While we are on the subject: What is the basic argument for credobaptism from Reformed Baptists?

I'll elaborate on this later, but, for now - a major difference between our approach, and say, that of a dispensational baptist approach, would be the affirmation of covenant theology and the enjoined position that credobaptism is more consistent with that theology, and the design of the New Covenant. In other words, we go to the Old Testament to argue for credobaptism, in addition to exegeting the NT texts that speak to the doctrine/ordinance of baptism - its mode, subjects, etc. Dispensational baptists would not argue from the OT, for obvious reasons. Later!

 

[MRC]

If I could watch the video I would be glad to engage it. For some reason all I get is, well, nothing. I'm not sure why.

Could you get the audio to work? You can download the mp3 to your hard-drive and play it from there. It is probably about a 2hr podcast, the video is about 45mins long, which is the last portion of the podcast. The video starts with the question of can Baptists be Reformed and the question: Do Baptists have an over-realized eschatology?

---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:52 PM ----------

While we are on the subject: What is the basic argument for credobaptism from Reformed Baptists?

I'll elaborate on this later, but, for now - a major difference between our approach, and say, that of a dispensational baptist approach, would be the affirmation of covenant theology and the enjoined position that credobaptism is more consistent with that theology, and the design of the New Covenant. In other words, we go to the Old Testament to argue for credobaptism, in addition to exegeting the NT texts that speak to the doctrine/ordinance of baptism - its mode, subjects, etc. Dispensational baptists would not argue from the OT, for obvious reasons. Later!

Thanks, Cameron. When you get the time, please elaborate.

 

[Porter]

It was the presbyterians that argued for a differentiation on target audience for 1 Peter 1:1-2 and 1 Peter 1:23 (correction noted - sorry for the confusion), as they appealed to reasonable charity when addressing the church as it is a mix of wheat and tares.

I think such an approach to interpreting 1 Peter 1:1-2 sullies the saving glory of the Triune God, if it is posited that some, who are tares, are being identified in those verses along with the wheat. While false professors may certainly have been intermingled among the recipient saints, that does not demand that they are included in the identification of being elect, sanctified, and sprinkled by the blood of Christ (which blood was shed to save the elect perfectly; it was not shed for false claimants to covenant inclusion). The subsequent verses, vs 3-5, then go on to render doxology to God for perfect and inviolable salvation, Paul using the first-person plural to continue his address to the same people as vs 1-2. And, again, 1 Peter 1:23 is a soteriological reality applying to these as well. Compare the same language that Paul uses in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, and then in Ephesians 1:3-14 (not to mention the general flavor of epistolary introduction which always sees a greeting rendered with language such as "saints in Christ Jesus"). An interpretation of these passages (1 Peter 1:1-2, 2 Thess 2:13, and Ephesians 1:3-14) that does not affirm an address to Christians - identified as those saved to the uttermost by a Triune God - is one that is made by looking through paedo-tinted glasses, by allowing a previous commitment to tradition to be the filter by which the text is read.

as I clearly see two elections continuing on into the NT

Texts? (not trying to be argumentative, in a negative sense, just wondering where you gain this clarity from).

I also do not feel the baptist handed the objections very well regarding issues like Paul calling children of believers holy and the author of Hebrews discussing those that taste of the covenant but then fall away (Heb 6).

He may not have, but I think these issues have been handled well elsewhere, by Reformed Baptist authors, etc. In the 1 Corinthians 7 passage, the context is devoid of the language of baptism, and similarly devoid of any discussion concerning covenant inclusion (with the exception of the reference to a believing wife or husband). The context is concerning marriage and divorce, and the language touching upon "holiness" and/or "sanctification" has the contextually demanded semantic range that excludes the options of soteriological holiness (which not many affirm), or some measure of covenantal consecration (as in the paedo world).

The Hebrews 6 interpretation is unfortunate. Considering that the book argues for the perfect, final work of Christ - as the Surety and Mediator of a better Covenant, against the articles of Old Covenant religion and the sin of returning to that dead and dying system, it rubs against the thrust of the book to argue that the breadth of coverage of the New Covenant blood of limited atonement includes some who would fall away. In the Reformed Baptist approach to the testimony of Hebrews (that those "falling away" would be similar to those "going out from us" [1 John 2:19] - false claimants to new covenant inclusion; false professors) there is no danger of an internal inconsistency between the affirmation of limited atonement and the approach to baptism. Tasting the covenant does not mean that, by necessity, they were "in it" in any way, but rather that they prove by their apostasy to have not been saved in the first place ("saved" being synonymous with "New Covenant membership").

I would say that it seems pretty obvious that the family structure continues to hold in the book of Acts (the promise at the end of Acts 2; the household baptisms) even if you do not think infants were involved or those passages relate to paedobaptism.

The promise of Acts 2 does not pertain to families, as commonly understood by those "shanghaiing" this text (hat-tip to Jerusalem Blade ) for a defense of the paedo view - in fact there is no mention of a family unit at all. The promise of salvation is for Jew (the immediate recipients of Peter's preaching, as well as generations of their progeny that would follow chronologically and be the subsequent recipients of gospel proclamation) and Gentile - "as many as the Lord our God will call", those who are, in God's appointed and accepted time, called from out of darkness and into His marvelous light. The textual qualifier is key - the promise is for all who are effectually called (a divine act that inevitably is accompanied by the other subsequent constituent parts of the Triune God's glorious ordo) from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. It is interesting that this paedo argument is made within the immediate and enjoined context where a logical progression of faith preceding the administration of the ordinance of baptism is made clear: "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41).

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

Thanks, Cameron. When you get the time, please elaborate.

Will do brother! God bless...

 

[eqdj]

I'm quoting from three different people without referencing who they are.
Sorry for that. You know who you are.

"The argument from the Baptist was that family was re-defined in the new covenant as spiritual, so believers recieve the sign of the spirital birth (baptism) like the "typal" covenant members did in the old covenant (circumcision)."

This is stated in the Appendix to the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith signed in 1677 (the appendix is a response to the proof texts at the end of WCF 28:4)

we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else, neither do they or we suppose that baptism is in any such manner substituted in the place of circumcision, as to have the same (and no other) latitude, extent, or terms, then circumcision had; for that was suited only for the Male children, baptism is an ordinance suited for every beleiver

And in the Orthodox Catechism (a Particular Baptist version of the Heidelberg) published no later than 1680

Q. 73. Seeing the Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of Grace with their Parents, as some say, why may not they be baptized under the Gospel, as well as Abrahams Infant Seed was circumcised under the Law?
4. We must know the Covenant made with Abraham had two parts: first, a spiritual, which consisted in God's promising to be a God to (e) Abraham, and (f) all his Spiritual-Seed in a peculiar manner, whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised, which believed as Abraham the Father of the Faithful did. And this was signified in God's accepting such as his People which were not of (g) Abrahams Seed, but brought with his Money, and this Promise was sealed to Abraham by Circumcision, that through Jesus Christ (whom Isaac typified out) the Gentiles, the Uncircumcision which believed, should have their Faith counted for Righteousness, as Abrahams was before he was circumcised.
(e) Gen. 17.19, 21. Gen. 21.10. Gal. 4.30.
(f) Acts 2.39. Rom. 9.7, 8, &c.
(g) Gal. 3.16, 28, 29.
(h) Rom. 4.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

5. This Promise consisted of temporal good: so God promised Abraham's Seed should enjoy the (i) Land of Canaan, and have plenty of outward blessings, so sealed this Promise by Circumcision. It was also a distinguishing character of the Jews being God's People from all the Nations of the Gentiles, which as yet were not the Seed of Abraham: but when the Gentiles came to believe, and by Faith became the People of God as well as the Jews, then (k) Circumcision, that distinguishing Mark, ceased; and the character of being the Children of God now is Faith in Christ, and Circumcision of the Heart. So that whatever pretence there may be for the Infants of Believers to be Baptized first, as their being the Seed of Believers; or 2ndly, their being in the Covenant; or 3rdly, that the Infant-Seed of Abraham a Believer, was circumcised; all this you see avails nothing: for Circumcision was limited to such a Family, the Family of Abraham, all others, though Believers, were excluded; also limited to such a day, the eighth day, and what ever pretence might be made, it was not to be done before nor after; limited also to such a Sex, the Male, not the Female, which if Baptism came in the room of Circumcision, and is the Seal of the Covenant under the Gospel, as Circumcision was under the Law, none but the Males must be Baptized, because none but the Males were Circumcised; but as under the Law respecting Circumcision, so now under the Gospel respecting Baptism, it depends purely upon the will of the Law-giver, at what season, upon what Persons and terms Baptism is to be administered; unto which Prophet we shall all do well to hearken, Act. 3.22.
(i) Gen. 15.18. Gen. 17.8, 9, 10, 11. Gen. 12.6, 7. Gen. 13.15, 16, 17. Gen. 15.16.
(k) John 1.12. Rom. 2.28, 29. Phil. 3.3. Gal. 3.26, 27, 28.

"this approach has a) an over-realized eschatology"

I would say an Inaugurated Eschatology

"and b) deminishes the continuity between old and new covenants."

Statement: Types, by nature, are imperfect. The Antitype, by nature, is perfect.
Proposition: Covenantal Paedobaptists impose imperfect Types on the perfect Antitype. Covenantal Credobaptists see the perfect Antitype though imperfect Types

"As a paedobaptist, I don't think God has given up on the natural family in the New Covenant…In the credo view we have this sudden disjunction from organic and familial to atomistic within the Abrahamic Covenant."

Non Sequitur Strawman

"Also it would involve a radical re-interpretation of the promises of Scripture respecting the family and would involve God acting in a radically different way in His dealings with families."

B. Luke 12:52-53

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

While we are on the subject: What is the basic argument for credobaptism from Reformed Baptists?

400 page books have been written on this subject. This is an uber-brief response.

The arguments haven't changed since the beginning of the two groups and neither side will change.

The difference between the Covenant Theology (CT) of Paedobaptists (PB) and Credobaptists (CB) is the difference between Abraham and Adam.

The PB believes the New Covenant INAUGURATED NOT CONSUMMATED by Christ is the fulfillment of promises made to Abraham, and thus will apply the covenant sign to their children as Abraham did. For the PB, Israel in Canaan is the prototype for the consummated kingdom.

The CB believes the New Covenant INAUGURATED NOT CONSUMMATED by Christ is the fulfillment of promises made in Eden. For the CB, Adam and Eve in Eden is the prototype for the consummated kingdom.

CB's agree with the PB the the New Covenant was given because of promises made by the prophets. CB's also agree with the PB that those prophetic promises were given because of the covenant made with David. CB's also agree with PB that the covenant made with David was given because of the covenant made with Abraham. Here, PB's stop and CB's continue to say the covenant made to Abraham was given because of the covenants made with Noah, and before him, with Adam and Eve in Eden (Gen 3:15).

The difference in CT between PB and CB is the difference between Israel in Canaan and Adam and Eve in Eden. Which one prefigures the Consummated Kingdom?

 

[MRC]

400 page books have been written on this subject. This is an uber-brief response.

The arguments haven't changed since the beginning of the two groups and neither side will change.

The difference between the Covenant Theology (CT) of Paedobaptists (PB) and Credobaptists (CB) is the difference between Abraham and Adam.

The PB believes the New Covenant INAUGURATED NOT CONSUMMATED by Christ is the fulfillment of promises made to Abraham, and thus will apply the covenant sign to their children as Abraham did. For the PB, Israel in Canaan is the prototype for the consummated kingdom.

The CB believes the New Covenant INAUGURATED NOT CONSUMMATED by Christ is the fulfillment of promises made in Eden. For the CB, Adam and Eve in Eden is the prototype for the consummated kingdom.

CB's agree with the PB the the New Covenant was given because of promises made by the prophets. CB's also agree with the PB that those prophetic promises were given because of the covenant made with David. CB's also agree with PB that the covenant made with David was given because of the covenant made with Abraham. Here, PB's stop and CB's continue to say the covenant made to Abraham was given because of the covenants made with Noah, and before him, with Adam and Eve in Eden (Gen 3:15).

The difference in CT between PB and CB is the difference between Israel in Canaan and Adam and Eve in Eden. Which one prefigures the Consummated Kingdom?

How does this setup the credobaptist to require a profession of faith pre-baptism?

 

[eqdj]

How does this setup the credobaptist to require a profession of faith pre-baptism?

2nd LBCF Chap. 29.
2. Those who do actually professe (Mar. 16.16. Act. 8.36,37.) repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience, to our Lord Jesus, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

Baptist Catechism
Q. To whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess repentance towards God (Acts 2:38; Mt. 3:6), faith in and obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ, and to none other (Acts 8:12, 36, 37, 38; 10:47, 48).

OC Q 103. Who are the proper Subjects of this Ordinance?

A. They who have been baptized upon a personal Profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and Repentance from dead Works*.
*Act. 2.41, 42.

Was the application of the sign and seal to infants under the old dispensation founded in an abiding principle of the covenant of grace, or was it found in a typical aspect of that new dispensation? If the former is the case we may expect some parallel in the new dispensation, but, if the later, then there can be no prior assumption that the practice will be carried over to the new dispensation. (Stuart Fowler: Christian Baptism - A Reformed Reply to a Reformed Paedobaptist, Baptist Reformed Publications, Macleod West, Victoria, Australia, 1968, p.12).

Wait, I think i get what you're asking (ignore everything above this).
Are Eden as created by God and the consummated kingdom a combination of regenerate and unregenerate people? Or are they regenerate-only?
Baptism is an outward sign of what should already be an inward reality.
Since we live between inauguration and consummation we will have false professors and wolves among the sheep.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

I don't mind questions about what i believe and why.
But I can't give you any new insights.
Covenantal Baptists have had the same arguments for the last four centuries.
Today i just got in the mail Gary Crampton's "From Paedo to Credo" so far i haven't read anything new.
I want to encourage you all (both paedos and credos) to read what's already been written. Here's a list
Covenant Theology & Baptism | Covenantal Baptist
I recommend

• The Covenant Theology of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith and Appendix;
• The Baptist Catechism;
• The Orthodox Catechism;
• Henry Danvers "A Treatise on Baptism";
• Nehemiah Coxe "Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ"
• Spurgeon's Appendix to Thomas Watson's "Body of Divinity" (a statement on covenants and baptism)
• David Kingdon "Children of Abraham" (out of print)
• TE Watson's "Should Babies Be Baptized?"
• Paul Jewett "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" (this seems to be the standard work)
• I have not read Fred Malone's work but everyone recommends it
• Greg Welty "A Critical Evaluation of Infant Baptism"
• Greg Welty "From Circumcision to Baptism"
• and finally the new book by Jeffrey Johnson, "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism"

A lot of these are free and available online.
Most are quick reads.

 

[Marrow Man]

I would say that it seems pretty obvious that the family structure continues to hold in the book of Acts (the promise at the end of Acts 2; the household baptisms) even if you do not think infants were involved or those passages relate to paedobaptism.

The promise of Acts 2 does not pertain to families, as commonly understood by those "shanghaiing" this text (hat-tip to Jerusalem Blade ) for a defense of the paedo view - in fact there is no mention of a family unit at all. The promise of salvation is for Jew (the immediate recipients of Peter's preaching, as well as generations of their progeny that would follow chronologically and be the subsequent recipients of gospel proclamation) and Gentile - "as many as the Lord our God will call", those who are, in God's appointed and accepted time, called from out of darkness and into His marvelous light. The textual qualifier is key - the promise is for all who are effectually called (a divine act that inevitably is accompanied by the other subsequent constituent parts of the Triune God's glorious ordo) from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. It is interesting that this paedo argument is made within the immediate and enjoined context where a logical progression of faith preceding the administration of the ordinance of baptism is made clear: "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41).

No "shanghaiing" of a text going on here. I simply mentioned Acts 2 along with Acts 16 as pertaining to "family units" because the promise was for them and their children, according to the text. The point was that children were mentioned, as were family/household units mentioned elsewhere in Acts, even if one does not hold to paedobaptism. Families are involved in the NT. That is all.

Of course, I do not disagree with you about the universal nature of the gospel going to all the nations, to Jew and Gentile alike, as that is integral to the theme of the book of Acts, as expressed by the Lord Himself in Acts 1:8. It is also an underlying meaning of the prophesy of Joel ("I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh"). But to say that Peter was thinking in a Jew/Gentile dichotomy in Acts 2 is not exegetically correct, In my humble opinion. Peter certainly did not see things in that particular way at that time, according to the unfolding of events in Acts that his eyes are gradually opened -- after the vision of the animals, after the proclamation of the gospel to Cornelius (and his household!) and after his reporting back to those in Jerusalem that the Spirit had fallen on the Gentiles just as it had at Pentecost. But I digress.

 

[Porter]

It is one thing to say "families are involved in the NT", using Acts 2, and another to argue from this text for the covenantal inclusion of the children of believers. I would again state that Acts 2:39 is not concerned with "family units" but the children of the Jews who stood before him (who previously imprecated upon their children the guilt of the blood of Christ, Matthew 27:25), the descendants of those who betrayed and murdered the Just One. Their maledictory oath, if I can employ that language, will not be fully effectual, according to Peter, for there will be Jews within the generations that follow his first-century audience that will be infallibly called by the Word and Spirit.

There is no family mentioned in Acts 16, only household. There is no need to say that any family members were baptized because of Lydia's belief - that is an interpretation projected onto the text from the vantage point of paedo tradition. Besides, in Acts 16:40 they are referred to as "brethren". No doubt, given the testimony of Acts elsewhere, the pattern for these referred to as brethren was - "those who gladly received the word were baptized".

I like the way you argued for the non-gentile reference in Acts 2:39 - that is good. However, I believe the argument for Jew/Gentile still stands. Peter was present when the Lord spoke of gentile inclusion (John 10:16), and he was present when Jesus gave the command at the beginning of Acts "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in Judea and Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8), and he was, of course, present when Christ gave the commission in Matthew 28:18-20 to disciple the nations. In addition, though, yes, it may have rubbed against his "jewishness", he would have known the scriptures (OT) and how they pointed to gentile inclusion. Also, before Paul contended with him over not eating with gentiles he knew justification by faith alone - he just needed a measure of chastisement. The Acts 10 surprise was not that gentiles were included in the covenant, but that he, a jew, was being commanded to eat what was "unclean". Yes the vision has immediate meaning concerning gentile inclusion, but he already knew that. He may have been a stranger yet regarding the calling of the gentiles (he had not really seen it yet), but he still knew that they were included in the promises.

 

[Marrow Man]

Cameron, I am not trying to "prove" infant baptism, I am only answering the question posed in the OP concerning whether the concept of family was redefined in the NT. I was simply drawing upon some examples where families and family units are mentioned. My point was that this needs to be considered, regardless of one's position on whether children of believers are proper subjects for baptism. My comments, as such really have nothing to do with making a case for infant baptism.

Acts 16 mentions both the households of Lydia and the Philippian jailer. It would seem unrealistic that families are not being mentioned in both contexts. In fact, that is the natural meaning of oikos, which would have ordinarily consisted of those related by family or marriage, and including slaves and servants, all living under the same roof. It carries with it the implications of family (as in Mark 6:4); or, if you prefer it is certainly mentioned in conjunction with the baptism of a family in 1 Corinthians 1:16.

I will certainly not dispute the Jew/Gentile aspects of the proclamation of the gospel in Acts 2 by Peter, only that Peter had not fully considered the implications. Certainly, Peter was present when the Lord declared where the gospel would go (I actually referenced Acts 1:8 in my post above). But the disciples at this point seemed to be a little thick-headed in their understanding of some things, as witnessed by their very Jewish-centered question in Acts 1:6 ("Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"). But the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon them, and we must not discount the progressive nature of sanctification and understanding of these things. We modern Christians sometimes make that mistake as well, expecting others (or ourselves) to be experts on everything and not realizing that we often come to greater understandings of His word and His purposes and we live out of our lives in the world. That, of course, helps keep us humble and gives Him even greater glory.