Help me out on Paedobaptism...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, so to be more clear, through infant baptism you are WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY bringing in non-converts to your congregation?

Still, since we can't know if someone is regenerate or not, how does infant baptism even fit in, and why would we want to risk bringing in non-believers into our congregations?
 
Gabriel, after you are done answering the other questions, then perhaps you could answer this one in light of your objections to infant regeneration and/or faith. Can infants be saved and if so, then how? What of those infants who die in infancy? Is there any hope of salvation for them? What of the severely mentally disabled who may never understand the gospel?
I hope you can see that you are stepping out of the bounds of even the strictest baptists on the Board here when you deny that infants can be regenerate. Of course if you would do a search on this topic and read the other threads on this you would see that too :)
 
[quote:d2e3adb251="WrittenFromUtopia"]Okay, so to be more clear, through infant baptism you are WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY bringing in non-converts to your congregation?

Still, since we can't know if someone is regenerate or not, how does infant baptism even fit in, and why would we want to risk bringing in non-believers into our congregations?[/quote:d2e3adb251]

Where int he world do you find, anywhere, in the NT that says that non-believers cannot be in the church?

Acts 21 states that the Pharisees who were believers were upset that they THOUGHT Paul was teaching that their children were no longer in the covenant. BOTH James and Paul set that straight tot he contrary and said they WERE still included in the covenant family. Why would you think god would stop something He started and promised to covenant families?

Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.
 
Can infants be saved? If they can hear and respond to an effectual call by putting faith in Christ as their savior, then yes. If not, they're going to be in hell when they die.

Infants who die in infancy would go to hell if they died without putting faith in Christ.

There is no hope for salvation for anyone unless they are God's chosen people and can hear the gospel and put faith in Christ.

Mentally disabled I would assume would be in hell by default as a result of original sin, but I'd still say this with the disclaimer of "but it's all up to God to judge".

It is a misrepresentation of the ordo salutis to say that babies can be regenerated and just sit around for 10+ years until they can actually grasp the concepts of the Bible and the gospel and put true saving faith in Christ. It is even more surprising to claim that an infant could have such saving faith in Christ without having any knowledge of the world around them at all.
 
[quote:049dfea0b5="WrittenFromUtopia"]Can infants be saved? If they can hear and respond to an effectual call by putting faith in Christ as their savior, then yes. If not, they're going to be in hell when they die.

Infants who die in infancy would go to hell if they died without putting faith in Christ.

There is no hope for salvation for anyone unless they are God's chosen people and can hear the gospel and put faith in Christ.

Mentally disabled I would assume would be in hell by default as a result of original sin, but I'd still say this with the disclaimer of "but it's all up to God to judge".
[/quote:049dfea0b5]

You do realize that virtually all of Christendom, including the Baptist branches (specifically including Spurgeon) disagree with your position, don't you?

The 1689 specifically says that you are wrong and unorthodox on this point:

"10.3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 ) "

Since you have taken a position contrary to all of professing Christendom - Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and even Papist, please produce evidence from the Scriptures and Church theologians that God does not and (in fact) cannot save those who do not make a profession of faith.

While you are at it, please explain how John the Baptist and Jeremiah had the Holy Spirit upon them in the womb. You have gone far beyond standard Baptist theology - and I hope that my brother Phillip will be opnline soon to back me up on this - and you need to repent. if not, DO NOT go into the ministry. I don't want you talking to ANYONE who has had a child die. You are unfit to have that conversation - regardless of anyone's views of who should be the subject of baptism.
 
[quote:3f8da53dcc="WrittenFromUtopia"]Does anyone have an explanation for the vast archeological evidence being uncovered in the Asia Minor and Middle East areas of the world of Baptistries that were constructed and used for Christian Baptism that are over 4 ft. deep?[/quote:3f8da53dcc]

Of course I do. Paedobaptism does not exclude baptism for the new believer. Nor does it exclude immersion. It is not necessary but is certainly possible (in my opinion). Francis Shaeffer said that if parents wanted an infant to be immersed, he would make sure the infant would be safe, and then immerse him!

Now we find ourselves in a world where Christianity was relatively new, and would have a staggering amount of converts from pagan backgrounds. Probably more than children actually being born in the church.

Consider then what happens in 311 A.D., when Constantine becomes an emperor. If the emperor is a kind of divine figure, well, the rest of the populace better get in line! In order to baptize the millions of new "converts," perhaps churches found it more expedient to baptize by immersion.

Or we could just forget what could be historical and archaeological rumors (as far as has been shown) and leave the debate to the theologians who know there stuff.

Which doesn't include me! *runs away from the actual debate*
 
[quote:6a4ce33088]Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.[/quote:6a4ce33088]

This is one reason for the regrettable misunderstanding about the "carnal Christian" because people do not understand that the Apostles were writing to a corpus mixtum.
 
[quote:1cce9ec37f="Paul manata"]Furthermore, in response to the "baptistries uncovered" well, there have been [i:1cce9ec37f]Catholic[/i:1cce9ec37f] churches that had been constructed in the 1300's and even they built in these basillicas. Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholics immersed people in the 1300's?[/quote:1cce9ec37f]

Even Roman Catholics practiced immersion to an extent through the 14th Century, although not predominantly, obviously.
 
[quote:d46026b63b="turmeric"][quote:d46026b63b]Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.[/quote:d46026b63b]

This is one reason for the regrettable misunderstanding about the "carnal Christian" because people do not understand that the Apostles were writing to a corpus mixtum.[/quote:d46026b63b]

Now THIS is making sense to me. I like this .. it hits home with my past in SBC churches and being taught the false doctrines of "carnal" Christians.

Interesting... I might be closer to understanding this all now because of a simple idea like this one.
 
[quote:0d3613af58="WrittenFromUtopia"][quote:0d3613af58="turmeric"][quote:0d3613af58]Every NT letter is written to the Professing church, not a regenerate church. There is a world of difference.[/quote:0d3613af58]

This is one reason for the regrettable misunderstanding about the "carnal Christian" because people do not understand that the Apostles were writing to a corpus mixtum.[/quote:0d3613af58]

Now THIS is making sense to me. I like this .. it hits home with my past in SBC churches and being taught the false doctrines of "carnal" Christians.

Interesting... I might be closer to understanding this all now because of a simple idea like this one.[/quote:0d3613af58]

Gabriel,

What changed my mind on Covenant Theology altogether was the book of Hebrews and the warning passages. That literally undid all my Baptistic Theology.
 
You would also want to take into account the ossuaries and graves of young infants "sent to heaven" by baptism in the first century (probably right around the time the Apostle John either lived, or just after his death.)
 
The idea that infants cannot have faith is inane and foreign to Scripture.

Psalm 8:2--
"Out of the mouths of babes and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger."

Psalm 22:9-10--
"Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God."

Psalm 71:5-6; 17--
"For you, O Lord, are my hope, my trust, O LORD, from my youth. Upon you I have leaned from before my birth; you are he who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of you."
 
[quote:06026458e8="ABondSlaveofChristJesus"]Where is a reference to sprinkling in the infallible word that is the only dogmatic source we look too?

Why does the westminister confession say:

3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

There is not one reference of scripture backing this statement.
[/quote:06026458e8]
This is late in the thread but still must be corrected. I'm not sure which version of the Westminster Confession you have but the version I have (the 1646 version) has a few scripture references for that article of the Confession. They are Hebrews 9:10, 19-22, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:33, Mark 7:4.
 
Even though there isn't a great deal of dialogue going on here across the fields, I have to say this has been an interesting thread. And I'm still reading it...

There have been lots of great passages brought up to plate. Plenty of excellent quotes from fine exegetes.
 
Thanks for the references. Also thanks Paul the excerpt and
:wr50:

Seems like things kinda steered off course through most of the thread. Honestly I'm curious on the mode. I don't consider this issue to be that serious of one though. The issue becomes serious when the spiritual meanings are getting attacked.

I've grown up my entire life in Southern Baptist churches, and membership to the church was dependent on a profession of faith. I remember growing up and not being allowed to partake in the Lords Supper because I was not a member of the church. So a child could be regenerated from birth but not yet converted, still they would wait for the profession before bringing them officially into the body.

In the Presbyterian churches every child is a member because of a covenant? How is membership acquired in the Presbyterian church?

I find a lot of my old theology crumbling and being replaced by reformed.

Obviously, I know nothing about infant baptism. So, pardon my ignorance, im filled with it. :no:
 
[quote:2507b64da7="ABondSlaveofChristJesus"]

In the Presbyterian churches every child is a member because of a covenant? How is membership acquired in the Presbyterian church?

I find a lot of my old theology crumbling and being replaced by reformed.

Obviously, I know nothing about infant baptism. So, pardon my ignorance, im filled with it. :no:[/quote:2507b64da7]

Children are members of the church upon reception and baptism.

They become communicant members and are able to participate in the Lord's Supper upon the age of discretion (which is simply the time that their parents deem them fit to speak about spiritual things and the Gospel in a manner in which they can articulate it). They will go through a class on basic doctrine, and then are "interviewed" by the elders to test them in their knowledge. Then they partake of the supper. But they are always members after baptism.
 
This is not to inspire argument, for the Lord only knows how I have wrestled with this issue (so much so that I about "switched camps"-even so that I supplied for a local Presbyterian church), but it is only a sincere question. Matt you said that children are members of the church after baptism. What if a child (now an adolescent), never made a communicant member "goes into the world" and is caught up in all sorts of wickedness, is he still a member (let's say he has never professed any sort of belief in Christ)? Would the church then exercise discipline upon him like they would any other member? Could he be excommunicated? If he is excommunicated does he show himself to have never been a member of the Covenant? (Understand that I am a covenantal Baptist [which is not an oxymoron]). If he shows himself to have never been in the covenant, then was it sinful/wrong to baptize him? (Again these questions are asked in a spirit of humility and eagerness to learn- not in an argumentative fashion.)

P.s. Sorry for the run-on sentences. I am typing quick so that I will not forget my questions.
 
[quote:f6f442cb55="nicnap"]This is not to inspire argument, for the Lord only knows how I have wrestled with this issue (so much so that I about "switched camps"-even so that I supplied for a local Presbyterian church), but it is only a sincere question. Matt you said that children are members of the church after baptism. What if a child (now an adolescent), never made a communicant member "goes into the world" and is caught up in all sorts of wickedness, is he still a member (let's say he has never professed any sort of belief in Christ)? Would the church then exercise discipline upon him like they would any other member? Could he be excommunicated? If he is excommunicated does he show himself to have never been a member of the Covenant? (Understand that I am a covenantal Baptist [which is not an oxymoron]). If he shows himself to have never been in the covenant, then was it sinful/wrong to baptize him? (Again these questions are asked in a spirit of humility and eagerness to learn- not in an argumentative fashion.)[/quote:f6f442cb55]

In order:

Yes, he is still a member.
Yes, they should exercise discipline.
Yes, unrepentant sin should be excommunited after the model of Matthew 16 and 18.
No, he shows himself to be a covenant breaker.
No, covenant signs and regeneration are not simultaneous, ever. (i.e circumcision, the covenant sign for 3000 years, was given to [i:f6f442cb55]infants[/i:f6f442cb55] as a sign of regeneration.)
 
Just a note: a non-communing member can be disciplined, but he cannot be ex-communicated. To be ex-communicated, one must be (by definition) communing.

That is (in my opinion) one of the great sheperding advantages of the Presbyterian system. Children who fail to profess can actually be given the blessing of discipline, instead of simply left to wander off with a "oh, he didn't profess"
 
Thanks for the replies. I have some questions in my head, but cannot seem to get them to my fingers to type... :banghead:. As I think of them, or can enunciate/articulate them (if one can articulate in typing, but you know what I mean), I will post them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top