Credobaptism = Arminianism?

[Theological Books]

If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not)...

You do believe that is necessary for the unchurched, just not for children born into a home where the parents are NC members. You and I believe the same thing, but you add (or I take away) the inclusion of children of members of the NC.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Theological Books

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Joseph, while I of course agree with your position, I must say I think you're misunderstanding what Myers is saying. From his perspective, the difference between the two scenarios is not age, but the presence of a profession of faith. Notice that he said,

Originally posted by Theological Books
The sprinkling of that five year old, premised upon his response to the preached Word, would be valid but irregular.

If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not), then it would not be inconsistent for him to reject the five-month-old's, but accept the five-year-old's, since even though it was later discovered that the the five-year-old was unregenerate at the time, it would still have been validly administered in the Baptist view because it followed a profession of faith.

Ok . . . I think that helps . . . I think I am starting to understand (though without agreeing).


Let me see if I understand where you are coming from (regarding "validity", not "irregularity"):


1) You do not think a person must be regenerate for their baptism to be valid.

2) You do not think the minister/layman doing the baptizing has to be regenerate or have proper intentions for the baptism to be valid.

Thus, an unregenerate layman could baptize an unregenerate 5-year-old, and it would still be a "valid" baptism.

However:

3) You DO think that the person RECEIVING the baptism must make a profession of faith for the baptism to be valid.


Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?

If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.

Remember, baptism is a sign, and a sign signifies something. And our signs should match our doctrines.

I'm just saying that I think your doctrine (thankfully) contradicts your sign.




[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Theological Books]

Ok . . . I think that helps . . . I think I am starting to understand (though without agreeing).


Let me see if I understand where you are coming from (regarding "validity", not "irregularity"):


1) You do not think a person must be regenerate for their baptism to be valid.

2) You do not think the minister/layman doing the baptizing has to be regenerate or have proper intentions for the baptism to be valid.

Thus, an unregenerate layman could baptize an unregenerate 5-year-old, and it would still be a "valid" baptism.

As to (1), correct, I do not think a person must be regenerate in order for their baptism to be valid. As to (2), I do not think a baptism administered by anyone not an officer in the church is valid. So, if a 13 year old girl baptizes her friend (another 13 year old girl) in a lake (whether sprinkling or immersion) in the name of the Triune God, that is not a valid baptism, and I would not accept it as a minister. As the second part, correct, the baptizing officer does not have to be a true believer for it to be valid (i.e. Donatism). So, let us say that my grandfather (who baptized me, and who was an ordained minister in the SBC) was not a true believer either (A) when he performed the ceremonial law or (B) was and never will be a believer. That baptism is still valid.

However:

3) You DO think that the person RECEIVING the baptism must make a profession of faith for the baptism to be valid.


Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?

In regard to (3), yes. Baptism is made effectual by faith alone, not by man. Baptism, in and of itself, is not effectual. So, yes, in one sense, unless that personally and volitionally rests and trusts in Christ, that baptism will not be made effectual salvifically. And, without faith, baptism is effectual in the manner of a curse. So, you may want to use another word than "effectual," for I'm not sure you are asking me the right question, or the question that might best fit your objection. I believe God can (and does) use infant baptisms for his elect because of his graciousness and mercy, but that is in spite of their invalid baptism, not because of it. But because God can (and I believe does) use the invalid baptism, that does not excuse it. It is still and improper use of God's ceremonial law, in my opinion.

If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.

Then I think you are using "effectual" in the wrong manner. For instance, what I have stated is PERFECTLY in line with the paedobaptist doctrine of the baptism of professing converts. However, there is no causal connection between Arminianism and the paeodbaptist/credobaptist view of unchurhed conversion baptism. You are confusing "valid" with "effectual," most likely, which, again, misses the point. I believe you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, though you may be able to apply this to others, but I have found nothing that warrants your conclusion about me or anyone else on this thread.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Theological Books
I do not think a baptism administered by anyone not an officer in the church is valid. So, if a 13 year old girl baptizes her friend (another 13 year old girl) in a lake (whether sprinkling or immersion) in the name of the Triune God, that is not a valid baptism, and I would not accept it as a minister. As the second part, correct, the baptizing officer does not have to be a true believer for it to be valid (i.e. Donatism). So, let us say that my grandfather (who baptized me, and who was an ordained minister in the SBC) was not a true believer either (A) when he performed the ceremonial law or (B) was and never will be a believer. That baptism is still valid.

For starters, I'll respond to this statement of yours. FAR MORE than your requirement of a profession of faith, I think this statement of yours is problematic. You are saying that God cannot baptize someone, except through an ordained officer of the church. Thus, a person's baptism is rendered "invalid" because of *man*.

Earlier, you made a point to let me know your agreement with John Calvin regarding baptism (except for paedobaptism itself, obviously).

John Calvin agreed with you that a layman should not administer the sacraments. However, he *strongly* was opposed to the idea that an improper administrator of the sacraments could thereby render them "invalid". See a quote from Calvin, regarding the improper circumcision of the son of Moses:

"œCertainly the child was not duly circumcised; and still it is plain from the event, that the ceremony thus rashly performed pleased God; for it is immediately added, that "˜He let him go.´ For thus I interpret, that the scourge of God ceased or was removed, because he was pacified by the repentance both of Moses and of Zipporah, although it was improper in itself."

As a friend of mine pointed out, this is an important passage, because it shows that Calvin made a distinction between a proper administration of sacraments and the actual performance of them.

Calvin also said:

"œNow, suppose what we have determined is true - that a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from which it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no different who or of what sort the carrier is. In like manner, it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them."

Here is more of what John Calvin had to say about the administration of the sacraments:

1. "œLet it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes."


2. "œIt matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil."

[note: the devil is not an ordained minister of the Gospel!]


3. "œWe hold the ordinance of God to be too sacred to depend for its efficacy on man. Even if it were then to be that Judas or any other epicurean contemner of everything sacred is the administrator -- the spiritual nourishment of the body and blood of Christ [in the Sacrament] are conferred through his hand just as if her were an angel come down from heaven."


4. "œSo it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and it never contaminated by the vices of men"

Martin Luther also had something to say about lay-baptism. Although improper, it is still valid:

"œSuppose a group of earnest Christian laymen were taken prisoner and set down in a desert without an episcopally ordained priest among them. And suppose they were to come to a common mind there and then in the desert and elect one of their number"¦and charge him to baptize, say mass, pronounce absolution, and preach the gospel. Such a man would be as truly a priest as though he had been ordained by all the bishops and popes in the world. This is why in cases of necessity anyone can baptize and give absolution. This would be impossible if we were not all priests."

And for a voice from the early church, let's hear from Augustine:

"œThough it be usurped without necessity, and given by any man to another, that which is given cannot be said not to be given, though it may be truly said to be unlawfully given"¦No devout soldier ever violates the royal stamp, though it be usurped by a private men: for though some by stealth and in a clandestine way set the royal stamp, not to the public money, but their own; yet the money so stamped, when they are either punished or pardoned for their offense, having the royal standard upon it, it is not defaced, but through into the king´s treasury."

I am not saying that lay-baptisms are proper. But it is a huge mistake to say they are not valid baptisms at all. The early church and the reformers understood this important distinction very clearly.





[Edited on 7-7-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Theological Books]

I do not think a baptism administered by anyone not an officer in the church is valid. So, if a 13 year old girl baptizes her friend (another 13 year old girl) in a lake (whether sprinkling or immersion) in the name of the Triune God, that is not a valid baptism, and I would not accept it as a minister. As the second part, correct, the baptizing officer does not have to be a true believer for it to be valid (i.e. Donatism). So, let us say that my grandfather (who baptized me, and who was an ordained minister in the SBC) was not a true believer either (A) when he performed the ceremonial law or (B) was and never will be a believer. That baptism is still valid.

For starters, I'll respond to this statement of yours. FAR MORE than your requirement of a profession of faith, I think this statement of yours is problematic. You are saying that God cannot baptize someone, except through an ordained officer of the church. Thus, a person's baptism is rendered "invalid" because of *man*.

Earlier, you made a point to let me know your agreement with John Calvin regarding baptism (except for paedobaptism itself, obviously).

John Calvin agreed with you that a layman should not administer the sacraments. However, he *strongly* was opposed to the idea that an improper administrator of the sacraments could thereby render them "invalid".

Well, this is off topic about your accusations and assesments of what I believe. Regardless, see the 1846 ruling by the Presbyterians, which Hodge dissented (in a minority report), denied the validity of Rome's baptism, even though it was trinitarian. Historically, Rome's baptism was considered invalid because of whom and organization in which the person was baptizing. Do not confuse Calvin's historical reasons regarding baptism (i.e. coming out of Rome) with the 21st century of concerning what is valid or invalid.

For instance, Mormons may baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it is not valid. I would not accept a trinitarian baptism from a Mormon.

What you are *NOW* discussing is the objectivity of the covenant and adminstration of baptism. This has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or your use of Arminianism. In other words, while this is a worth-while discussion, it is a red herring.

See a quote from Calvin, regarding the improper circumcision of the son of Moses:

"œCertainly the child was not duly circumcised; and still it is plain from the event, that the ceremony thus rashly performed pleased God; for it is immediately added, that "˜He let him go.´ For thus I interpret, that the scourge of God ceased or was removed, because he was pacified by the repentance both of Moses and of Zipporah, although it was improper in itself."

As a friend of mine pointed out, this is an important passage, because it shows that Calvin made a distinction between a proper administration of sacraments and the actual performance of them.

Yes, but do we see God threatening to kill the 13 year old girl if she does not baptize her friend? This has no bearing on the situation, and it is off topic of your accusations and assesment of by baptist theology.

Calvin also said:

"œNow, suppose what we have determined is true - that a sacrament must not be judged by the hand of the one by whom it is ministered, but as if it were from the very hand of God, from which it doubtless has come. From this we may then infer that nothing is added to it or taken from it by the worth of him by whose hand it is administered. Among men, if a letter is sent, provided the handwriting and seal are sufficiently recognized, it makes no different who or of what sort the carrier is. In like manner, it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, whatever carrier may bring them."

Again, Calvin is not addressing the issue about which I was speaking. Calvin's historical situation is much different than our present day situation. He doesn't answer the questions addressed in our context.

Here is more of what John Calvin had to say about the administration of the sacraments:

1. "œLet it suffice then, to have been baptized in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit -- whatever may have been the ignorance or impiety of those who administered baptism to us. Man is merely the hand. It is Christ alone Who truly and properly baptizes."


2. "œIt matters not to me whether he who performs the baptism is a diabolical man -- or even the devil."

[note: the devil is not an ordained minister of the Gospel!]


3. "œWe hold the ordinance of God to be too sacred to depend for its efficacy on man. Even if it were then to be that Judas or any other epicurean contemner of everything sacred is the administrator -- the spiritual nourishment of the body and blood of Christ [in the Sacrament] are conferred through his hand just as if her were an angel come down from heaven."


4. "œSo it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and it never contaminated by the vices of men"

Again, this is not equitable. I, too, do not think it matters whether or not the person baptizing is a believer or not, which I have already answered.

I am not saying that lay-baptisms are proper. But it is a huge mistake to say they are not valid baptisms at all. The early church and the reformers understood this important distinction very clearly.

And I would say you are ignorning the historical setting of the reformed men coming OUT OF ROME.

Regardless of ANY of this, your accusation of the Baptist being Arminian is clearly without any justification.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Theological Books

If the Baptist claim that a profession of faith is required for baptism is correct (which I agree it is not)...

You do believe that is necessary for the unchurched, just not for children born into a home where the parents are NC members. You and I believe the same thing, but you add (or I take away) the inclusion of children of members of the NC.

Exactly.

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?

If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.

I see this as basically a straw-man against the Baptist position. Remember that the Supper is also a sacrament that signifies our monergistic salvation in Christ, yet none of us here believe in administering it without a profession of faith - hence, if credobaptism's requirement of an action on the part of man renders what it is signifying as Arminianistic in any way, then we had better all become paedocommunionists to avoid the same error with regard to what the Supper is signifying.

My underlying point is that the error of credobaptism is not rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace in any way, but rather in a misunderstanding of how God has chosen to apply those doctrines to His people throughout redemptive history (i.e. Covenant Theology). Thus, searching for a link to the former will not get to the real heart of the error in credobaptism, but will only turn its adherants further away from paedobaptism by creating straw-men of their views.

Regarding the ecclesiological requirements for a valid baptism, here is one past thread on that issue that may shed some light on the current discussion, and could possibly be resurrected.

 

[Theological Books]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Have I understood you correctly? --- Are you basically saying that the baptism is made effectual by man, and not by God?

If so, then I hold to what I said earlier about credobaptism implying Arminianism. Baptism is a sign and seal of faith and regeneration. And you are telling me that the recepient of baptism has the power to render his/her baptism either effectual or ineffectual, based on his/her profession. Thus, what does this imply? It implies that regeneration itself is conditioned upon the recepient. It implies that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is made effectual by man, and not by God.

I see this as basically a straw-man against the Baptist position. Remember that the Supper is also a sacrament that signifies our monergistic salvation in Christ, yet none of us here believe in administering it without a profession of faith - hence, if credobaptism's requirement of an action on the part of man renders what it is signifying as Arminianistic in any way, then we had better all become paedocommunionists to avoid the same error with regard to what the Supper is signifying.

My underlying point is that the error of credobaptism is not rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace in any way, but rather in a misunderstanding of how God has chosen to apply those doctrines to His people throughout redemptive history (i.e. Covenant Theology). Thus, searching for a link to the former will not get to the real heart of the error in credobaptism, but will only turn its adherants further away from paedobaptism by creating straw-men of their views.

Regarding the ecclesiological requirements for a valid baptism, here is one past thread on that issue that may shed some light on the current discussion, and could possibly be resurrected.

 

[Augusta]

Chris, I disagree that this line of thinking leads straight to paedocommunion. We actually have scriptural warrant that explicitly states the a person should examine themselves before that sacrament.

Not the same with baptism. They make the same mistake In my humble opinion as, arminians do, with a general call to believe and be baptized. Like arminians insist that this means we have the ability to because of what is implied. Baptists do the same but say in means we have to believe first. They base it all on implication. There is no explicit command to discontinue covenant heads from exercising their authority as that covenant head to bring their whole family with them into the covenant. In fact it is upheld in many places. It flies in the face of all that we understand about headship.

Why the statement about a man is head of his house as Christ is head of the church? (Eph 5:23) Why 1 Cor 11? Why is the woman subject to her husband and if her how much more their children. They are viewed as a unit throughout scripture. Even the Phillipian jailer was told before they even went to his house the he would be saved with his household if he believed.

This thread was titled very badly. I have not said that baptists are arminian, I have said that their arguments are based on the same mistake of scriptural interpretation. Not interpreting scripture with scripture. No looking at the NT in light of the OT. Pitting implicit scripture against explicit scripture. And it is appearing that they need some kind of human assent. This was not necessary in the OT. The women had no sign given them at all. Only future male "heads" were given it and that when they were babies and could give no assent. I don't believe even servants had to assent to anything they were just circumcised because they were of that household.

No one has engaged these arguments that I am aware of. I know I am not a student at a seminary or anything but I think I can read scripture with understanding thank the Lord. And if anything I have said is incorrect I hope someone would tell me.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Augusta]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Augusta
Chris, I disagree that this line of thinking leads straight to paedocommunion. We actually have scriptural warrant that explicitly states the a person should examine themselves before that sacrament.

I am seeing your point, but I still think it is an incorrect analysis of the Baptist view. Your above sentence is part of my point: We believe the Supper signifies a salvation that is monergistic in nature, yet because we see a specific command of examination before reception, we therefore require that action on the part of men before administering the sacrament, all the while affirming that it is signifying a monergistic salvation. Likewise, Baptists believe as much as any of us that baptism signifies a regeneration that is monergistic in nature, yet because, unlike us, they believe that there is also a specific command of a profession of faith before all baptisms, they therefore require that action on the part of all persons before administering the sacrament, all the while affirming that it is signifying a monergistic regeneration.

 

[Augusta]

What about the fact that their views rest solely on implied scriptural interpretation? Am I right on that? Its there a verse that I don't know about or overlooked? Not to mention that they ignore the headship of the man in a family unit. Chris do you yourself think that headship has any implication toward this argument? Am I wrong on that?

 

[pastorway]

the amount of assumptions and straw flying around in this thread have left me searching long and hard for the Credo position and not finding a bit of it anywhere........

Sadly, the credo position being argued against is not a position that I as a credo am familiar with.

For future reference, it helps to understand and be able to articulate the opponents position before you criticize it and call those who hold to it all sorts of derrogatory theological names.

Phillip



Phillip

 

[Theological Books]

Originally posted by Augusta
What about the fact that their views rest solely on implied scriptural interpretation? Am I right on that? Its there a verse that I don't know about or overlooked? Not to mention that they ignore the headship of the man in a family unit. Chris do you yourself think that headship has any implication toward this argument? Am I wrong on that?

I am certain I am reading this paragraph incorrectly, Augusta. Please, would you elaborate upon it and phrases like "implied scriptural interpretation"?

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by pastorway
the amount of assumptions and straw flying around in this thread have left me searching long and hard for the Credo position and not finding a bit of it anywhere........

Sadly, the credo position being argued against is not a position that I as a credo am familiar with.

For future reference, it helps to understand and be able to articulate the opponents position before you criticize it and call those who hold to it all sorts of derrogatory theological names.

Phillip



Phillip

Phillip, I stated above the following:

This thread was titled very badly. I have not said that baptists are arminian, I have said that their arguments are based on the same mistake of scriptural interpretation.

I did not title this thread, someone else did. There are no straw men here.

My main points are:

1. Believer's baptism is based on implied scriptures only and ignores other explicit passages that apply and this LIKE the mistake arminians make.
2. It completely overlooks covenant headship as described in Eph 5:23 and 1 Cor. 11.
3. They add human assent which is unprecedented to the sign of the covenant, which is LIKE when arminians add human assent to salvation.
4. Believer's baptism is inconsistent with OT believer's and their practice when we all know they are all saved in the same way we are.

I think these are valid arguments. And it would be nice if you gave your take on them as I would like to hear it. I never meant to call anyone names theological or otherwise. So please don't take your ball and go home.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Augusta
What about the fact that their views rest solely on implied scriptural interpretation? Am I right on that? Its there a verse that I don't know about or overlooked? Not to mention that they ignore the headship of the man in a family unit. Chris do you yourself think that headship has any implication toward this argument? Am I wrong on that?

I agree that their view's foundations involve implications, but ours certainly do as well, and which one is correct is a consequence of what the proper hermeneutic is, and how it is applied.* Along those lines, the reason they require a profession on the part of man before baptizing is because their hermeneutic and application of it lead them to believe that there is a command to do so, just as we all agree that there is such a command for the Supper. And in light of that, the regeneration they see signified in their baptism is just as mongeristic as is the salvation we all see signified in the Supper. I have yet to see any real evidence that a compromise of monergism is at the heart of the matter.

(*Note: I am not saying that Baptists cannot consistently follow the hermaneutic of Covenant Theology at all, as I believe they can to a certain extent. Even so, I think all the Baptists here would agree that there is certainly a difference in the hermeneutic we are using, in that the paedobaptists believe that the burden of proof is on the one who would discontinue the covenantal inclusion of children, while the credobaptists believe that the burden of proof is on the one who would take the continuity of the covenants and from there automatically assume that New Covenant children should be baptized.)

I definitely agee that headship has immense relevance to the topic, and while I naturally agree with you that they do not practice all the proper biblical results of that headship (since I believe doing so would include baptizing their children), to say that they ignore it seems like yet another straw-man.

Originally posted by pastorway
the amount of assumptions and straw flying around in this thread have left me searching long and hard for the Credo position and not finding a bit of it anywhere........

Sadly, the credo position being argued against is not a position that I as a credo am familiar with.

For future reference, it helps to understand and be able to articulate the opponents position before you criticize it and call those who hold to it all sorts of derrogatory theological names.

Phillip

Phillip, have I in particular misunderstood your position in any way in this thread? If so, please point out to me where I have, as that is the last thing I want to do.

 

[Augusta]

Mr. Myers, what I am saying is that you will hear from arminians all kinds of verses that imply we have the ability to follow Jesus, or we have the ability to repent. This is because they see verses with a general call going out to repent and follow Jesus. These verses may imply that but we know from other very explicit scripture that we do not have a natural ability to repent or follow Jesus without a working of the Holy Spirit first.

My point is that believers baptims folks seem to do the same thing. They see believe and be baptized as proof that we must believe before we can be baptized. Which is why they exclude little children or babies. Yet we know that in the OT this was not the practice of those in covenant with God. You gave everyone the sign. This was I believe a no-brainer to them in that day because of federal headship.

The same way we all fell in Adam our federal head, and the same way we are saved through our new head Christ, is the same way our earthly fathers are our heads in the family structure. In fact Eph 5:23 even states that our earthly fathers are the head of the wife like Jesus is the head of the church. 1 Cor. 11 go into detail about the creational order of headship. Thus not only the women and children but even a bought servant of the household of an Israelite male was circumcised.

To leave all this out and ignore it basically and go by an implication in scripture is a big mistake. I don't think it was ever explicitly layed out in language we would like because it was a no-brainer then. What the father did had repercussions on the whole family. Our modern culture has blinded us to this truth of scripture and subjection to the head of household as practiced historically.

 

[Theological Books]

Mr. Myers, what I am saying is that you will hear from arminians all kinds of verses that imply we have the ability to follow Jesus, or we have the ability to repent. This is because they see verses with a general call going out to repent and follow Jesus. These verses may imply that but we know from other very explicit scripture that we do not have a natural ability to repent or follow Jesus without a working of the Holy Spirit first.

While I appreciate your kindness and respect by calling Mr. Myers, please, if you're going to call me anything (especially if it is craphead or butthole ), call me Bradford. So, what "other very explicit scripture" is there regarding infant baptism? If it was that "very explicit," do you think this would be such a divide? In other words, what is "specific" may be relative, for right or wrong reasons (though there is only one correct view, of course). Your hermeneutic guides your infant inclusion as does our hermeneutic guides our "infant exclusion." We all agree what circumcision was (confessional Christians). We all agree what baptism is (confessional Christians). We all agree to whom circumcision was to be applied (confessional Christians). We all agree there is continuity and discontinuity from the OC to the NC (as confessional Christians). But what is the difference between us applying the same baptism to the unchurch converted and the children of NC members based solely on them being children of NC members? I would say exegesis, which then directs our hermeneutic (though sometimes it is the other way around, for right or wrong). What is so explicit about your view that we do not see?

My point is that believers baptims folks seem to do the same thing. They see believe and be baptized as proof that we must believe before we can be baptized. Which is why they exclude little children or babies. Yet we know that in the OT this was not the practice of those in covenant with God. You gave everyone the sign. This was I believe a no-brainer to them in that day because of federal headship.

Tell me, in the Old Testament, was there a command to repent and believe prior to circumcision so that circumcision could be applied (i.e. to those grafted into Israel)? And, you didn't give everyone the sign, but only males. I simply want to keep this discussion as on-target as possible without language that implies something that isn't true. Little exagerations such as that can really fluff up one's position. How are you conflating "federal headship" with the application of the sacrament? In the OT, if a husband is grafted into Israel, so is the wife, even if the wife does not believe. *THAT* is OT and first century greco-roman headship. (For instance, picture the movie "The Godfather," and you have the picture of the greco-roman headship of the grandfather, or oldest living male. What he said was law, regardless of anyone's agreement. The servants of the engrafted alien were also deemed members of Israel, with or without their consent or actual belief. Surely this is not the federal headship you are espousing?)

The same way we all fell in Adam our federal head, and the same way we are saved through our new head Christ, is the same way our earthly fathers are our heads in the family structure. In fact Eph 5:23 even states that our earthly fathers are the head of the wife like Jesus is the head of the church. 1 Cor. 11 go into detail about the creational order of headship. Thus not only the women and children but even a bought servant of the household of an Israelite male was circumcised.

Yes, but all husbands--Christians or Muslims or Atheists--are heads of their wife. Paul is telling us to be the head of the wife in the Christian-moral example of Christ the head of the church. Headship of the family exists with or without Christ being present, or the Christian faith being present. Paul is merely telling the husbands, as Christians, to be the head of the household in a Christian manner. This is why it is a "creational order." It is the same reason a marriage of pagans is a genuine, true marriage from the divine perspective. It is the same reason pagans having headship over their wives and family. They merely pervert how the headship is to be performed. I'm having a hard time seeing your correlation between the necessity of headship and the necessity of baptism. I think you are reading a bit too much into family headship, and I don't know how this is Arminian, or like an Arminian hermeneutic. I might as well say all paedobaptists who do not adhere to theonomy are using an Arminian hermeneutic because no Scripture explicitly says the case-laws are no longer binding.

To leave all this out and ignore it basically and go by an implication in scripture is a big mistake. I don't think it was ever explicitly layed out in language we would like because it was a no-brainer then. What the father did had repercussions on the whole family. Our modern culture has blinded us to this truth of scripture and subjection to the head of household as practiced historically.

Hmmm... you mean an implication like: "Though all the other covenants commanded the inclusion of infants, if it was included, yet this one does not, we can 'imply' it continues, even though it is not stipulated?" I actually think *YOU* are making implications of Scripture in order to justify *YOUR* view. Do you see how easy that is to say? It is another thing to prove, though, which you have not done. Your implications regarding infants in the OT--though no clear, explicit Scripture exists in the documentation of the New Covenant writings--is driving *YOUR* hermeneutic. No where does Scripture teach the civil-case laws are abrogated in a "very explicit scripture." If it were that explict, there wouldn't be theonomists. However, they go upon an "implication of Scripture" from the OT to the NT (or OC to the NC). And, trust me, even your ideal view of "head of household" for Christian families in the 21st century is nothing compared to the actual head of household policies in the OT or in first century Rome. There are principles that are universal, to be sure, and I'm not denying that. But being a head of the house is not unique to the cult, but is a general creation mandate unto the cult and the culture. We simply have a different way (unperverted way) of doing it in the cult based upon special revelation.

Anyway, I still fail to see your argument of correlation between head of household and baptism, or baptism and Arminianism. I think I am more confused by your position, which I think makes my reply even more confusing. I'm not sure how to address your points, or, rather, how your points reflect on the Arminian position of exclusion of infants.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ok all, right now I have no solid opinion as I am pretty new to this study. However, may I please explain how someone MIGHT see credo similar to Arminianism? There simply are many, many, many credo believers who insist that baptism is a person's testimony of their position in Christ.

Does that or does that not sound Arminian?

Now, I am not saying that the credo position is Arminianism. All I am saying (as an observer of this conversation) is that to some it could look that way. I simply understand why they may see it that way.

 

[Theological Books]

Originally posted by houseparent
Ok all, right now I have no solid opinion as I am pretty new to this study. However, may I please explain how someone MIGHT see credo similar to Arminianism? There simply are many, many, many credo believers who insist that baptism is a person's testimony of their position in Christ.

Does that or does that not sound Arminian?

Now, I am not saying that the credo position is Arminianism. All I am saying (as an observer of this conversation) is that to some it could look that way. I simply understand why they may see it that way.

I agree, many can sound Arminian, but maybe that is because many Baptists are Arminian? And those of us who are new to these ideas might think Presbyterians sound like Roman Catholics because they baptized their babies? I can listen to a Methodist, who is a paedobaptist, and derive all sorts of conclusions about paedobaptists. The main-line presbyterian church--the PCUSA--does not speak on behalf of our fellow PCA and OPC brothers on this board. The mainline Dutch reformed church--the CRC--does not speak on behalf of our fellow URC brothers on this board. Also, there are many baptistic churches who are labeled "Baptist," such as John MacArthur, who are not Baptist, but have baptistic tendencies. Some Baptists, such as John Piper, are five pointers, but their sacramentology is the furthest thing from understanding them as "means of grace." Other men are simply non-denominational who hold to the Saddleback form of mission statement and simply baptize those who profess because it is a confession to the world. (NOTE: These same people most likely dedicate their babies to the Lord on the Sabbath, which is nothing more than a dry baptism.) But these people confuse the issues we are discussing. These people are not to be confused with those who claim to be "Reformed Baptists." So, next time someone is speaking on behalf of Baptists as if he is a Baptist, consider that maybe some time in the future your friends will talk to a PCUSA minister. Consider the sources and know the differences, and consider the doctrines espoused from the different vantage points.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Paul,

You make a really good point.

So, my question is this: Are you saying that Reformed Baptists generally don't believe that credobaptism is part of the baptizee's profession of faith?

If not, then I may switch over and side with you on this thread.

But it has been my assumption (perhaps misinformed) that Reformed Baptists are no different from other Baptists in that way. I thought looking at baptism as a "profession" was ubiquitous in credobaptistic theology.

But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I thought looking at baptism as a "profession" was ubiquitous in credobaptistic theology.

Yep, I believe that's been the belief of all or most who've posted in this thread against the cedo position.

Paul,

You make a really good point.

So, my question is this: Are you saying that Reformed Baptists generally don't believe that credobaptism is part of the baptizee's profession of faith?

If not, then I may switch over and side with you on this thread.

I believe Pastor Way implied that this was not the belief of reformed baptists. Did he elaborate on what the belief actualy was? If so, I will have to look again.

So, if we don't like it when people say these types of things then instead of trying to show how our reformed credo brothers fit into the arminian camp, to win cheap emotional points, let's show how these types of arguments are not worthy of Christian scholarship.

Point taken.

 

[john_Mark]

I believe someone has already pointed out what the 1689 LBC says about Baptism which is what a Reformed Baptist holds to. If the arguments and allegations are soley concerning Reformed Baptist's then why not quote the 1689 and go about arguing from these actual stated beliefs?

If we are not speaking soley about Reformed Baptists then quote the BFM2000 and take issue with the official SoF from the largest Baptist organizaiton?

This approach makes more sense and seems to provide a clearer starting point.

 

[Larry Hughes]

I see this as basically a straw-man against the Baptist position. Remember that the Supper is also a sacrament that signifies our monergistic salvation in Christ, yet none of us here believe in administering it without a profession of faith - hence, if credobaptism's requirement of an action on the part of man renders what it is signifying as Arminianistic in any way, then we had better all become paedocommunionists to avoid the same error with regard to what the Supper is signifying.

My underlying point is that the error of credobaptism is not rooted in a misunderstanding of the doctrines of grace in any way, but rather in a misunderstanding of how God has chosen to apply those doctrines to His people throughout redemptive history (i.e. Covenant Theology). Thus, searching for a link to the former will not get to the real heart of the error in credobaptism, but will only turn its adherants further away from paedobaptism by creating straw-men of their views.

Chris,

I see your point here. And agree that this does not make a positive argument in the least for infant inclusion - covenant is the way.

But I would caveat it a bit. Because we confuse "examination" concerning the Lord's Table as well. The Lord's table is FOR the strengthening of weak faith and one's dissatisfaction with one's Christian growth. No one is forbidden the table on account of weak faith and dissatisfaction but is rather the reverse - the table is exactly for such.

Taking this back to the believer's only position. It is the one whose faith is weak and struggle/dissatisfaction with one's Christian growth that the credo position damages. The Table is for feeding the Christian and baptism is looking toward faith. But making baptism in essence are reward for faith/growth (seeking fruit/regeneration) the very situation the struggling Christian is grappling with - which is the practical outworking of the credo position - is to set up an infinite wall to the Christian by way of "believers baptism". ANY time we set up rewards for "my" work, it will fail.

Keep in mind that those who are damaged by this are those with the tenderest and most raw of consciences, those who have caught a glimpse of the Law's real force. That's why they struggle with it.

To others: There is a way to build a straw man that is done so by merely asserting that one's opponent is building a straw man. That is the easiest straw man to knock down.

Ldh

 

[Puddleglum]

Originally posted by Paul manata
. . . the word "profession" needs to be defined since it is being used in an *Arminian* sense of the word. If we are to presume that professing adults are making a true profession (which we all should) then, as *reformed* Christians, we think this profession is due to *God's* regenerating work in the sinner. So, *even if* the reformed baptist assumed that baptism is part of one's profession, this doesn't get you to Arminainism, unless you assume that they view professions in the same way as an Arminian.

YES!

The credo is requiring a profession for the SAME reason that the paedo requires a profession when adults get baptized.

I think Traci touched on the "real" difference when she said:

2. It completely overlooks covenant headship

The issue isn't so much about what a profession is (or how a profession relates to salvation), but whether a child of Christian parents need to make a profession before being baptized - and this is where the covenant stuff comes in. The credo says that a child of Christian parents is as out of the covenant as the non-believing neighbour. For either to be baptized, they must make a profession of faith. The paedo says that the child is part of the covenant because of his/her Christian parents, and thus doesn't have to profess to be baptized. That's why I think the difference is more one of who is in the covenant, than what a profession is.

 

[Theological Books]

OK, so, even though paedobaptists and credobaptists agree precisely on the baptism of the converted (the unchurched, non-members, un-baptized), yet Baptists deny the inclusion of infants, Baptists are Arminians? Is that where we are at, now? So, the problem of Arminianism is not their view and practice of the baptism which is identical the Presbyterian, but the lack of including infants?

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Paul,

You make a really good point.

So, my question is this: Are you saying that Reformed Baptists generally don't believe that credobaptism is part of the baptizee's profession of faith?

If not, then I may switch over and side with you on this thread.

But it has been my assumption (perhaps misinformed) that Reformed Baptists are no different from other Baptists in that way. I thought looking at baptism as a "profession" was ubiquitous in credobaptistic theology.

But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

Joseph,

That is what we have been trying to tell you since the second page of this thread. Perhaps you missed some posts.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Philip A

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Paul,

You make a really good point.

So, my question is this: Are you saying that Reformed Baptists generally don't believe that credobaptism is part of the baptizee's profession of faith?

If not, then I may switch over and side with you on this thread.

But it has been my assumption (perhaps misinformed) that Reformed Baptists are no different from other Baptists in that way. I thought looking at baptism as a "profession" was ubiquitous in credobaptistic theology.

But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

Joseph,

That is what we have been trying to tell you since the second page of this thread. Perhaps you missed some posts.

No, I just didn't get that clearly from the posts.

But from your post, I'll assume that is the case.

Thank you!


I'm glad to hear that not quite all baptists look at baptism as a "profession".

 

[Rich Barcellos]

"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life" (2nd LCF 29:1). I think some RBs do not use the language of "seal" with baptism due to 2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph. 1:13.

 

[Larry Hughes]

As usual Paul's logic is rock solid.

So that neither myself or others misunderstand, because not even the baptist here have made it real clear:

1. What is the baptist/credo position on "Who is baptized". We already know infants, adults are the Q, because there is a difference between the two camps concerning re-bap./a second dip/pick your term. Some say profession, some say "truly saved/regenerate" (which is theory rather than actual application)

Because it seems that the disconnect lies within the inability to fulfill the theory. In science there is a huge difference in actually being able to "measure" a thing & therby asert something, And not being able to measure a thing with certainty - aserting something based on probability/possibility.

Thus re-bap. arises from this...or so it seems.

Thanks,

Ldh

 

[Puddleglum]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
What is the baptist/credo position on "Who is baptized".

I was going to type up a response, but then I figured that Richard's approach of quoting the 1689 was probably a clearer and more accurate way, so

Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. ( Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36, 37; Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 18:8 )

1689 LBC: Chapter 29: Section 2

 

[Larry Hughes]

I think I´m getting what Joseph got just a couple of posts ago. I went for a drive and thought it out. A casual drive is a nice thinking place.

I think I see the difference between typical Baptist baptism and formerly called Reformed Baptist. What complicated it form me is that by name there are about three major categories of baptist that I know at least personally. 1. Arminian type, 2. Calvinistic (affirm the TULIP) type SB and 3. Formerly named "œReformed" Baptist. One and two view baptism very similarly and teach it very similarly, at least those I´ve run into in this area.

And I see what Chris and Paul were laboring in this being a dead in. Thanks, guys for your patience, it has to be frustrating when someone is not "œgetting it" and barking up the wrong tree. I apologize to you for that.

And to Philip and some of the other R. Baptist, I apologize too because I think I just got why what I was saying was "œpigeon holing" you with the general baptist community. That too must have been frustrating. You have to admit at least around here, maybe Texas is different, you are in the minority of minority on this. I do really apologize and hope you will forgive me for slinging the brush so broad.

My epiphany, so to speak, concerning this argument. It finally hit me that it really does boil down to the covenant argument. That the Ref. Bap. does not view or rest (in theory) their baptism primarily upon a profession of faith (arminian bap. & TULIP SB), though it (profession) is connected.

In theory baptism is viewed as valid only if applied to those truly regenerate, these are to the RB really and only in covenant and thus receive the sign. The false professors who happen to receive a baptism rite and later fall away are viewed as never having been in covenant and since only those truly in covenant receive the sign - their "œbaptism event" is considered false or invalid, hence not really a baptism at all. The problem still remain with the struggler who is not sure, and not the "œclear cut" cases though. In theory this sounds and is consistent. But cannot be in practice (below).

In practice, however, true and flawless "œdetection" for a lack of a better word of a regenerate person is not possible 100% of the time. And seeking it at least teeters on passing judgment when conditions for seeking it are not met (this is a valid hazard). Later open rejectors that have had a baptism event are a simple cases and the minority report. But it is the struggler (or even the returning rejector) who presents the problem with the theory, since the heart cannot be seen and secondary causes in this case cannot guarantee the theory. This explains the sometimes over zealous search for fruit (esp. by the introspecting person struggling, in this sense the RB position is no different than the other AB and TULIP SB) - they are merely attempting to apply the theory as best they can, yet short of 100%. This is where we can tip over into paving a "œlegal pathway"œ. They wouldn´t call a second baptismal event baptism due to their definition of "œreal baptism". BUT the one struggling and seeking a "œsecond event" introspects and introspects attempting to find assurance in fruits that "œtell him" he is now "œreally saved" and can be baptized "œfor the first time". Rather than redirecting him back to Christ where true faith is and true assurance is. Basically the theory and practice cause an inherent conflict.

The Paedeo community for adults does the same thing in baptizing the first time adults, but their view of covenant is more biblical in the sense of what we see throughout OT/NT. In that any covenant can contain both adherents and breakers of the covenant who equally receive the sign and the sign depends not on only those obedient to the covenant but includes both. So, that when they baptize adults they may examine them reasonably. Yet, if an adult baptized falls away, then returns the sign is not given again. Or if one is struggling they are not sent to wrestle with looking at their faith and fruit, but sent back to Christ and the promises.

I have to say that understanding the RB position better, if I indeed have, both helps me at least understand their position rather than be frustrated, yet it strengthens my faith in the paedeo position more. I now see why so many defending it labor the covenant argument more. I see why many state that ultimately the baptist position, RB or otherwise is still a form of dispensational. I don´t mean that as a cut down, but that I see why it is stated.

Blessings,

Larry