Credobaptist objection

[MW]

• Those who received Peter's words were baptized. How does one distinguish between those who received the word spoken and those who did not except upon verbal affirmation?

Peter said repent and be baptised. He did not say profess and be baptised. So a verbal affirmation could only be given as an evidence, not a basis, and that from people who were able to give it. We have no warrant from this verse to to claim that profession of faith is the basis or essence of baptism, or that baptism is essentially a sign of profession. The same applies in all the other examples that you give. In Philip's case the condition is that they believed, not that they said they believed. The more of these texts you quote from, the more obvious it will be that the antipaedobaptist doctrine of profession is not biblical. And again, any "affirmation" would only be evidence in the case of those who were able to give it. Once you come to the household baptisms, in the light of the overwhelming evidence of infant inclusion in the NT epistles, it will be clear that this is not the ONLY evidence for covenant membership.

The same pattern is given over and over again in Acts - preaching of the word, reception of the word by faith, and then baptism.

For those coming from outside, yes. The question you have to ask yourself is what is to be done for those born from within.

I agree covenant membership (through regeneration by the Spirit and the gift of faith - not mere birth) is the basis and profession/confession is the evidence. However, since the sign is applied to individuals by other individuals who must discern whether the individual is a member of the covenant, profession of what one believes is a logical requirement.

It is a logical requirement for those who are coming from outside the covenant, but only as an evidence. In all of this you have added nothing to substantiate your case, but you have done much to prove the paedobaptist's case. Thankyou.

 

[No Other Name]

That statement adds nothing useful to the argument nor does it help the one applying the sign of baptism discern whether someone is a believer in Christ or not.

I went ahead and liked your post, but this line here almost made me pause. I agree with what you say overall, but I have seen this kind of thinking abused so often in the implementation of classes for baptism and other horrifically unbiblical practices because of sinfully fearful handwringing over whether they are really truly saved or not. I presume you yourself would never do such a thing and in my opinion these pastors and elders have denied baptism as a sacrament in and of itself - if not in profession, then denied by deed and action.

 

[No Other Name]

As to the rest of this: ignoring many false accusations about me by another poster here which now includes speaking glibly of the sacrament by mentioning "water" and saying "the thief was a member of the Covenant of Grace without one splash of water" as if I have done so in a 3CV being scolded by having "Hallowed be thy name" directed at me by way of admonishment. I reject wholly his uncharitable interpretation of my post and meaning of the post. I feel I can safely move on as I have tried my best with the poster who keeps charging me with sinful posting and heretical views of the sacrament being "synergistic". I also will now be quoting historical 1689 sources as there may seem to be a general misunderstanding from him that my posting has in any way deviated from our confession.

To say that Peter commanded those listening in Acts 2 to "repent and be baptized" but "there is no command for these to profess faith" is as ridiculous as it is to say that the biography of Lincoln claims he was born and raised in Illinois and became President, but the author never specified anywhere that he was a US citizen. You cannot even properly have the one without the other.

But even in that bizarre take, it struck me. I think many presume Biblicism on my part here?

Like this off-the-wall question: "isn't including women a GNC?" We are not Biblicists, we do not deny NC (and find the G redundant: for anything that is necessarily contained is by definition good as well).

Now it is not even by NC that women are baptized. I believe Matthew 28's positive command to baptize and make disciples includes them in the grammar. Now if one needs further define the Church in other Scriptures like Gal. 3 which specifically includes women (but not infants) then that also is not NC but simply a filling out the meaning of the term directly used in the Scripture with the positive command.

I do not reject infant baptism because NC is used to bring us there. I reject it because there is no positive command *nor* is it even given by NC. (I know you disagree, and that would take us back to the NC we all use to define covenant and covenant membership again).

BUT even with our differences in covenant membership, once everybody has been baptized, faith professed and all are communicant members, then it holds that:

"By this faith a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself,4 and also apprehends an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world,5 as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth consequently believed;6 and also acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands,7 trembling at the threatenings,8 and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come;9 but the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.10

---

4 Acts 24:14
5 Ps. 19:7-10, 69:72
6 2 Tim. 1:12
7 John 15:14
8 Isa. 116:2
9 Heb. 11:13
10 John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Gal. 2:20; Acts 15:11

This faith, although it be in different stages, and may be weak or strong,11 yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers;12 and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory,13 growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ,14 who is both the author and finisher of our faith.15

---

11 Heb. 5:13–14; Matt. 6:30; Rom. 4:19–20
12 2 Pet. 1:1
13 Eph. 6:16; 1 John 5:4–5
14 Heb. 6:11–12; Col. 2:2
15 Heb. 12:2

and this saving faith is not created by man nor created by water nor created by the minister but given solely by the grace of God:

"The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened.3

1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
2 Rom. 10:14,17
3 Luke 17:5; 1 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:32

This cannot reasonably be considered "Anabaptist" or "synergistic" anywhere in my defense of Baptist covenant theology.

My time in the hot seat flagging a line of interlocutors is drawing to a close. Honestly last night's reply by my most uncharitable interlocutor was more disheartening than I could have imagined - and that is saying the least I could say about it.

In wrapping up my portion here, let me say a couple of things brokering peace in our Church.

Paedobaptist churches are true churches of Christ. God - in His grace and mercy - has honored your denominations with His Spirit and there is no breaching of union or peace on my end.

It is factual and true for all of us here that all those who join together in Gospel churches must be committed to obeying all the commands of Christ expressed in the Scripture, and saving faith alone in the revealed Christ and His promises as the object of our faith is what is fully and completely worked by the Spirit within us and grounds us in the Covenant of Grace.

We have the same foundation. We have one Lord and one common faith. We "concenter with all other true Christians on the Word of God" (1689 Appendix). And this I most enthusiastically affirm with them that this INCLUDES our paedobaptist brothers of both Savoy and Westminster.

"Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." - Phil. 3:15-16

Walking in our churches and ministries in all lowliness and meekness, we can always be honest about our differences but I think must ultimately always focus on the similarities of our faith—our shared commitment to the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and the grace of the Gospel of Christ Jesus evident in all here - yes, even all here, every single one, being granted the benefit of any doubt in fullest charity and agape.

For if I am right about covenant theology and members therein and theology of baptism but have not charity then my posts are clanging cymbals and gongs. God forbid.

 

[DNM300]

Now it is not even by NC that women are baptized. I believe Matthew 28's positive command to baptize and make disciples includes them in the grammar. Now if one needs further define the Church in other Scriptures like Gal. 3 which specifically includes women (but not infants) then that also is not NC but simply a filling out the meaning of the term directly used in the Scripture with the positive command.

“I believe that Matthew 28’s positive command to baptize and make disciples includes infants in the grammar. Now if one needs further define the church in other scriptures like Eph. 6:1-4 & 1 Cor. 7:14 which specifically include children…”

Your line of reasoning is not distancing yourself enough from my line of reasoning to be a vindication of your point. But I suppose here we are at the point of redundancy.

 

[No Other Name]

specifically include children

But not infants. To which you will ask what is the difference etc etc, ad nauseum.

I am off the merry go round.

In wrapping up my portion here, let me say a couple of things brokering peace in our Church.

Paedobaptist churches are true churches of Christ. God - in His grace and mercy - has honored your denominations with His Spirit and there is no breaching of union or peace on my end.

It is factual and true for all of us here that all those who join together in Gospel churches must be committed to obeying all the commands of Christ expressed in the Scripture, and saving faith alone in the revealed Christ and His promises as the object of our faith is what is fully and completely worked by the Spirit within us and grounds us in the Covenant of Grace.

We have the same foundation. We have one Lord and one common faith. We "concenter with all other true Christians on the Word of God" (1689 Appendix). And this I most enthusiastically affirm with them that this INCLUDES our paedobaptist brothers of both Savoy and Westminster.

"Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing." - Phil. 3:15-16

Walking in our churches and ministries in all lowliness and meekness, we can always be honest about our differences but I think must ultimately always focus on the similarities of our faith—our shared commitment to the Trinity, the authority of Scripture, and the grace of the Gospel of Christ Jesus evident in all here - yes, even all here, every single one, being granted the benefit of any doubt in fullest charity and agape.

For if I am right about covenant theology and members therein and theology of baptism but have not charity then my posts are clanging cymbals and gongs. God forbid.

 

[Christodulus]

The positive command to baptize infants is proven in the following syllogism: We are commanded to baptize all members of the visible Church, and only them; but the children of professing believers are members of the visible Church, therefore we are commanded to baptize the children of professing believers.

 

[DNM300]

Now it is not even by NC that women are baptized. I believe Matthew 28's positive command to baptize and make disciples includes them in the grammar.

I realized this may have gotten mixed up. To Clarify: When I bring up “positive law” arguments with the mention of female inclusion, what I am always getting at is Lord’s Supper inclusion - not baptism. I am saying that the Baptist should admit they have no “positive express command or example” to admit women to the Supper. Rather, it’s a deduced position. A consequence. Which is the same way the P&R world argues for the baptism of infants.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

The positive command to baptize infants is proven in the following syllogism: We are commanded to baptize all members of the visible Church, and only them; but the children of professing believers are members of the visible Church, therefore we are commanded to baptize the children of professing believers.

This is what my simple brain grasped ten years ago! The church is a kingdom, and the children of its members are born into it.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

... the children of professing believers are members of the visible Church ...

This is the key point of difference between you and us, and I am not going to argue it. I will simply state the patently obvious, that Baptists do not accept the premise that children of professing believers are members of the visible church". We only see professing believers as "visible saints".

 

[MW]

As to the rest of this: ignoring many false accusations about me by another poster here which now includes speaking glibly of the sacrament by mentioning "water" and saying "the thief was a member of the Covenant of Grace without one splash of water" as if I have done so in a 3CV being scolded by having "Hallowed be thy name" directed at me by way of admonishment. I reject wholly his uncharitable interpretation of my post and meaning of the post. I feel I can safely move on as I have tried my best with the poster who keeps charging me with sinful posting and heretical views of the sacrament being "synergistic". I also will now be quoting historical 1689 sources as there may seem to be a general misunderstanding from him that my posting has in any way deviated from our confession.

Once again you are finding things to become offended over and dodging the main issues. Yes, you can safely move on and leave the multitude of challenges unaddressed. That is your prerogative.

To say that Peter commanded those listening in Acts 2 to "repent and be baptized" but "there is no command for these to profess faith" is as ridiculous as it is to say that the biography of Lincoln claims he was born and raised in Illinois and became President, but the author never specified anywhere that he was a US citizen. You cannot even properly have the one without the other.

You are missing the point as to what profession may or may not be doing there. Since Peter does not mention it as essential to baptism there is no "doctrine" to be drawn from it to that effect. At most it is only serving as an evidence, not an exclusive one.

Like this off-the-wall question: "isn't including women a GNC?" We are not Biblicists, we do not deny NC (and find the G redundant: for anything that is necessarily contained is by definition good as well).

Actually that is not correct. A good consequence is moral, the necessary part is logical. One may not draw a consequence that is contrary to Scripture.

Now it is not even by NC that women are baptized.

Lydia was baptised.

 

[No Other Name]

To all others who will not twist my post into painting me as saying something either sinful or heretical:

If I recall correctly from Renihan's exposition on 1689 vs. Savoy vs. WCF, in Dickson's commentary and Gillespie's too, they made a distinction between "good" and "necessary" that was more sharply distinguished one from the other.

eg, Gillespie argued that necessary consequences are "strong and certain." Good consequences "prove a suitableness or agreeableness of this or that to Scripture..."

For Gillespie, the first are binding, the latter are not. A consequence may be good or necessary. Of course, the necessary consequence would also be good (which is exactly what I said by the way), but a good consequence is not necessarily necessary.

For Baptists, it's all or nothing. Either it's necessarily contained in Scripture and thus binding or it isn't. They did not reject GNC as defined by "good = moral and necessary = logical" because it wasn't being framed that way by the Westminster commentaries.

And for all those who think it's some kind of zinger that we Baptists use logical deductions from Scripture to Scripture to arrive at truth, that was never in doubt either now nor in history. NC "necessarily contained" includes Biblical truths arrived at through deductions informed by Biblical logic.

eg, we affirm with Augustine in Confessions 11.5 that we can deduce God created the universe out of nothing even if Genesis 1:1 does not specifically say it, it can be very reasonably and logically inferred as a "necessarily contained Biblical truth" that God created the universe out of nothing.

 

[YeshuaFan]

This is what my simple brain grasped ten years ago! The church is a kingdom, and the children of its members are born into it.

True, but are born into it through receiving Jesus as their Lord and savior, and not through water Baptism, communion, or any other rite

 

[Beoga]

And for all those who think it's some kind of zinger that we Baptists use logical deductions from Scripture to Scripture to arrive at truth, that was never in doubt either now nor in history. NC "necessarily contained" includes Biblical truths arrived at through deductions informed by Biblical logic.

I guess what still confuses me, and I appreciate your responses, is that when it comes to paedobaptism, I believe you have said that one of the reasons you reject it is because there is no "explicit" command to do so. It would appear to me that this is inconsistent with your affirmation of necessary consequences. The explicitness of the command would be irrelevant, even if there are other reasons, which you sought to lay out, for rejecting it.

 

[No Other Name]

I guess what still confuses me, and I appreciate your responses, is that when it comes to paedobaptism, I believe you have said that one of the reasons you reject it is because there is no "explicit" command to do so. It would appear to me that this is inconsistent with your affirmation of necessary consequences. The explicitness of the command would be irrelevant, even if there are other reasons, which you sought to lay out, for rejecting it.

No, it isn't.

If baptism is a sacrament, is it not an element of worship?

If it is an element of worship, does not the RPW apply?

By definition, if the RPW applies, then doesn't every element of worship require a positive command and no element of worship be normatively applied?

Now it is one thing to say that this is not a "smoking gun" exhibit of evidence especially due to our different definitions of several terms "across aisles" here, of course. I agree.

But it is another to argue the "broad analogy of Scripture" supported infant baptism even though "no text of Scripture enjoyne it in so many words"
- Cornelius Burgess

And it is perfectly reasonable for an interlocutor to ask "And that's ok for a sacrament and an element of worship?"

(I imagine the response would be not only a different definition of "covenant" and "member of the covenant" but probably a difference in outlining "normative" vs. "regulative" in specific cases when it comes to what is accepted as faithful Biblical worship).

The lack of a positive command regarding baptizing infants is an exhibit of evidence.

It certainly would not be the only exhibit, and no one said the Baptists would "rest their case" here, but the fact there is a lack of a positive command is not "inconsistent with affirmation of necessary consequences" applied to Biblical truth.

And I have no idea why you would presume so.

 

[Christodulus]

By definition, if the RPW applies, then doesn't every element of worship require a positive command and no element of worship be normatively applied?

If by “positive command” you mean it must be explicitly spelled out word for word, no, and I believe it has been pointed out several times now that Baptists neither do nor can apply it this way. If that is not your meaning, then this is hot air.

 

[No Other Name]

If by “positive command” you mean it must be explicitly spelled out word for word, no, and I believe it has been pointed out several times now that Baptists neither do nor can apply it this way. If that is not your meaning, then this is hot air.

So, you are unsure what I mean but you dismiss my point out of hand no matter what I mean because it can't be correct regardless.

Sadly typical around here lately.

 

[Christodulus]

So, you are unsure what I mean but you dismiss my point out of hand no matter what I mean because it can't be correct regardless.

Sadly typical around here lately.

That’s wonderful rhetoric that fails to address the objection, brother. If I cannot say what you mean, I can still say that either you mean this, or you do not mean this.

 

[DNM300]

Question 99, of the Baptist Catechism. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized because there is neither command or example in the holy Scriptures or certain consequence from them to baptize such. Emphasis added.

No doubt this is an appeal to the RPW.

By this rule, women should not be served the Lord’s supper. There is neither explicit command or example of a female taking the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. This is the horse I’ve been beating, or meaning to beat, since post #374.

If any of the Baptist brethren here could address this head on, or show me where it’s been addressed in this thread head on, I think many would appreciate that.

 

[paranymph]

Question 99, of the Baptist Catechism. Are the infants of such as are professing believers to be baptized?

A. The infants of such as are professing believers are not to be baptized because there is neither command or example in the holy Scriptures or certain consequence from them to baptize such. Emphasis added.

No doubt this is an appeal to the RPW.

By this rule, women should not be served the Lord’s supper. There is neither explicit command or example of a female taking the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. This is the horse I’ve been beating, or meaning to beat, since post #374.

If any of the Baptist brethren here could address this head on, or show me where it’s been addressed in this thread head on, I think many would appreciate that.

This one is easy. All Christians are commanded to take the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11). They are included in the "when you [plural] gather." It is a certain consequence, if not a direct command.

 

[DNM300]

This one is easy. All Christians are commanded to take the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11). They are included in the "when you [plural] gather." It is a certain consequence, if not a direct command.

I’m asking for the emphasized part to be proven not asserted.

That passage does, of course contain plural language. It also is peppered with masculine language. Let a man examine himself, etc.

 

[DNM300]

This is a silly game. I'm sure you think you got us. But there is nothing left to prove. It's clear in the text and the entire NT context that women are included in the command. If it helps, the word used in 1 Cor 11 is ἄνθρωπος, not ανδρός. And it is well-known that the address to ἀδελφοί can, and often in the NT context, does include women. But I doubt that will satisfy you.

That does help me a bit; I’m untrained in the original languages.

 

[Beoga]

It certainly would not be the only exhibit, and no one said the Baptists would "rest their case" here, but the fact there is a lack of a positive command is not "inconsistent with affirmation of necessary consequences" applied to Biblical truth.

And I have no idea why you would presume so.

I never understood you to say it was the only "exhibit." My confusion is when you say that there is no command to baptize infants, and then turn around and say that you affirm necessary consequences (which I in no ways doubt). Why even bring up the explicit command argument, which at least I have seen Baptists rely heavily on?

Based on an earlier response I am afraid to ask this clarification, but is your argument that the regulative principal demands that there be an explicit command and not a command from (good and) necessary consequence? If that is the case then as others pointed out, I would be curious to hear your response to women partaking of the Lord's Table as you seemed to have come by it through necessary consequences.

 

[MW]

To all others who will not twist my post into painting me as saying something either sinful or heretical:

For Gillespie, the first are binding, the latter are not. A consequence may be good or necessary. Of course, the necessary consequence would also be good (which is exactly what I said by the way), but a good consequence is not necessarily necessary.

I get the message. You want me to leave you alone. But you are in error on Gillespie, so I have to correct this point. For Gillespie, both "good and necessary" make a legitimate consequence. Without both of them the thing itself cannot be claimed to be IN Scripture.

 

[Gforce9]

This is what my simple brain grasped ten years ago! The church is a kingdom, and the children of its members are born into it.

True, but are born into it through receiving Jesus as their Lord and savior, and not through water Baptism, communion, or any other rite

This is curious, David. In your first statement "true", you affirm Jeri's assertion "The church is a kingdom, and the children of its members are born into it", then immediately deny it. For the record, your first affirmation was correct! God speaks and acts, we respond with doxology.

 

[MarrowMan]

No, it isn't.

If baptism is a sacrament, is it not an element of worship?

If it is an element of worship, does not the RPW apply?

By definition, if the RPW applies, then doesn't every element of worship require a positive command and no element of worship be normatively applied?

Now it is one thing to say that this is not a "smoking gun" exhibit of evidence especially due to our different definitions of several terms "across aisles" here, of course. I agree.

But it is another to argue the "broad analogy of Scripture" supported infant baptism even though "no text of Scripture enjoyne it in so many words"
- Cornelius Burgess

And it is perfectly reasonable for an interlocutor to ask "And that's ok for a sacrament and an element of worship?"

(I imagine the response would be not only a different definition of "covenant" and "member of the covenant" but probably a difference in outlining "normative" vs. "regulative" in specific cases when it comes to what is accepted as faithful Biblical worship).

The lack of a positive command regarding baptizing infants is an exhibit of evidence.

It certainly would not be the only exhibit, and no one said the Baptists would "rest their case" here, but the fact there is a lack of a positive command is not "inconsistent with affirmation of necessary consequences" applied to Biblical truth.

And I have no idea why you would presume so.

Does “positive command” = “explicit command”? Is the contention that a GNC argument re: the subjects of baptism is not explicit and, therefore, not positive? If so, that doesn’t hold in our schema for that is a distinction we would not make. That said, re: baptism, we would see it as a positive command to apply sign and seal to covenant children in the OT continued in the NT since we see no reason why it would not continue given the continuance of the generational promise and the household component. In other words,, the sign and seal of identification/iniation has changed, but the command to give it to our children has not, nor has it been abrogated.

 

[TheInquirer]

It is a logical requirement for those who are coming from outside the covenant, but only as an evidence. In all of this you have added nothing to substantiate your case, but you have done much to prove the paedobaptist's case. Thankyou.

I previously addressed the issue of evidence and basis.

Carry on, I’m done with this thread and perhaps this board. Seems like my energy can and should be devoted elsewhere.

 

[MW]

I previously addressed the issue of evidence and basis.

Carry on, I’m done with this thread and perhaps this board. Seems like my energy can and should be devoted elsewhere.

I can understand the frustration of feeling that there is a fundamental clash of frameworks but I would be sorry if you felt you were done with the board. Your contribution is valued. I hope you can persevere through the present "conflicts" to see that there is a broader connection worth preserving.

 

[John Nyberg]

These threads can be hard to watch, sometimes. The Lord brought me into an understanding of reformed thought under the teachings of reformed Baptist elders. What I find remarkable is not the few places of conflict between Westminster and LBCF, but the vast amount of agreement. Are the differences important? Yes. So important that I had to begin attending a PCA church in order to settle my conscience. Yet I know that a reformed Baptist brother, grounded in his confession, is well equipped to glorify Christ with his doctrine. The church universal would be poorer without Reformed Baptists (I mean c’mon… Keach, Gill, and Spurgeon?!) and so would this board!

 

[Ploutos]

These threads can be hard to watch, sometimes. The Lord brought me into an understanding of reformed thought under the teachings of reformed Baptist elders. What I find remarkable is not the few places of conflict between Westminster and LBCF, but the vast amount of agreement. Are the differences important? Yes. So important that I had to begin attending a PCA church in order to settle my conscience. Yet I know that a reformed Baptist brother, grounded in his confession, is well equipped to glorify Christ with his doctrine. The church universal would be poorer without Reformed Baptists (I mean c’mon… Keach, Gill, and Spurgeon?!) and so would this board!

Don't forget Bunyan!

 

[YeshuaFan]

This is curious, David. In your first statement "true", you affirm Jeri's assertion "The church is a kingdom, and the children of its members are born into it", then immediately deny it. For the record, your first affirmation was correct! God speaks and acts, we respond with doxology.

I was agreeing that children are also included in the Kingdom, but how they got placed in there , are "born" into it was not through water baptism, but by faith in Jesus as their savior and Lord