Paul,
You ask me just to forget about your character attacks on me and continue to engage you. Why would you just ask me or anyone to overlook your behavior? Such emotional reactions to your opponent do you no favors, brother. But I do forgive you.
Again, I repost my un-refuted response:
Just to make this clear (not for you, Randy) let me quote part of what I read in my opening:
Tonight we’re debating about who the proper subjects of Christian baptism are. Gene’s position is that professing Christians alone are to be baptized. I believe that professing Christians as well as their infant children are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Since both Gene and I agree about baptizing professors, I’ll focus on the infant portion of my argument. My argument is simple: (1) All who join the visible Church are proper subjects of Christian baptism. (2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent join the visible Church (at birth). (3) Therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parent are proper subjects of Christian baptism
So for Jason to say,
Basically, Paul's reason for baptizing babies was because "we don't know for sure who is in the elect, so baptize them all and let God sort them out." He used Romans 10:30 to defend this position -- just baptize everyone, at least the children of believers, so that they are in the category of "His people" (Heb. 10:30) and God will judge who is really saved.
is to totally distort what actually happened. Actually, in my opening, which was my positive case, I never mentioned any arguments for internal/external. The "character attacks" have been substantiated. You did not even come close to representing me properly.
time: 13:00 = You admit that you do not know if who you are baptizing is elect. Gene at least tries to test the validity of someone's faith, even if by the minimal "profession." But your argument is, since neither of us can know for sure then don't fault me for baptizing infants -- God will sort it out.
Actually, Jason, the full context began at 12:15 and it was a response to gene saying that I am KNOWINGLY baptizing unbelievers.
Since Gene had said that he didn't know who the elect are, then I offered this refutation above:
"If we can't know who is converted, as Gene Cook himself said, then how can I "knowingly" baptize the unconverted? Your statement has a built in contradiction. I mean, one is either converted or un-converted. There is no middle. Now, if I can know who is un-converted, then all the rest of the people are converted. Thus Jason thinks he can know who is elect! QED
"
Gen can't "test" the "validity" of one's elect status by a "profession," especially when he said he would baptize IMMEDIATELY after profession. A seconds worth of time is not anything like a "test of validity."
At any rate, Jason, this was a *response* to one of *Gene's* complaints against me. This was in the THIRD mp3 for crying out loud! You said above that this was "my main reason" for baptizing infants. How could it be when it wasn't in (a) my opening positive case, (b) my cross exam, (c) my rebuttal???
And, my argument was that whatever applies to me can be applied to Gene. If I can't know that I am not baptizing an elect, neither can Gene. Now, perhaps you'd like to do the probability calculus for us and show us the probability that the 1.5 billion Christians who have 'professed faith" are mostly elect.
Indeed, look at some resolutions brought to the SBC convention:
Whereas in 2004 the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Church Profiles indicated that there are 16,267,494 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
Whereas well over one half of those members never attend or participate meaningfully in the life of any local Southern Baptist church and are thus no different than non-members; and
Whereas the ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2005, urge Southern Baptists to repent of our failure to maintain responsible church membership, and be it further
RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of church discipline (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further
time: 13:20 = You claim that infants are in the New Covenant based upon the Abrahamic Covanant. You continue through 15:45 and following to continue this argument by saying that infant baptism was in the Great Commission.
This is bad, Jason. I never even said that! I never even said "based on." In fact, if you charitably listen to my argument, I simply said that Gene quoted WHAT WAS SAID TO ABRAHAM and so the EXEGETICAL INTENT OF GENE'S QUOTE couldn't be that "children were removed from the covenant." You've totally failed to grasp my argument. Your comments here perfectly illustrate what I've found over and over again. It is so bad that it is almost as if fingers were stuck in ears when I talked. If you don't understand the difference between what I said, and what you attribute to me, then you have some severe biases. I hope others can at least see the level of misrepresentation; even if they don't agree with my paedo views.
I continued that argument and showed that "believers baptism" could not be demonstrated from The Great Commission (besides, what does this have to do with what you attribute to me in your opening post here? Looks like you're "running" from the facts
If you want to know what I said, here's the long version, it is different from your misrepresentation:
Consider Matthew 28:18-20 briefly:
(1) The word “alone” is not in the passage.
(2) Them does not refer to “disciples” since “make disciples,” in Greek, is a verb. It refers to the nations.
(3) Those in the times of the New Testament would have understood “nations” a bit differently than we do. For example in Amos 3:2 Jehovah tells Israel that He has chosen them over all the “families” of the earth. But the passages which speak about Jehovah choosing Israel takes place in the context of choosing Israel over against all the nations of the earth (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 4:32-37). Thus the passage could have read: “Therefore go and make disciples of all the families of the earth, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
(4) The same root word for the verb that is translated “make disciples” has been used in the LXX to refer to teaching and training children. Manthano is the root word from where we get the noun “disciple.” The Israelites knew that they were to “disciple” their children. The idea of discipling our children goes all the way back to Abraham. Abraham was chosen “so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just…” (Gen. 18:19). It was common knowledge that parents had the job of making their children disciples. As Mathew says, we make disciples by “baptizing and teaching” people.
5) the Gentile mission extends the Jewish mission - not replaces it; Jesus nowhere revokes the mission to Israel (10:6), but merely adds a new mission revoking a previous prohibition (10:5). The “minor commission” is dripping with Federalist assumptions. Entire families and towns were considered disciples of Jesus, or rejecters of Jesus, on the basis of the decision of the representative head of those families or towns. Thus this would have naturally been carried over into the “Great Commission.”
So, Jason, I simply demonstrated that it's much harder to probe "believers alone" baptism from this text. But, the funny part is that I got most the above arguments from Baptists themselves! Beasly-Murray, Keener, Blomberg, Witherington, &c.
time: 18:20 = You again speak of your belief that all infants are in the New Covenant regardless of their spiritual condition.
Let's note again that this isn't in my intro and so doesn't substantiate your claim about "my only reason" for baptizing our infants.
But, let's look at your quote. The specific context, which you again conveniently left out, is that of a RESPONSE to Gene's question: "Why didn't they just say baptism replaced circumcision." And so in 18:20 I simply said, well why didn't the gentiles respond to the Judaizers that their children were not in the covenant,
and so why were they trying to circumcise them? Weren't the Gentiles taught from inception into the community that their kids weren't in it? Wouldn't they have thought it odd that these Judaizers were trying to include the children Paul specifically said were out?
And, again, I must point out your misunderstandings. From the paedo perspective, you must understand, and, which I also pointed out in the debate, there are DIFFERENT SENSES to the phrase "in the covenant." When you treat being "in" the NC in just ONE SENSE you're begging the question against our view. I said this in the debate. But since it halts all your arguments, and forces you to deal with the argument stopper
before you move on to your "nature of the NC argument," I guess that's why my clear and explicit words get ignored.
So, if one is spiritually dead, then they are only in THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP. I made an ARGUMENT for this from I Cor. 5:1-13. It was INCUMBANT upon Gene to rebut this, what did he say, "Well the word New Covenant isn’t in I Corinthians 5." I mean, that's a good stall tactic, but not likely to persuade the critical thinker.
time: 28:47 = Paul claims that the Great Commission is about baptizing disciples, but back around time: 15:45 he was arguing just the contrary. Namely, that the Great Commission was commanding us to baptize nations, even the unconverted.
What!!! This is absurd. I claimed that the great commission tells us to baptize disciples, and women are disciples, therefore we can baptize women. You'll note that this was Gene's argument for the Lord's supper. Anyway, I explained my view on Matt 28 and this should be taken as determinative of my views expressed later. Only someone bent on making me look bad would make these claims. Let's note, Pastor, that the TEXT says to baptize the nations, not "me." "Them" cannot refer to "make disciples" since "make disciples" is a "verb" and not a "noun." Almost every scholar agrees that the referent is "the nations." Anyway, I don't know how you're using "unconverted" or "disciple." So, again, you're READING YOUR ASSUMPTIONS into my text.
Look, in one sense, Jesus says that only those who persevere to the end are his disciples. But, we don't baptize at THE END of the Christian life, do we?
No, the text says, "make disciples of the nations by baptizing and teaching them."
time: 34:00 = Paul states that infants have both Adam as their federal head and the sign of the New Covenant. That baptized infants have both the sign of the New Covenant but have no mediator.
Well, unregenerate professors have THE SIGN of the New Covenant, but no mediator.
And, what's you beef? Where's your argument? What sense are you talking about being "in" the New Covenant?
You're not even dealing with my position, Jason. Is this "showing yourself to be a workman approved by God?" Are you treating me and my arguments in the best possible light? Am I nodding in agreement as you characterize my position? No. that should tell you something. I don't know about you, but I was always taught that when you critique someone they should see their position in your writings or comments and be in agreement, knowing that you have understood them. You are about 10,000 miles away from that.
time: 38:00 = Paul states that if a child does not draw near to God then God has no obligation towards that child. Gene points out that this makes infant baptism MEANINGLESS.
And this makes non-drawing-near professors baptism MEANINGLESS then!! Do you even see how bad you're refuting yourself???
time: 39:00 = Paul is asked that since Paul believes that infants are members of the visible church and are therefore valid candidates for baptism then why not communion? Paul says, "They cannot digest lamb chops." (He was serious.)
Yes, I was. Even most paedocommunionists agree with that! But, it appears that you don't bother to read them either. I try to read and study my opponents.
If you'd like the longer answer, well here's some hi-lights: It is agreed upon that *infants* did not eat the Passover. There was no Gerber Passover Lamb Blender back then. Suffice it to say, it is pretty clear that the meals were for men only, and for catechized children. This is why Jesus goes up to Jerusalem at age 12. This is why the Talmud speaks of taking 12 year olds to the feast "for the first time." This is why ancient Jewish sources recall a story of a "pious Jew" who was turned away at the gate for bring his very young children to the assembly. This is why it was only male disciplines with Jesus at the Passover, and no hint that it was weird that they were away from their family. This is why it was only men ("brothers") at Pentecost, which was the time of one of the OT feasts. This is why there are rituals for *men* to become clean and/or take the Passover the next month, but for women there is nothing. This is especially odd since at least 25% of the Israelite women would have been unclean for Passover (due to menstruation). But there is no ritual cleanliness or way for them to take the Passover the next month with the men who either missed it or had become unclean somehow (which they couldn't anyway since the Jews observed a a lunar calendar).
time: 40:30 = Paul states that Baby Dedications are a non-reformed practice done by Baptist. But Gene had already stated that such a practice is done in Baptist churches for traditional reasons not doctrinal reasons.
Well, that was a joke, a jab. Are you really trying to prove something by this? Anyway, Jason, Gene has done them IN THE WORSHIP service. if you want to know, though, since the Roman Catholic Church began believer's communion in the 1200's, then your view (and mine) of the subjects of communion is another "un-reformed doctrine of the RCC church."!!
time 42:00 = Paul argues for baptizing children even though they are "enemies of God" because they aren't really enemies until they actually reject God. This is why I said that Paul argued for sort of an "age of accountability."
You argue for baptizing enemies of God do since you don't know who the elect are, and you have no "valid test."
And, David was God's enemy, but still called God his God. Around this same time Gene said that "we are ALL born enemies of God."
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Psalm 22:9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.
And, furthermore, what were they doing giving circumcision to "God's enemies?" Let's quote Paul Jewett:
“If anyone will look a little more deeply beneath the surface, he will perceive that the Old Testament is clearly concerned with the theological and ethical meaning of circumcision, which, as elaborated in the New, lies to close to that of baptism to be depreciated. […] This ethical and theological meaning, as the New Testament interprets circumcision, is not lost but taken up in the meaning of baptism (p. 86).
Paul describes the Ephesians as uncircumcised in the spiritual sense, that, prior to their conversion, they were apart from Christ. But if to be apart from Christ is to be spiritually uncircumcised, ‘alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,’ then to be in Christ must be to possess those blessings which circumcision in the flesh was no less certainly the sign of in the Old Testament than is baptism in the New. …[O]ne can hardly doubt that baptism has the same essential significance [as circumcision] for Christians in the New Testament (p. 87-88).
[T]he only conclusion that we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism” (p. 89).
So, I'm not saying anything that other BAPTISTS aren't.
Let's cite Baptist OT scholar P.D. Woodbridge:
“Circumcision was a physical expression of faith which distinguished those who belonged to the Lord and those who did not. […] [Circumcision was not meant to be understood as a sign of racial purity. […] In Joshua 5:2-8 the necessity of circumcision is again underlined, as God commands that the generation of Jews born on the journey through the wilderness, who had not been circumcised, should now undertake the rite. Verses 6-7, and 11-12 may also indicate that the people should re-dedicate themselves to the Lord before occupying the land promised in the covenant. […] It is clear even from these passages that circumcision is never merely a physical act. It is not sufficient to merely be physically circumcised. The Israelites in Deuteronomy are instructed to circumcise their hearts as a spiritual response to God’s choice of them as his people. This response involves fearing, serving and holding fast to him (v. 20); it is the opposite of stubbornness. Heart commitment is a necessity, not an option. […] The limitations of the mere physical act are underlined in Jeremiah 9:25-26, where the prophet plays down the value of circumcision as merely an end in itself; to rely on it could lead to false confidence and therefore Israel should be circumcised in heart. A Jew with an uncircumcised heart is no different from a Gentile whose nation practices circumcision (cf. Ezek. 44:9, where entry to the rebuilt temple is forbidden to those who are not circumcised in heart and flesh)” (Woodbridge, p. 411-412).
Certainly if the above spiritual realities were assumed to be operating in the adults who were circumcised in the Old Testament, being signified by the physical circumcision while being such that one was not warranted in assuming that infants possessed those realities, or assented to those meanings, then it does not bother the reformed paedobaptist to assume that baptism, which signifies myriad similar and dissimilar spiritual realities in adults which we do not assume infants currently posses, can rightly be given to the infant children of believers.
Even if circumcision did not signify exactly the same spiritual realities as baptism, the point is that circumcision signified spiritual realities that we are not warranted in believing the infants of the people who professed the true religion back then, currently possessed. To say that since baptism represents X, where X is a spiritual reality we are not warranted in assuming infants currently possess, therefore we should not baptize our infants, is to make a demonstrably false claim. Things that represent X, where X is a spiritual reality we are not warranted in assuming infants currently possess, were given to infants all the time. Thus the argument from meaning is not an obvious argument against infant baptism.
Cheers,
LOL
