I repent in dust and ashes.
I wish to make a public statement to all Baptists on the PuritanBoard.
I WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT I SAID
about Inigo Montoya
Now, prepare to die!
Give me one positive command to baptize infants please
- Thread starter 44jason
- Start date
- Status
I repent in dust and ashes.
I wish to make a public statement to all Baptists on the PuritanBoard.
I WAS WRONG ABOUT WHAT I SAID
about Inigo Montoya
Now, prepare to die!
I am printing Rich's post and having it framed. It will hang just below my double portrait of John Gill and Charles Spurgeon.
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
Why did Peter add, "and to your children" in Acts 2:39?
"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children."
The Baptist assumes the children must repent.
If someone said,
"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."
Would the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?
"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children."
The Baptist assumes the children must repent.
If someone said,
"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."
Would the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?
Last edited:
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
I have shin splints from running, it seems I'm always in pain.
Your second post is very well written, I'll have to think on it a little more, this topic comes up so often that I get tired of reading and thinking about it. I'll send you a pm in a short while.
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
It's Inconceivable!
And that's probably all I want to say on this particular thread!
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
ATTENTION TO ALL.
Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.
This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.
I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!
Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.
This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.
I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.
"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call."
The equivalent in your example would be:
"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."
By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.
And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?
VaughanRSmith
Puritan Board Sophomore
*sigh*
I love you guys.
I love you guys.
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
All should know that both Jason and I have reconciled in private discussions. Both sides have asked, and granted, forgiveness.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
But, Matthew, an adult can make a credible profession of faith, when examined by a Session, which is, humanly speaking, the basis of his baptism. An infant cannot do that. An infant has no intellectual comprehension of the gospel or of Christianity at all.
Infants are baptized because (1) they are born into a covenant home, which means (2) the parents are acknowledging their biblical responsibility to raise their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Even if the parents diligently do this, there is still no guarantee that the infant is elect.
I understand that there's no guarantee that the newly-baptized adult is actually elect, either (after all, it's only a credible profession, not an actually guaranteed honest and correct confession, from our point of view). But, one can't grant an infant a "judgment of charity" because there's no content to his participation in the sacrament.
Calvibaptist
Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
So, all this conversation about "infants" is great. But what about teenage children? Suppose a husband and wife become believers and want to join the local Presbyterian church. Their 15 year old son does not believe but wants to join the fellowship as well. Would you baptize him?
non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello again, Pastor.
Thanks for the challenge.
Those who work show they have been selected. But children are not in the pool of potential selectees because they are not yet able to work. When they are able to work (profess belief) it will be manifest if the boss has selected them. In the meanwhile they benefit from a representative (patriarch of household) in enjoying the abundance (outward Baptism)
Since Peter is quoting Genesis, the promise is all the benefits of Christ promised to Abraham. No, I'm not saying all who are baptized are elect, I'm saying the promise is to individuals in believing households who do not grow up to despise their baptism. In other words, "you are now saved if you persevere in faith. If you do not persevere in faith, you are not now saved." This is the promise to holy infants.
Last edited:
If the Spirit works within them they have as much as what an adult requires in order to make a credible profession of faith. That suffices. The disciples don't seem to have had any intellectual comprehension of the gospel prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, yet our Lord credits them with saving knowledge, John 14. That is because what He did they knew not then, but they would know thereafter, John 13.
This is insufficient. Baptism signifies something. If the infant has no part in what baptism signifies then the sign of baptism should not be administered. Otherwise the administration of the sacrament would be a facade.
There is as much probability of a baptised infant walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless as there is of a baptised adult. In fact, if the infant is trained correctly, there is more probability, since he/she does not have carnal things to unlearn. Blessings!
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
The unbelieving spouse in 1 Cor. 7 does not despise the faith of their believing spouse. Why not baptize them? Because we know that they are unbelievers. What if that spouse due to a health issue becomes mentally incapable of expressing faith or lack of faith anymore, should we go ahead now and baptize them since they are as capable now as an infant? No, because they have not repented. But neither had the infants. But God told Abraham to circumcise his children. Yes, but God never told us to baptize anyone who is unrepentant including infants.
Please demonstrate one call to repentance in the NT which would be required of an infant who will grow up believing in the Triune God.
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Matthew,
Can you please rephrase your question?
Specifically I am confused by "will grow up believing."
Are you suggesting that they were saved through discipleship?
Are you suggesting that adults have to be born-again but children can just "grow up believing"?
Like I said, I just want you to rephrase the question so that I will not be accidentally guilty of assuming something about your beliefs that are incorrect. Bear with me, I may just be slow.
Can you please rephrase your question?
Specifically I am confused by "will grow up believing."
Are you suggesting that they were saved through discipleship?
Are you suggesting that adults have to be born-again but children can just "grow up believing"?
Like I said, I just want you to rephrase the question so that I will not be accidentally guilty of assuming something about your beliefs that are incorrect. Bear with me, I may just be slow.
When a minister issues a call to repentance, he does so on the understanding that there is an actual false belief or immoral practice which requires repentance. Given that a baptised infant will be brought up in the worshipping profession of the Triune God, what actual false belief or immoral practice does the NT require the baptised infant to repent of?
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
Disanalogous. Adults are not infants.
Adult proselytes who came into the OT faith were required to repent and turn towards Jehovah, abandoning their idols (same us proselytes to the NC!), but their infant children were not.... because they couldn't.
The only way they could enter was by repentance, much like today, but they also brought their children.
This was *not* because the children were required for the phsyical descent of Messiah - since he would be a "true Israelite," ethnically speaking.
They were the down payments of the promise to Abraham that many, many peoples would be blessed by his faith - people coming into the Olive Tree by faith. The NT Christian is the grander fulfillment of these OT down payments. And we bring our children into the faith, just like our adult proselyte forefathers did.
What church do you go to?
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Again, I just want to move a little slower here before responding.
I am still a little shell shocked from trying to just jump right in and converse.
Matthew asks,
Paul says,
Brothers, I do not agree with this AT ALL. Please spare me from quoting all the Scriptures that declare that salvation involves repentance. Nowhere does the Bible teach that some must repent but others do not.
If this is not agreed upon this discussion may have come to an impasse.
Please explain if I am reading your statements wrong.
I am still a little shell shocked from trying to just jump right in and converse.
Matthew asks,
Paul says,
Brothers, I do not agree with this AT ALL. Please spare me from quoting all the Scriptures that declare that salvation involves repentance. Nowhere does the Bible teach that some must repent but others do not.
If this is not agreed upon this discussion may have come to an impasse.
Please explain if I am reading your statements wrong.
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sorry, Jason, let me be clearer.
Proselytes were required to repent *before entering the covenant people of God.* I said this, but perhaps it slipped past you. I can see why. I meant, that they had to *profess* repentance. Of course we don't ever know if someone has *truly* repented. Proselytes were required to *repent* (i.e., make a public profession of their repentance) before they were circumcised, but not their infants. So, your comments about adults repenting before they get the sign, and enter the covenant community, have nothing to do with the exclusion of our children from the NT. You're just saying that things should be the way they've always been when a proselyte enters the people of God. Thus all your verses about adults repenting are rendered useless in the paedo/credo debate.
This is *exactly* analogous to today's situation.
Where am I off?
OK. So you have an infant, and he's a month old. He is a child of Adam and is condemned in him. You say salvation requires repentance. He cannot repent, cannot be called upon to repent, in fact he's done or said nothing to require him to repent. Does this mean that infant is going to hell, or is there provision made for him through the blood of Christ to go to heaven?
Let me try to take a stab at this Pastor Robertson.
I think you would misconstrue Rev Winzer by assuming that he is implying that children of believers never repent of the sins they commit.
The fundamental disconnect we have is whether or not you view your children as disciples or not. We do. You do not. As disciples, they are visibly disciples the same way others in your Church are visibly disciples. As disciples, they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age.
Notice that the disjunction between Richard and Matthew occured over whether a child could rightly be called a believer if they have not intellectually stated their faith. As Rev. Winzer rightly pointed out, if a child is elect or an adult is elect capacity is immaterial to God's favor.
Remember, election is not of him who wills or of him who runs but of Him who shows Mercy.
It is not that believers are to have God's certainty that their children are elect to treat them with the judgment of charity. From our perspective, it is not any different than the judgment of charity extended to a professing adult. Now, I know you are conditioned to accept the fact that a profession is some sort of rock solid guarantee but you make an unwarranted presumption to give more credence to the profession than the fact that a child has been born into a believing household. Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.
THUS, IF you accept the preceding, you would understand what Rev. Winzer is saying. Stop thinking of children for a moment and assume you went up to one of the people in your Church who has been a member for 10 years in good standing and declared to him: "Repent of your sins and turn from your wicked ways!"
Now, I'm not saying that you would not be enjoining the man on a weekly basis to repent of his sins as part of corporate worship and the man would be ever aware of his need for Christ.
But, he need not be told to turn from idolatry and licentious behavior by you if he is showing no signs of rebellion.
You may object that children are not disciples so we can't treat them that way but that rather begs the question from our standpoint. I don't believe I have any stronger warrant to assume ill of my children than I do of the other members in my Church. I've seen the lives and comprehension of some of my fellow Church members and I actually have a little greater confidence for my children some times because they're in a home that prays with and presents the Gospel to them more clearly and regularly than other visible members. Since I don't know God's will of election but I do know who is a disciple along with me, though, I simply assume that the others are in Christ with me - and that includes my kids.
I think you would misconstrue Rev Winzer by assuming that he is implying that children of believers never repent of the sins they commit.
The fundamental disconnect we have is whether or not you view your children as disciples or not. We do. You do not. As disciples, they are visibly disciples the same way others in your Church are visibly disciples. As disciples, they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age.
Notice that the disjunction between Richard and Matthew occured over whether a child could rightly be called a believer if they have not intellectually stated their faith. As Rev. Winzer rightly pointed out, if a child is elect or an adult is elect capacity is immaterial to God's favor.
Remember, election is not of him who wills or of him who runs but of Him who shows Mercy.
It is not that believers are to have God's certainty that their children are elect to treat them with the judgment of charity. From our perspective, it is not any different than the judgment of charity extended to a professing adult. Now, I know you are conditioned to accept the fact that a profession is some sort of rock solid guarantee but you make an unwarranted presumption to give more credence to the profession than the fact that a child has been born into a believing household. Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.
THUS, IF you accept the preceding, you would understand what Rev. Winzer is saying. Stop thinking of children for a moment and assume you went up to one of the people in your Church who has been a member for 10 years in good standing and declared to him: "Repent of your sins and turn from your wicked ways!"
Now, I'm not saying that you would not be enjoining the man on a weekly basis to repent of his sins as part of corporate worship and the man would be ever aware of his need for Christ.
But, he need not be told to turn from idolatry and licentious behavior by you if he is showing no signs of rebellion.
You may object that children are not disciples so we can't treat them that way but that rather begs the question from our standpoint. I don't believe I have any stronger warrant to assume ill of my children than I do of the other members in my Church. I've seen the lives and comprehension of some of my fellow Church members and I actually have a little greater confidence for my children some times because they're in a home that prays with and presents the Gospel to them more clearly and regularly than other visible members. Since I don't know God's will of election but I do know who is a disciple along with me, though, I simply assume that the others are in Christ with me - and that includes my kids.
Exactly. Or suppose he is exhorted to depart from that practical atheism which is still a part of the remnants of sin in him, this presupposes a work of grace in the man's heart. And the same applies to an infant. You can't bring them up IN the Lord on the presupposition that they are OUT of the Lord.
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Rich why would you make such a claim:
But you are right when you assert that I...
And I am not following this line of thinking:
And your last paragraph begs the question:
If you believe that salvation involves repentance and faith, why not wait for that day when they repent and believe? Why not let them publicly display their faith and cognitively enjoy their baptism?
I have never been conditioned in such a way and find that statement based upon some erroneous presuppositions that may poison the well here.
But you are right when you assert that I...
. Salvation comes by faith not family.
And I am not following this line of thinking:
I preach repentance to all -- even "good" people.
And your last paragraph begs the question:
On what basis is your confidence, that your kids are being discipled by a good dad or that your kids have evidence repentance and faith?
If you believe that salvation involves repentance and faith, why not wait for that day when they repent and believe? Why not let them publicly display their faith and cognitively enjoy their baptism?
I'm sorry for poisoning the well. Let me rephrase...
You just said it for me.
The instrument of salvation is faith alone. If you want to poison the well, you might as well state that I believe salvation comes by family. I didn't say this. Of course the two propositions are not mutually exclusive as if family has nothing to do with faith. How many Baptists are there in Saudi Arabia anyhow?
If you would read this again then you would see I noted the necessity of corporate repentance and that men live lives of repentance. You do not, however, walk up to a man who is in good standing and tell him to repent and to begin worshipping the True God if, for 10 years, you assume he has been. That was my point. Please read more carefully.
Well, yes, I just said that it would from your standpoint.
The confidence I have is a God who elects. The confidence I have is that, like other disciples, they are members of good standing in the Body where the Gospel is proclaimed.
If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?
Jim Johnston
Puritan Board Sophomore
...and not by profession either, i.e., a mere uttering of the words "I believe in Jesus."
What basis do we believe our children are elect?
Speaking of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 30 we read: "This is what the LORD says: " 'I will restore the fortunes of Jacob's tents and have compassion on his dwellings; From them will come songs of thanksgiving and the sound of rejoicing. I will add to their numbers, and they will not be decreased; Their children will be as in days of old, and their community will be established before me, Their leader will be one of their own; their ruler will arise from among them" 'So you will be my people, and I will be your God.' "
Talking about the time of the New Covenant Jeremiah says “At that time, saith Jehovah, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:1).
Again, referring to the times of the New Covenant, the Lord says through Ezekiel in chapter 37: 'My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them.”
Zech 10 reads, "And I shall strengthen the house of Judah, And I shall save the house of Joseph, And I shall bring them back, Because I have had not rejected them. And their heart will be glad as if from wine; Indeed, their children will see it and be glad, Their heart will rejoice in the LORD. "I will whistle for them to gather them together, For I have redeemed them; And they will be as numerous as they were before. "When I scatter them among the peoples, They will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”
In the last book of the Old Testament we read about John the Baptist and part of what his mission entailed: Mal 4:5 "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. 6 "And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”
And what, according to the New Testament, is the reason for this?: Luke 1:17 "And it is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
This is in contrast to what would happen to the breakdown between the fathers and children of the Old Covenant because of God’s covenantal curses brought upon them. Ezekiel 5:10 “Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers.”
The New Covenant restores the people of God. As Jeremiah had stated -- at that time I will be a God to the families of New Covenant Israel, and that they will be my people. And Zech 10:8-10 "I will whistle for them to gather them, they will remember Me in far countries, And they, with their children, will live and come back.”
The Mother of Jesus applies the Old Testament idea of covenantal succession to her day and every day after that: Luke 2:48 "For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. 49 "For the Mighty One has done great things for me; And holy is His name. 50 "and his mercy is upon generation after generation, toward those who fear Him.”
In Jeremiah 31:33 New Covenant members will have God’s law written upon their heart. Why would this mean a removal of the children of covenant members when Hosea says that because the law was not on the Old Covenant members heart this meant their children were cast off? “Because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children”(4:6). Wouldn’t New Covenant Jews, who were familiar with Hosea mind you, at least have asked for clarification if the Apostles had told them that their children were not part of God’s people? “You mean the law is on our heart, but our children are still forgotten!? They don’t, as Jeremiah said, return with us? Please explain!” Perhaps they didn’t ask that because they were too busy having numerous debates about the inclusion of Gentiles. Note that. The New Testament notes numerous heated debates the church had over Gentiles being included among the covenant people. It was unexpected so much so that even the Apostle Peter had to have a private talk with God in order to get with the program. But what did these Jewish Christians do when they found out their own children had been excluded? Surely they debated much more vigorously than they had about the inclusion of the Gentiles, right? If the Jews were debating over the inclusion of the Gentiles, how much more would they have debated the exclusion of their own children? But in the New testament we find utter silence. But, that silence is deafening.
44jason
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,
I must be really slow tonight. I'm still not following you. Maybe I missed something in a comment somewhere but what are you saying here:
You now seem to be arguing that I believe in excluding children. That is just not true. I was born-again at age seven and baptized. A good friend of mine, at age five. My son, at age 8. I have another son who has professed faith and is seemingly growing in wisdom and practical righteousness and we look forward to his soon baptism. I am so thankful that my parents did not rob me of the cognitive decision I made to be baptized, to obey the Scripture and publicly confess my baptism into Christ. The joy that I see on people's faces, including the day I baptized my Dad, my wife, and my son, -- Oh I am so glad that they were able to experience that glorious day of being baptized in obedience to Scripture. The grace they experienced will never be forgotten. I am so glad that baptism for me and for them was not some religious ceremony that happened to us as infants because someone said, "Hey because we have repented and come into the Covenant community by faith, lets just baptize this baby and teach him from the beginning that all he needs to do is not buck the system, to not deny the faith."
Alright, I know that is not exactly what you are saying --but that is what it sounds like to us.
So drop the "your trying to exclude children" argument, please. It didn't work against Gene and it will not work with me. It is just a false assumption, at least by you, I don't know if other paedo's share this false presupposition.
The irony is, Baptist have baptized some children numerous times!!!! But that is a different issue, but it does illustrate how false your presupposition is.
I must be really slow tonight. I'm still not following you. Maybe I missed something in a comment somewhere but what are you saying here:
You see, Paul, my comments have to do with the fact that some statements in comments above are suggesting that some enter the New Covenant Church by spiritual birth and others by physical birth.
You now seem to be arguing that I believe in excluding children. That is just not true. I was born-again at age seven and baptized. A good friend of mine, at age five. My son, at age 8. I have another son who has professed faith and is seemingly growing in wisdom and practical righteousness and we look forward to his soon baptism. I am so thankful that my parents did not rob me of the cognitive decision I made to be baptized, to obey the Scripture and publicly confess my baptism into Christ. The joy that I see on people's faces, including the day I baptized my Dad, my wife, and my son, -- Oh I am so glad that they were able to experience that glorious day of being baptized in obedience to Scripture. The grace they experienced will never be forgotten. I am so glad that baptism for me and for them was not some religious ceremony that happened to us as infants because someone said, "Hey because we have repented and come into the Covenant community by faith, lets just baptize this baby and teach him from the beginning that all he needs to do is not buck the system, to not deny the faith."
Alright, I know that is not exactly what you are saying --but that is what it sounds like to us.So drop the "your trying to exclude children" argument, please. It didn't work against Gene and it will not work with me. It is just a false assumption, at least by you, I don't know if other paedo's share this false presupposition.
The irony is, Baptist have baptized some children numerous times!!!! But that is a different issue, but it does illustrate how false your presupposition is.
Here is the disconnect. Now you said I poisoned the well by noting that you are conditioned to think of profession as being some sort of rock solid guarantee (I didn't say you thought it was a guarantee but just some sort of rock solid guarantee).
Notice how you let slip the way you feel about this:
Professors are those in the Church by spiritual birth.
Children of Professors are those in the Church by physical birth.
Seriously, Jason, can't you see the presumption you are making? How can you fault me saying it's some sort of rock solid guarantee for you when you make the rock solid claim that professors are necessarily spiritually re-born and children of professors are simply those of physical birth?
See, we wouldn't presume either to be of that category. I do not have enough information on the mind of God to look at the visible Church and say: "That one is not regenerated."
- Status
Similar threads
