Gene Cook Vs. Paul Manata Baptism Debate
- Thread starter tellville
- Start date
- Status
Vic, I'm sorry but you are being charitable and making sense. There is another thread for folks like you.
This is at the heart of the issue. Notice who is being presumptuous, yet again, about regeneration. (remember regeneration precedes conversion - the wind blows where it will, you cannot see it).The baptists are adamant that infants and non-professors are unregenerate and just as adamant that professors ought to be presumed regenerate.
Thus, as I noted before, some argue that the latter category (professors = the regenerate) need not be told "know the Lord" or (as I've been told it means) repent of your sins and believe in Christ. You see, once a person, in their scheme, is presumed regenerate this kind of declaration is no longer necessary for those presumed to be in the perfect New Covenant. I heard Gene and John Goundry repeat this again on Friday. Thus, a part of the Gospel need no longer be declared to certain professors because they are presumed regenarate and it is presumed they don't need this.
Conversely, non-professing young children are presumed unregenerate - not merely unconverted but unregenerate. The full counsel of the Gospel cannot be proclaimed to them but merely the "know the Lord" parts. You cannot disciple and encourage them to build up what might be there in terms of spiritual capacity because, the Baptists keep saying, there is no might for an infant. Nay, no might at all - they are unregenerate - do not pass Go, do not collect 20,000 yen.
Beloved, an abuse of presumptive regeneration on the part of some paedobaptists is hardly unique considering the way some Baptists presume upon regeneration both negatively and positively on the basis of confession.
Now, I realize that not every Baptist will agree with Gene and Jonathan on the point of the professors but it is a problem with the approach in general. This consistent refrain that "infants are unregenerate" is alarmingly presumptuous.
Rich - I'm glad you used the word "some" for there is definitely a dichotomy in Baptist churches. The Finneyesque Baptist church would stand guilty as charged according to your assessment. But many Baptist churches that believe in the D.o.G. are moving back to historical Baptist beliefs. This is one of the reasons I was so heartened to view [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8"]Rev. Paul Washer's[/ame] message that caused such a recent ruckus in Baptist circles. The gospel is for all. It announces life to those in darkness and is the power (for believers) behind 2 Cor. 13:5.
This is, of course, compatible with my very concern. This confidence over profession breeds this kind of stuff. I'm not trying to be mean here but it does point the fact that profession is not the great "indicator" that some continue to state in the refrain of "...we've got to try to mirror the perfect New Covenant as much as possible...."
The funny (not really amusing but strange) thing is that it is, again, a Baptist presumption that is projected upon paedobaptists because you assume that our ideas of Baptism are like yours. A historically confessional Presbyterian would never be so self-deceived about the baptism of his children to make the ministry of Paul Washer necessary - which is primarily directed against Baptists who are presuming too much about their profession. Since the significance of our baptism is, like the Gospel, extra nos our baptism can never give us a false self-confidence.
This is really the telling issue: that some of the Baptists are warning the Presbyterians of presumption with their children. I keep thinking: "Dude, what position do you think you're in to be lecturing me about presumption?"
Rich - first, a bit of perspective on the "Paul Washer phenomena." I am separating the need for Baptists to return to their roots from a criticism of paedobaptists. If my house needs cleaning I shouldn't be concerned with the mess in your house. Baptist churches have been hijacked by Darby, Finney and Scofield and the road back to their historical roots is painfully slow. Many churches will never make it. That is why I believe it is necessary, and appropriate, to make distinctions between Baptists and Reformed or "confessional" Baptists. What goes on in the latter (practice and theology) is much different than the majority of Baptist churches.
Second, I don't think there is much of a difference between paedos and credos when it comes to adult baptisms. Both of us are looking for a credible profession of faith before applying the sign. The sign signifies that which has already taken place by faith. Infant baptism? I think that is the point of departure from your comment, "(Baptists) assume that our ideas of Baptism are like yours." Maybe I'm just an odd Baptist, but I see a material difference in our two views of Baptism, and I'm fine with that. If there was no difference then why would all these baptism threads exist? They exist precisely because there is a material difference.
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Picking up on a previous part of this thread, I wish to continue discussing 1 Cor. 7:14. One paedo brother suggested that the children in 1 Cor. 4:14 "are holy" because of one believing parent. So it was asked, "Why not baptize that which God declares holy?"
Do paedo's all use this interpretation of this text?
Do all paedo's believe that this is salvific "holiness"?
And if the child should be baptized in that verse, then the unbelieving spouse should also be baptized because they "are holy" in the same manner and to the same extent as the child?
Why do paedo's not baptize unbelieving spouses, since paedo's also find no problem with baptizing unbelieving children?
Especially if this unbelieving spouse has joined himself to the church life, the covenant community of the spouse -- why not go ahead and baptize them? There is no difference between their church membership and the infant's church membership.
Do paedo's all use this interpretation of this text?
Do all paedo's believe that this is salvific "holiness"?
And if the child should be baptized in that verse, then the unbelieving spouse should also be baptized because they "are holy" in the same manner and to the same extent as the child?
Why do paedo's not baptize unbelieving spouses, since paedo's also find no problem with baptizing unbelieving children?
Especially if this unbelieving spouse has joined himself to the church life, the covenant community of the spouse -- why not go ahead and baptize them? There is no difference between their church membership and the infant's church membership.
Absolutely Bill. What I'm saying, though, is that many Baptists project their material understanding of the nature of Baptism and look at the form that paedobaptism takes and conclude incorrectly what we're "saying". Just because the form is similar does not mean that the material criticism is warranted.
And, yes, we all need to worry about our own backyards. I'm merely noting that Baptists need to be careful about how they criticize paedobaptists and criticize it based on the substance of the doctrine.
Keep my brother Bill safe on his travels.
Well, not all but the Reformed do. Here is the HC on that point. Please read carefully:
The concept of holiness in our view is that the child is marked out from the world and distinguished from the children of unbelievers in the privileged sense that they are always near and among the place where salvation is found.
No. It is holiness as being marked out from the world to be part of the community where salvation is found.
No, because the passage does not say that. The passage states that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made clean) by the believing spouse but that the children are clean. There is not reciprocity in the information given by Paul about the nature of the two.
Same reason given above. There is a difference between something common being sanctified for use but something that is holy is a different category. Further, the believing spouse is never commanded to disciple the unbelieving spouse but parents are commanded to train their children up in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
What Church is this that you're referring to? Most unbelieving spouses don't want anything to do with the Covenant community. They are certainly welcome there but if they are not submitting themselves to the teaching ministry of the Church then they are not disciples. Parents on the other hand, are under obligation to train and admonish children. Children, likewise, are commanded to obey for sake of promise (a promise, by the way, that originally only promised a geographical fulfillment within Palestine).
I do not subscribe to the principle, that what or who is holy for that reason ought to be baptized. But, I would plead that the question posed could be read as affirmative of the rationality of baptism for the "holy".
Of course, the verse says two similar, but different things: one about the spouse of a believer, another about a child of a believer.
Regarding the spouse, the verbal description focuses on the relationship that is effected through the marriage. As one comment put it, the contrast to the old defilements couldn't be more plain. No more did a pagan marriage defile a believer, instead the pagan experienced some sort of incidental blessing. And as clincher, Paul offers the statement about the children. Here the language is not verbal-relational, but a descriptive noun. It is stative. This is a quality that inheres in the child. How could the child be "holy" if the pagan had defiled the Christian? It's an argument then, from greater to less. Since the child IS holy, your marriage is also a blessed union.
So, I fail to see how the stative aspect (which does not "prove" infant baptism, merely "affirms" in consonant terms what is held on other grounds), requires the conclusion that anything true about something "constituently holy" must also be true about something "relationally" holy? Therefore, even if it were demonstrable that the "holiness" of the child meant he was a fit candidate for baptism, it wouldn't follow (based on this linguistic argument) that a spouse was thereby made fit as well, if different limitations applied to the different relationships.
No Reformed paedo I know of thinks of this holiness as "salvific".
Clearly, there are some who might go ahead and baptize a "willing" but unbelieving spouse. Honestly, though, how many of us paedos have ever had to deal with this outside of "far-fetched hypothetical"? And how many people would conduct such a service, and not preach the gospel there and then, with warnings of consequence for 1) rejecting the gospel, and 2) partaking in this sacrament (of baptism) unto condemnation?
Of course, the verse says two similar, but different things: one about the spouse of a believer, another about a child of a believer.
Regarding the spouse, the verbal description focuses on the relationship that is effected through the marriage. As one comment put it, the contrast to the old defilements couldn't be more plain. No more did a pagan marriage defile a believer, instead the pagan experienced some sort of incidental blessing. And as clincher, Paul offers the statement about the children. Here the language is not verbal-relational, but a descriptive noun. It is stative. This is a quality that inheres in the child. How could the child be "holy" if the pagan had defiled the Christian? It's an argument then, from greater to less. Since the child IS holy, your marriage is also a blessed union.
So, I fail to see how the stative aspect (which does not "prove" infant baptism, merely "affirms" in consonant terms what is held on other grounds), requires the conclusion that anything true about something "constituently holy" must also be true about something "relationally" holy? Therefore, even if it were demonstrable that the "holiness" of the child meant he was a fit candidate for baptism, it wouldn't follow (based on this linguistic argument) that a spouse was thereby made fit as well, if different limitations applied to the different relationships.
No Reformed paedo I know of thinks of this holiness as "salvific".
Clearly, there are some who might go ahead and baptize a "willing" but unbelieving spouse. Honestly, though, how many of us paedos have ever had to deal with this outside of "far-fetched hypothetical"? And how many people would conduct such a service, and not preach the gospel there and then, with warnings of consequence for 1) rejecting the gospel, and 2) partaking in this sacrament (of baptism) unto condemnation?
I see what you're saying. I just caught what I was assuming. I was inferring the HC understanding of how children are distinguished from the world.
Wow, this thread is getting epic!
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Rich you quoted HC
74. Are infants also to be baptized?
Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
Every child of every believer has been redeemed???
Bruce: There are many unbelieving spouses in the church, involved in the covenantal culture of the church. Should they be baptized? They are doing more than the infants you are baptizing. And they are doing no less than the infants you are baptizing?
74. Are infants also to be baptized?
Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
Every child of every believer has been redeemed???
Bruce: There are many unbelieving spouses in the church, involved in the covenantal culture of the church. Should they be baptized? They are doing more than the infants you are baptizing. And they are doing no less than the infants you are baptizing?
Thanks for the prayer. Arrived home at 6:58 am. 2 minutes shy of four hours on the road. Now back to our regularly scheduled baptismal discussion.
Rich - if both camps can keep that in mind then a few things will happen:
1. Baptism threads will stay more on topic with fewer rabbit trails.
2. Misconceptions will be kept at a minimum leading to more profitable discussions.
3. There will be less baptism threads! Either credos and paedos will convert to the other side or the positions will be so well articulated that there will nothing less to discuss. Perish the thought! What would we talk about then?
I'm not sure if you even realize how you move from one thought to the other so effortlessly.You ask with shock (as if I'm going to say No): Do you really believe that redemption is promised to the children of believing parents?
and then propose that another way of saying this is:
Every child of every believer has been redeemed.
Were you to read what preceded in the HC you would see that this does not follow. The promise is inherited by faith. In fact, the HC makes the promise to believing parents and their children but the HC does not equate the fact that parents seem to be believing with the fact that they are, in fact, elect.
Notice how you were not shocked that the HC said that believing parents were promised redemtion. It was quite natural for you to assume, given your presuppositions, that believing parents meant (and always means in the Scriptures) that a person is elect. As pointed out in the other thread, people can appear to believe and they are given the sign because the sign does not crest or fall on the disposition of the recipient. The sign signifies salvation. It declares what a person will inherit if their baptism is joined by faith but doesn't declare that what is true of the sign is necessarily true of the recipient.
God declares the meaning of the sign: union with Christ.
The sign is applied with a promise that those that have faith will receive the reality of the sign.
But the sign does not cease to mean what it means simply because of unbelief. Let God be true and every man a liar. Just because some people saw some stones in the river Jordan and thought they meant something else doesn't change what God meant them to signify.
Baptism, like the Gospel, points to Christ and His work. At the conclusion of Romans 10, Paul notes the irony that the Good News is heralded by a bearer of Good News. Yet, Paul notes, who has believed his report? In fact, among the Jews the news was received as bad. The fact of the matter is that the News did not change its "Good News"-ness on the basis of how it was received by the vast majority of Israelites.
God gets to decide what is Good News and God gets to declare what Baptism signifies regardless of how it is perceived by the recipient. Shackling its significance to the disposition of the recipient turns it from a sign that reinforces the Gospel to a sign of the "willing and running" of the individual.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
What? This reply does not make sense. Things can be considered "holy" without them being considered "saved." We do not generally consider the Sabbath "saved" but we call it "holy" do we not? Exo. 20:8. The nation of Israel was considered a holy nation, Exo. 19:6. Are we saying that everyone in Israel was saved? Aaron was told to wear holy garments and he would be anointed with them on, Exo. 29:29; and be washed, Lev. 16:4, 24; 22:6
I think Jason has tried to divert the point by bringing in an irrelevant thesis.
The question was simple: Why would you not baptize someone whom the Bible says is holy?
Jason has not answered the question.
Grace,
-CH
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Rich,
To disagree is not to misunderstand.
You keep assuming that I do not understand the PB theology.
Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that your opponent does not know as much as you or understand you just because he disagrees.
Many arguments that have been put forth by PB's have been based on their confessions. In other words, I am asked to prove how the PB practice is in contrast to their confession. That is not a valid request. As a Baptist, I am trying to point out the fact that PB is inconsistent with Scripture.
To disagree is not to misunderstand.
You keep assuming that I do not understand the PB theology.
Please, do not make the mistake of assuming that your opponent does not know as much as you or understand you just because he disagrees.
Many arguments that have been put forth by PB's have been based on their confessions. In other words, I am asked to prove how the PB practice is in contrast to their confession. That is not a valid request. As a Baptist, I am trying to point out the fact that PB is inconsistent with Scripture.
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hmmmm, and so you ask about paedobaptist interpretations of the text? What does myriad interpretations have to do with Scripture?
Argue with Rich from the text and forget about myriad interpretations.
If we want to play this game, we can point to Baptists who would disagree with your interpretation. Read Witherington's view on I Cor.7 and his slicing and dicing of Jewwett.
Paul, do you have a citation? I'd like to see what this is about.
This brings up another question, I hope it doesn't sidetrack: I recall Jewett actually accepting the idea that circumcision points to baptism. He proceeded down a different track. So we need to be careful about countering someone on one point and accepting him on another. It is a valid thing to do, but hard to remember what is going on.
I think some of the different participants are operating from the assumption that one side's (or the other's) arguments are monolithic. They obviously aren't.
It gets really hard to sort these things out when we don't even know which arguments are being addressed. I don't have a solution for this except to plead for clarity. Careful reading is required as well.
I've been toying with the idea of preparing some sort of matrix of the various arguments and perspectives. I don't know if I could do it. It would be cool if someone already has.
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
Vic,
In Witherington's book Troubled Waters he discusses this on pages 41-49.
I know Jewett disagrees with me on I Cor. 7, but is pretty much in line with me on Circumcision... but he even says things about that which I'd disagree with.
I basically use them to show that I have some baptist somewhere who agrees with me on my points and thus I'm not just saying what I'm saying "because I'm a biased presbyterian."
Case in point, Witherington and Beasley-Murray agree with much of my analysis of Matt. 28. Other parts of my analysis have been culled from men like Blomberg and Keener. All these men are baptistic.
In Witherington's book Troubled Waters he discusses this on pages 41-49.
I know Jewett disagrees with me on I Cor. 7, but is pretty much in line with me on Circumcision... but he even says things about that which I'd disagree with.
I basically use them to show that I have some baptist somewhere who agrees with me on my points and thus I'm not just saying what I'm saying "because I'm a biased presbyterian."
Case in point, Witherington and Beasley-Murray agree with much of my analysis of Matt. 28. Other parts of my analysis have been culled from men like Blomberg and Keener. All these men are baptistic.
Jason,
When I quote the HC and you re-interpret the HC as saying that everyone who is promised redemption is redeemed then I think it is charitable for me to state that you have simply not studied the paedobaptist confessions carefully.
The only other assumption would be for me to ascribe that you knew precisely what the HC was saying on that point but that you purposefully misrepresented it. As you are a minister of the Gospel that is not a thought I will entertain.
aleksanderpolo
Puritan Board Freshman
Pastor Jason, out of curiosity I visited Fide-o and found your post:
Do you still think this is the reason why Paedobaptist baptize infants? If you are still thinking so, I think you are not only misunderstanding/misrepresenting Paul, but other paedobaptist as well. If no, then these are really careless wording that isn't really helping the dialogue/debate.
Do you still think this is the reason why Paedobaptist baptize infants? If you are still thinking so, I think you are not only misunderstanding/misrepresenting Paul, but other paedobaptist as well. If no, then these are really careless wording that isn't really helping the dialogue/debate.
Andrew P.C.
Puritan Board Junior
HAS BEEN? How do you get "HAS BEEN"?
Do you believe that every person has been redeemed who makes their own profession of faith? If not, I can hardly see the relevance of the question. It only requires us to consider that ONE infant of believing parents has been redeemed by Christ to justify the application of the covenant sign to ALL of them. The sacraments are administered in such a way as to favour the side of election, not the side of apostasy. Rom. 3:3, 4.
Bill,
Having acknowledged that, try re-reading these posts:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299595&postcount=33
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299668&postcount=35
http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=299794&postcount=41
This is precisely at the heart of a basic premise about children of believers - whether we presume apostasy or try to train them in hopeful anticipation that God has elected them. If the latter, it makes little sense to wait until they are mature to start training them like Christians.
Rich - we're a few days removed from the cause of the all the fireworks in the baptism threads. Having said that I think all of us are in a better frame of mind to consider the arguments presented by those who hold to the opposing position.
I have never had a problem understanding why paedos baptize their children. Looking at it from the paedo hermeneutic, it makes perfect sense. Matthew's statement just seemed to resonate with me. If brevity is the soul of wit, then Matthew is a witty soul! He summarized what many on the paedo side have being trying to say. That does not take away from anything you said in your posts. If anything, Matthew validated your statements.
Even the credo would agree with this. We're coming at from a completely different angel. We would consider the training up of a child as being a means of proclaiming the gospel to this child. If God saves them in childhood then the training does not stop. At the point of conversion the training materially changes from a salvific approach to a discipleship approach. From a practical perspective not much will change. God is able to use for good all the teaching that was imparted prior to conversion. It doesn't go down the proverbial toilet. We're still left with our differences, but sometimes we use common methodologies.
- Status
