Infant Baptism

[timmopussycat]

One of the things I was recently reflecting on is sort of the latent assumption we have that information traveled in the same manner that it does today. We have many media by which men and women and children throughout the world may learn about things very rapidly. Nevertheless, we know of many remote areas where information travels slowly and customs are still preserved for centuries.

Thinking about this weakens any argument that paedobaptism could suddenly appear on the scene of Church history without any indication that it was an innovation and contrary to Apostolic teaching. The argument that the Church began with the convictions of modern day antipaedobaptists and so quickly degenerated to include the baptism of infants does not square with the light of nature. It's not a Scriptural argument for paedobaptism but it does militate against any theory that it was an innovation because there is no historical record.
Now, some will counter that other doctrines were seemingly lost for some time but, avoiding particulars for the moment, stop and consider the difference between a doctrine and a visible practice. It is quite easy to forget why certain things are performed but is nigh impossible to forget that there was once a time when we only baptized professors. Many, for instance, could not articulate the why of wine during the Lord's Supper in the 19th Century but it did not go unnoticed for even a second when ministers started serving grape juice

The problem we face in this area is that we most likely do not have written records of the full teachings of all the sub apostolic fathers in this area, let alone others and your observation rests on a couple of begged questions. 1) Such evidence we do have commences with the first explicit mention of IB is from Tertullian, an objector to the practice. Given that reality, it is certainly legitmate to hold that Tertullian may well be combatting a then-new or growing innovation in the churches. We simply don't know the broader context of his remarks. And if someone made a theological deduction from apparently sound premises that ib was scriptural it could have been taught with relatively minor notice in one or more locations very quickly.

For good or ill, visible practices have a shelf life that long outlasts the why of their performance and I've never seen an adequate explanation for the universal practice of paedobaptism that squares with this reality combined with the fact that information traveled so slowly in the first couple of millenia of the Church's history.

Information travel in the Roman empire was not always slow. Somewhere in the PB archive is a thread dealing with the Nestorian controversy a poster noted that "The land speed of the postal system throughout the Roman empire is known to have been 50 miles/day and it is not at all unreasonable to posit that such news could have reached N in Lower Egypt within 50 days as the distance from Istanbul (Chalcedon) to Alexandria is about 1061 miles. From Alexandria to the present Aswan is about another 700 miles. The Thebaid area was a twenty mile wide strip along the Nile running from Abydos south to Aswan. So the maximum distance from Chalcedon to Nestorius in exile was 1800 miles or 36 days average travel time." For anybody wealthy enough to send mail by the imperial post, communications lag around the Mediterranean was about 1 month.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tertullian, an objector to the practice

Whenever I read appeals to Tertullian I see this as evidence of the perfect example of question begging for a position in desperate search of a historical record. Tertullian does not object to the baptism of infants so much as he suggests that it's better to wait until as late in life as possible. Why? Surely for the reasons of the modern antipaedopaptist, correct? No. Because it washes away sin and he reasons that it's better to wait until you've got more sins to wash away. Now, how precisely, does Tertullian count historically as a crypto-Baptist?

The fact of the matter is that the practice of infant baptism is established historically with any writings we have among diverse cultures and locations that have no record of any controversy (save imagined controversy with Tertullian) over a practice viewed so inimical to the Sacrament as to invalidate it. You have failed to give any credible explanation to this. Once again we ought to expect some objection that remotely resembles objections to other heresies at the time. Any theory about how a practice universally existed and passes from memory in every region of the Church is an incredible story indeed.

As for the speed of communications, a one month speed is impressive but Christianity was not simply along the main thoroughfares. Even so, with communications being what they were, I still believe you're assuming that new ideas spread as modern times and this is simply not the case. Accepting your premise for a moment, however, where are all the letters? Where are the letters from the Churches disputing this because they distinctly remember the apostolic practice? Where are the letters of response? With the rapidity of communications you cite we should see a robust conversation from at least one Church.

 

[timmopussycat]

Tertullian, an objector to the practice

Whenever I read appeals to Tertullian I see this as evidence of the perfect example of question begging for a position in desperate search of a historical record. Tertullian does not object to the baptism of infants so much as he suggests that it's better to wait until as late in life as possible. Why? Surely for the reasons of the modern antipaedopaptist, correct? No. Because it washes away sin and he reasons that it's better to wait until you've got more sins to wash away. Now, how precisely, does Tertullian count historically as a crypto-Baptist?

There are two reasons why T may be properly cited in favour of the possibility of anti-paedobaptism. First that he can, in 200 AD, feel free to attack paedobaptism which argues that p. (or the theology behind it) may be a relatively recent innovation. Christians tend not to argue about things that are known to be apostolic. Second, the theology of paedobaptism he cites is definitely non scripturual. Those who want to argue that paedobaptism is apostolic might want to explain how and why the apostolic doctrine on the topic degenerated so quickly. And of course this last can't be done because as I said before the sub-apostolic writings we have are not the complete record of the teaching of the sub-apostolic church.

The fact of the matter is that the practice of infant baptism is established historically with any writings we have among diverse cultures and locations that have no record of any controversy (save imagined controversy with Tertullian) over a practice viewed so inimical to the Sacrament as to invalidate it.

The widespread knowledge of the practice that you refer to comes from post 250. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear mention of the practice of infant baptism in the literature until Tertullian and that was not an imagined controversy but a real disagreement. We simply have no record of the practice in any area of the church until then and it is only 50 years later with Cyprian’s letter that we get the next clear mention. And Cyprian is arguing about the appropriate time for carrying out the rite. It might be argued that not settling appropriate time by 250 suggests that the practice was rather novel.

You have failed to give any credible explanation to this. Once again we ought to expect some objection that remotely resembles objections to other heresies at the time. Any theory about how a practice universally existed and passes from memory in every region of the Church is an incredible story indeed.

In the sub-apostolic literature we can see indications of the speed with which false teaching developed. To take but one example, compare the ideas of Ignatius about 115 concerning bishops with the NT picture of the role. Less than 50 years after Paul’s death and we find considerable distortion of his teaching. And it is from these 50 years that we have very very little surviving record of what the early church taught. We simply cannot say whether pb was apostolic or whether it originated as an error during these years.

As for the speed of communications, a one month speed is impressive but Christianity was not simply along the main thoroughfares.

You should know better than to make this erroneous observation. The mails ran from Rome through Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, along the trade routes through both South and North Galatia to Antioch and Jerusalem. We know that there were substantial Christian communities in all these places by 70 AD.

Even so, with communications being what they were, I still believe you're assuming that new ideas spread as modern times and this is simply not the case. Accepting your premise for a moment, however, where are all the letters? Where are the letters from the Churches disputing this because they distinctly remember the apostolic practice? Where are the letters of response? With the rapidity of communications you cite we should see a robust conversation from at least one Church.

Assuming that we should see a robust conversation in one church would be known to us if pb were an innovation presumes that we have records of all the controversies of the period, which we don't. It also presumes that the innovation was perceived as controversial when first introduced. It may not have been so. If the false teaching about the meaning of baptism had earlier developed, pb would not be perceived as that great an innovation as it is a logical extension of that error. Given the communications it would spread rapidly through the churches.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have a few questions. Does anyone in the early Church actually come out and deny paedobaptism in the early writings? Do they call it unscriptural? It seems it was an accepted practice. For a practice to just appear without any questioning of its propriety seems odd. So I would conclude it was most likely a practice of the early Church. Tertullian has been discussed quite a bit on this forum. His arguments weren't against the practice as unscriptural it seems. It seems he would have people wait for baptism because of his belief in baptismal regeneration and the washing away of sins. He even thought unmarried people should wait until they were married.

Pastor Tim Phillips posted the following in another thread. I believe it is enlightening.

From Tertullian (from ch. 18 of On Baptism):

But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who begs you," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" Matthew 7:6 and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts 8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition" may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

From Cyprian (the subject itself was debated at the Council of Carthage in 254):

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Cyprian, Letters 64:2, A.D. 253).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Also, Hippolytus (c. 215 A.D.):

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16).

 

[kvanlaan]

Interesting. I have a Coptic friend that I've discussed this with, and they're pretty sold on infant baptism, since they basically say "well, St Mark told us to do this, this, and this while he was here, so we've done it for the last 2000-ish years." I find it hard to argue a counter-point on that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There are two reasons why T may be properly cited in favour of the possibility of anti-paedobaptism. First that he can, in 200 AD, feel free to attack paedobaptism which argues that p. (or the theology behind it) may be a relatively recent innovation. Christians tend not to argue about things that are known to be apostolic. Second, the theology of paedobaptism he cites is definitely non scripturual. Those who want to argue that paedobaptism is apostolic might want to explain how and why the apostolic doctrine on the topic degenerated so quickly. And of course this last can't be done because as I said before the sub-apostolic writings we have are not the complete record of the teaching of the sub-apostolic church.

Question begging. Once again Tertullian doesn't "attack" paedobaptism. He argues that being older is better due to the results of baptismal regeneration. He also recommends that people wait until after they're married to be baptized as well. I almost laughed out loud at the argument that Tertullian "feels free to attack" an established practice. You do know that Tertullian became a Montanist? Are you going to cite all of Tertullian's objections against orthodoxy as evidence that the Early Church didn't have settled the things he challenged?

The widespread knowledge of the practice that you refer to comes from post 250. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear mention of the practice of infant baptism in the literature until Tertullian and that was not an imagined controversy but a real disagreement. We simply have no record of the practice in any area of the church until then and it is only 50 years later with Cyprian’s letter that we get the next clear mention. And Cyprian is arguing about the appropriate time for carrying out the rite. It might be argued that not settling appropriate time by 250 suggests that the practice was rather novel.

Yes, and we have pretty clear historical memory of things that happened 250 years ago. What's your point? That people didn't have any institutional memory back then because they're not as intelligent as we? Once again, question begging. Where is the single objection that this is novel? You have failed to produce the single witness.

In the sub-apostolic literature we can see indications of the speed with which false teaching developed. To take but one example, compare the ideas of Ignatius about 115 concerning bishops with the NT picture of the role. Less than 50 years after Paul’s death and we find considerable distortion of his teaching. And it is from these 50 years that we have very very little surviving record of what the early church taught. We simply cannot say whether pb was apostolic or whether it originated as an error during these years.

Again, question begging. I already dealt with this. There was still a practice of Bishops and Presbyters even into Augustine's day because of the institutional memory of a title and a practice even long after people forgot what that apostolic teaching was. There is even histoical record of the lament of the loss of the office of Presbyter by an ECF (though I can't find it). Where is the single early Church witness to antipaedobaptism other than assuming your conclusion and constructing theories to stand in for your witness?

You should know better than to make this erroneous observation. The mails ran from Rome through Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, along the trade routes through both South and North Galatia to Antioch and Jerusalem. We know that there were substantial Christian communities in all these places by 70 AD.

You should know better to read more carefully. Not all live near well traveled roads and we see examples even in the NT that news about Paul had not reached the Jews there years after the controversy erupted.

Assuming that we should see a robust conversation in one church would be known to us if pb were an innovation presumes that we have records of all the controversies of the period, which we don't. It also presumes that the innovation was perceived as controversial when first introduced. It may not have been so. If the false teaching about the meaning of baptism had earlier developed, pb would not be perceived as that great an innovation as it is a logical extension of that error. Given the communications it would spread rapidly through the churches.

Question begging. Once again, an innovation that nobody cares about enough in the whole Church so as to make an objection? We have epistles surviving from Clement chastising Corinth again over an issue that modern antipaedobaptists would consider inconsequential compared to the corruption of who is baptized. You claim that your antipaedobaptist views were once normative in Church history and I haven't met one yet who is ambivalent about whether infants are baptized. Within my lifetime I've seen them forget many things about the Christian faith but neither the notion of "much water" nor "disciple=professor" have faded in their sharpness in the least. In fact, that's about all that can be said to be remembered sharply among a wide swath. I know many who cannot distinguish between nearly every Christological heresy or articulate soteriological issues but they know that baptizing babies isn't right.

If you can convince yourself with such theories then so be it. Your theories actually continue to undergird the point I made in my first post. I will let the reader decide whether your theories are convincing (when you're not misrepresenting Tertullian's actual words).

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Hi Randy, could you clarify. Are you a paedobaptist?

Yes, I came to understand some things about the Covenants that I had never understood before. I was debating a paedo understanding that looked more like a Baptist theology concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I use to believe that the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant were very different in substance and that the Mosaic had a works paradigm to it that the New Covenant didn't. After being challenged for a few years I came to understand that what I was debating against was Klineanism (teachings of Meredith Kline) and not Reformed Covenant Theology. Now Kline has the Covenant of Works down but I believe that his thoughts concerning the law and Gospel in the Mosaic are a bit off. If Kline was correct and that there is a works substance or Reinstatement (republication) of the Covenant of Works then I would still be a Baptist I think. But I do not think this any longer. The substance of the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same. Justification is by grace alone through faith alone in the Old and New Covenant and the blessings of that substance have not changed from the Old to the New. I also finally read Jeremiah chapter 31 in context with Jeremiah 32 as Paul Manata asked me to do years ago. And it all started to fit together just a bit more clearly.

If you have any questions or challenges for me just email me Stephen. Puritancovenanter at msn dot com.


I posted a blog about it here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/

And here is when I announced my change of view.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561

Et Tu, Brute?

 

[cajunhillbilly53]

http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptis...TF8&coliid=I2NRPO5D1R9OYU&colid=1WYC0IT832BJ4 this is a good book on this issue

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Et Tu, Brute?

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

I have sincerely lived my life with the attitude of William Symington's words. I have never really had a shift of major theological thought. In fact I became a Christian by reading the scriptures and I even believed John 15:16 the first time I read it. So I wasn't born an Arminian to become a Calvinist even.

I have stabbed no one. LOL. I know there is life eternal and run towards it and try to lead others to it also. It is found in Messiah the Prince and in His Covenant of Grace. I think I have laid out openly my reasons and I haven't really been challenged by anyone since I have. I think I covered most of the basis that I use to argue. Bill, if you want to give a go at challenging my understanding I am most willing. I have openly given my reasons and why I think the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance. That is why I was Reformed Baptist. I didn't think they were.

 

[timmopussycat]

There are two reasons why T may be properly cited in favour of the possibility of anti-paedobaptism. First that he can, in 200 AD, feel free to attack paedobaptism which argues that p. (or the theology behind it) may be a relatively recent innovation. Christians tend not to argue about things that are known to be apostolic. Second, the theology of paedobaptism he cites is definitely non scripturual. Those who want to argue that paedobaptism is apostolic might want to explain how and why the apostolic doctrine on the topic degenerated so quickly. And of course this last can't be done because as I said before the sub-apostolic writings we have are not the complete record of the teaching of the sub-apostolic church.

Question begging. Once again Tertullian doesn't "attack" paedobaptism.

He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.

[He argues that being older is better due to the results of baptismal regeneration. He uses celibacy as an example. I almost laughed out loud at the argument that Tertullian "feels free to attack" an established practice. You do know that Tertullian became a Montanist? Are you going to cite all of Tertullian's objections against orthodoxy as evidence that the Early Church didn't have settled the things he challenged?

Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).

The widespread knowledge of the practice that you refer to comes from post 250. The fact of the matter is that there is no clear mention of the practice of infant baptism in the literature until Tertullian and that was not an imagined controversy but a real disagreement. We simply have no record of the practice in any area of the church until then and it is only 50 years later with Cyprian’s letter that we get the next clear mention. And Cyprian is arguing about the appropriate time for carrying out the rite. It might be argued that not settling appropriate time by 250 suggests that the practice was rather novel.

Yes, and we have pretty clear historical memory of things that happened 250 years ago. What's your point? That people didn't have any institutional memory back then because they're not as intelligent as we? Once again, question begging. Where is the single objection that this is novel? You have failed to produce the single witness.

No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way. What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture. The moment we presume, by the silence of tradition that we can know what the early church taught, presumes that what we have fairly represents the tradition and is unsound reasoning. We must not ascribe to tradition the idea that it must provide answers to all our theological questions – for that is an authority that properly belongs to Scripture alone.

In the sub-apostolic literature we can see indications of the speed with which false teaching developed. To take but one example, compare the ideas of Ignatius about 115 concerning bishops with the NT picture of the role. Less than 50 years after Paul’s death and we find considerable distortion of his teaching. And it is from these 50 years that we have very very little surviving record of what the early church taught. We simply cannot say whether pb was apostolic or whether it originated as an error during these years.

Again, question begging. I already dealt with this. There was still a practice of Bishops and Presbyters even into Augustine's day because of the institutional memory of a title and a practice even long after people forgot what that apostolic teaching was. There is even histoical record of the lament of the loss of the office of Presbyter by an ECF (though I can't find it). Where is the single early Church witness to antipaedobaptism other than assuming your conclusion and constructing theories to stand in for your witness?

And as I pointed out, we cannot rely on the church’s institutional memory because is demonstrably errant.

You should know better than to make this erroneous observation. The mails ran from Rome through Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, along the trade routes through both South and North Galatia to Antioch and Jerusalem. We know that there were substantial Christian communities in all these places by 70 AD.

You should know better to read more carefully. Not all live near well traveled roads and we see examples even in the NT that news about Paul had not reached the Jews there years after the controversy erupted.

.

You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.

But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.

Assuming that we should see a robust conversation in one church would be known to us if pb were an innovation presumes that we have records of all the controversies of the period, which we don't. It also presumes that the innovation was perceived as controversial when first introduced. It may not have been so. If the false teaching about the meaning of baptism had earlier developed, pb would not be perceived as that great an innovation as it is a logical extension of that error. Given the communications it would spread rapidly through the churches.

Question begging. Once again, an innovation that nobody cares about enough in the whole Church so as to make an objection?

And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.

We have epistles surviving from Clement chastising Corinth again over an issue that modern antipaedobaptists would consider inconsequential compared to the corruption of who is baptized.

Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..

You claim that your antipaedobaptist views were once normative in Church history and I haven't met one yet who is ambivalent about whether infants are baptized. Within my lifetime I've seen them forget many things about the Christian faith but neither the notion of "much water" nor "disciple=professor" have faded in their sharpness in the least. In fact, that's about all that can be said to be remembered sharply among a wide swath. I know many who cannot distinguish between nearly every Christological heresy or articulate soteriological issues but they know that baptizing babies isn't right.

A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Such an approach is often described as an attack.

This doesn't sound like an attack. This calling it an attack is an obscuring of what is admonished. Some have taken his words and used them out of context I believe. They make it sound like he is against paedobaptism. It sounds like he has reservations and desire for holding off on immediate baptism but I don't think he is against it. He really isn't saying not to administer Baptism right away but that we should make sure we know what it entails and what the ramifications are. It seems like it is more of admonition than an attack on paedobaptism. His last line seems to reveal his motive for what he is thinking. Tertullian says, "If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation."

From Tertullian (from ch. 18 of On Baptism):

But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. "Give to every one who begs you," has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: "Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;" Matthew 7:6 and, "Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men's sins." If Philip so "easily" baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts 8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer's sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain's chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. "But Paul too was, in fact, 'speedily' baptized:" for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be "an appointed vessel of election." God's approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every "petition" may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly but I don't see where he is totally against it. It seemed necessary to baptize those on their death bed because of the implication that sin was forgiven and washed away. That was common thinking back then if I am not mistaken. Tertullian is just pleading for cautious understanding.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.

When one is begging the question. He is also, therefore, attacking adult baptism for the unmarried. Do you see this, also, as a buttress to your point or are you being selective?

Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).

And because he supports your theory you are able to figure out which parts of his theology are stable ("attacks" on PB) and which are unstable (let's just ignore that baptismal regeneration stuff and silliness about telling the unmarried to wait to get baptized....)

No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way.

Consequently, any theories would be question begging, yes?

Oh, apparently not...

What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture.

No, you have taken a few sentences without any other surrounding historical context, imported your theory on it and created an explanation for it al. This is not historical argument, it is question begging. As I stated before, the silence needs no explanation. When there is no contrary example, my Biblical conviction does not need to go searching for theories for its instant disappearance from the face of Christianity a little over a century after the death of the Apostles.

You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.

But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.

My point is merely that information did not travel quickly and, try as you might to assume that the Church would be motivated to spread the news of a new heresy quickly, your theory is fantastic.

And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.

Please do keep making these sorts of objections. They simply support the case of historical silence in need of a theory to explain. Can you please be more specific about the false theology behind IB that Tertullian was objecting to? Does Tertullian's correction of false theology convince you and your Church that you should not be baptizing the unmarried?

Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..

But you had stated earlier that most people would simply "lay down" on the baptism issue as if it was immaterial. I did not state that Clement's letter was unnecessary or the issues unimportant. I really don't know if you are being deceptive or you are really unable to accurately read even a simple interaction with me but it was very clear what I meant. It seems to me that your education should allow you to follow my simple point and I would urge you to take greater care when responding.

A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.

Tim, I'll let you have the last word but let me close by noting that you have a single historical witness who is not only unstable as demosntrated by his departure from orthodoxy but unstable as demonstrated by several other things he affirms and denies in his urging the delay of baptism for infants, children, and pubescent teens. Even if we assume he hadn't gone off the deep end yet, you keep coming back to him because you have no place else to go. If you wish to continue to buttress your historical argument with this lone unstable witness then I'm happy to have you do so as it continues to make my initial point. Let the reader move his nose away an inch from the issue and he'd realize that your historical case has no substance and is an example of the kind of historical scholarship we would all scoff at if it was in the service of a liberal.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Et Tu, Brute?

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

I have sincerely lived my life with the attitude of William Symington's words. I have never really had a shift of major theological thought. In fact I became a Christian by reading the scriptures and I even believed John 15:16 the first time I read it. So I wasn't born an Arminian to become a Calvinist even.

I have stabbed no one. LOL. I know there is life eternal and run towards it and try to lead others to it also. It is found in Messiah the Prince and in His Covenant of Grace. I think I have laid out openly my reasons and I haven't really been challenged by anyone since I have. I think I covered most of the basis that I use to argue. Bill, if you want to give a go at challenging my understanding I am most willing. I have openly given my reasons and why I think the Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance. That is why I was Reformed Baptist. I didn't think they were.

I'm only kidding, Martin. We all have to live in truth as we understand it, and often our understanding of truth changes over time. You should be commended for following what you belive is truth and not remaining in your previous position out of pride. And no, I have no intention of challenging your position on baptism or anyone else. This debate is not going to be settled on this forum. Some of us are credobaptists and some of us are paedobaptists, but we are all brothers and we are all together on the Puritan Board. Let us live in peace.

 

[timmopussycat]

And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, "Forbid them not to come unto me." Let them "come," then, while they are growing up; let them "come" while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the "remission of sins?" More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given "to him that asks." For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.

.

This doesn't sound like an attack. This calling it an attack is an obscuring of what is admonished. Some have taken his words and used them out of context I believe. They make it sound like he is against paedobaptism. It sounds like he has reservations and desire for holding off on immediate baptism but I don't think he is against it. He really isn't saying not to administer Baptism right away but that we should make sure we know what it entails and what the ramifications are. It seems like it is more of admonition than an attack on paedobaptism. His last line seems to reveal his motive for what he is thinking.

To even recommend against what, on pb premises, was the then normal understanding of pb is, by definition, to be against the practice as it was then carried out

Maybe I am reading this incorrectly but I don't see where he is totally against it. It seemed necessary to baptize those on their death bed because of the implication that sin was forgiven and washed away. That was common thinking back then if I am not mistaken. Tertullian is just pleading for cautious understanding.

Whether you use the word attack or admonishment, the substance is the same, T. is recommending against infant baptism based on an unscriptural misunderstanding of Baptism that seems to have been common in his day.

He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.

When one is begging the question. He is also, therefore, attacking adult baptism for the unmarried. Do you see this, also, as a buttress to your point or are you being selective?

His attack on other cases are based on and logical consequences of the same theological misunderstanding of baptism that his critique of ib evidences.

Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).

And because he supports your theory you are able to figure out which parts of his theology are stable ("attacks" on PB) and which are unstable (let's just ignore that baptismal regeneration stuff and silliness about telling the unmarried to wait to get baptized....)

No, what I said was that Christians TEND not to attack things KNOWN to be APOSTOLIC. (I should have used the word “practices” rather than things). IF the practice of IB was certainly known to be Apostolic by Tertullian, he would have been less likely to attack in this period. And note that even in his Montanist period he was holding, to a considerable extent, doctrines and practices that although apostolic, but that had since ceased (assuming the cessationist view of matters is correct). What T does is reason from an unbiblical theology of baptism which we must assume was then current.

No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way.

Consequently, any theories would be question begging, yes?

Oh, apparently not...

When the tradition is known to be errant, statements presuming certainties (either way) will be question begging. On the other hand, statements showing what the possibilities are may not be so considered.

What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture.

No, you have taken a few sentences without any other surrounding historical context, imported your theory on it and created an explanation for it al. This is not historical argument, it is question begging. As I stated before, the silence needs no explanation. When there is no contrary example, my Biblical conviction does not need to go searching for theories for its instant disappearance from the face of Christianity a little over a century after the death of the Apostles.

The facts are these: ib is not mentioned clearly in the tradition until 200; when it is first mentioned it is mentioned in conjunction with an errant theology of baptism which proves that whatever the apostolic tradition on subject of baptism was, it was somehow corrupted between 70 and about 185. The good and necessary consequence of this reality is that is begging the question to assume that the rest of the baptism tradition (including the practice of ib) is accurate when we cannot test its accuracy. It may be accurate or it may not be and we simply don’t know which is correct. Presuming we can trust a tradition known to be errant in part, on the points where we cannot test it is to abandon the reformed doctrine of sola, not solo, scriptura in favour of a reformed traditionalism.

You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.

But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.

My point is merely that information did not travel quickly and, try as you might to assume that the Church would be motivated to spread the news of a new heresy quickly, your theory is fantastic.

Information was known to travel quickly some of the time and slowly some of the time. You can’t pick an alternative because it is favourable to your case, you must look at the range of possibilities and allow for what is likely. If the errant doctrine of baptism T relies on was not initially perceived to be heretical, and it wasn’t because it was accepted as the norm in T's day, the question then becomes how fast would it likely have spread through the churches? We know the maximum speed of the Roman mails, let’s double that for private travellers, and allow another year’s delay from church to church (travelling teachers were known to circulate). While we could take 115 - the date of the first known corruption of apostolic teaching in the literature - as our start date, let’s be conservative and assume (hypothetically) that it started in, say Corinth, about 135. It would be in Rome and Philippi by 137, Ephesus by 139, Antioch by 140 and Jerusalem by 142. Since ib is a logical consequence of that doctrine, it would not be easily perceived as heretical. Assume that ib was first formulated in 145, it would have been known throughout the churches by 152 at the latest – a generation before 185.

And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.

Please do keep making these sorts of objections. They simply support the case of historical silence in need of a theory to explain. Can you please be more specific about the false theology behind IB that Tertullian was objecting to?

The errant theology of baptism T is relying on includes the ideas that a) that wb was essential for salvation: "Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God's, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will. But you will perhaps say, 'What does the baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation." (Clement, "Recognitions of Clement," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155) and b) that there are serious adverse consequences for the one who commits sins after baptism, so serious that baptism is best postponed. We see a hint of this in: “But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins.” (Tertullian, On Baptism, ch 8). This tradition known seems to have origninated in the following text which suggests that sinning after baptism could not be atoned for: "there is no other way [to obtain God's promises] than this-to become acquainted with Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the remainder, to live sinless lives." (Justin Martyr, Trypho chap. 44) "For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?' (Second Clement 6:7)

Does Tertullian's correction of false theology convince you and your Church that you should not be baptizing the unmarried?

No, for the same reasons you and your church would find that premise Scripturally unsound. My only reasons in citing this unbiblical theology of baptism is to point out that scripturally it is a corruption of Apostolic doctrine and that it entered the tradition undetected in the years 70 - 200.

Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..

But you had stated earlier that most people would simply "lay down" on the baptism issue as if it was immaterial. I did not state that Clement's letter was unnecessary or the issues unimportant. I really don't know if you are being deceptive or you are really unable to accurately read even a simple interaction with me but it was very clear what I meant. It seems to me that your education should allow you to follow my simple point and I would urge you to take greater care when responding.

The history of heresy shows plainly enough that some issues are immediately recognized as controversial and some are not, and in other case the full extent of the problem comes to light after many years. Please reread my posts. I am trying to say that there is good reason to show that the early church experienced a defective theology of baptism (quotations above) that held not only that wb was essential to salvation but that no sacrifice for sins was available for sins committed post baptism. Once this error was adopted, there is no good reason to object to ib except for those reasons T put forward. And, given the history of heresy, we cannot say that the doctrinal misunderstanding would immediately have been recognized as erroneous by some. That simply is not the case.

A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.

Tim, I'll let you have the last word but let me close by noting that you have a single historical witness who is not only unstable as demosntrated by his departure from orthodoxy but unstable as demonstrated by several other things he affirms and denies in his urging the delay of baptism for infants, children, and pubescent teens. Even if we assume he hadn't gone off the deep end yet, you keep coming back to him because you have no place else to go. If you wish to continue to buttress your historical argument with this lone unstable witness then I'm happy to have you do so as it continues to make my initial point. Let the reader move his nose away an inch from the issue and he'd realize that your historical case has no substance and is an example of the kind of historical scholarship we would all scoff at if it was in the service of a liberal.

And my last word is you are demonstrably relying on the early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant when it demonstrably not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And my last word is you are demonstrably relying on the early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant when it demonstrably not.

As I allowed the last word to be about support for your position and not to violate the 9th Commandment, I will respond with an admonition.

Nowhere have I relied on early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant. This is a flat untruth and I will warn you not to spread lies such as these on this board. It is quite clear what I have stated and you are intelligent enough to discern these things. Again, either you are being deceitful or careless in your handling of others' words. Either way it will not be tolerated again.

 

[Tyrese]

Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.

You may find this to be of some benefit: Defense of Infant Baptism by Gregg Strawbridge, Ph.D.

Blessings,
Mark

You edited your post and took out the request for parallel citations re: circumcision while I was posting this, but it still may be helpful.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.

This might help you a bit. Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

 

[Tyrese]

Im amazed at how little I really know about baptism. After doing more thorough Biblical research on infant baptism, I am in an absolute state of confusion. In a strange way im begining to think you cannot hold to covenant theology w/o holding to infant baptism. I mean the unity between circumcision and baptism is overwhelming. Can some Reformed Baptist help me with this because I know you can be covenantal w/o holding to infant baptism.

This might help you a bit. Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

@ Bill the Baptist. Thanks Bill that was awesome. That article pretty much addressed all of my questions. Its important for me to be able to be Reformed Baptist with confidence.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

@ Bill the Baptist. Thanks Bill that was awesome. That article pretty much addressed all of my questions. Its important for me to be able to be Reformed Baptist with confidence.

When I have some time I will address Dr. Welty's article. It is really a mess. I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. He makes some strange comments and is refutable. Most Baptist take Jeremiah out of context without even looking at the Chapters around it (read chapter 32 also) and import their understanding of the Mosaic with I find faulty in the first place.

I will respond to the article with I get some time.

 

[Tyrese]

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

 

[Marrow Man]

Why institute a new sign?

Because there was no longer the need for the shedding of blood? Sorry, but that is not an excellent question.

 

[Tyrese]

@ Pastor Tim. I think there good questions because they point to the fact that theres a difference.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I do not want to be disrespectful to an Elder, so please know that I am trying to tread cautiously. Dr. Welty is a very intelligent man and far superior in knowledge than I am. I am not claiming to be smarter but I think there are things he missed in this paper which he wrote years ago.

My Critique of Dr. Welty's paper.
Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

Dr. Welty writes…
“This paper was originally written to fill a primary need among the seminary interns and other young men at my church. My own experience has taught me that nondispensational, Calvinistic baptists are perpetually tempted to look over the fence of their small and often divisive camp and covet the ministry opportunities available in conservative Presbyterian circles. Many have made this leap, and often do so because they simply don't have a deep, Scripturally-based conviction that the baptist view is correct. Rather, they have absorbed their baptistic sentiments culturally and emotionally, and thus often lose them by the same means. Many have not been presented with an extended series of biblical arguments against infant baptism, a set of arguments which is at the same time consistent with their own nondispensational and Calvinistic perspective. So consider the following to be a resource for seminary and Bible students who want a quick, clear, and accessible summary of the leading reasons why Reformed Baptists (and all biblical Christians) ought not to embrace the doctrine of infant baptism.”

RMS (PuritanCovenanter)
This is not true of me. I was not raised in Church and I became a Christian by reading the scriptures in a Navy barracks near Virginia Beach, Virginia. I wasn’t even an Arminian. I read the four Gospels and found out Jesus was the Great I AM in John 8:58 and that He chose me in John 15:16. I was introduced to the Navigator Ministry on base and attended a Reformed Baptist church called Kempsville Chapel. I was instructed in baptism and understood the Reformed Baptist position for many years. You can read a lot of threads on this forum where I defended it up till last Summer.

Dr. Welty

Paedobaptists, while rightly affirming the fundamental and underlying unity of the covenant of grace in all ages, wrongly press that unity in a way that distorts and suppresses the diversity of the several administrations of that covenant in history.

RMS (PuritanCovenanter)
This is a matter of hermeneutics and I could charge Dr. Welty with wrongly stressing and making diversity in the administrations that truly aren’t there. And I believe it starts with the Abrahamic Covenant and Mosaic Covenant.

In the past I used the same arguments that he used. I am convinced they are incorrect now that I have been referenced to the old Puritans such as John Ball's Treatise of the Covenant of Grace and some more recent writings by Pastors today. These arguments that I believe are incorrect are based on a concept that says the Mosaic Covenant has a Works paradigm in it and that it is a Reinstatement or Republication of the Covenant of Works. In other words the Mosaic Covenant has an element of the Covenant of Grace in it as well as an element of the Covenant of Works. The older theologians used the same language but didn’t define it the same way. I believe that Dr. Welty and Reformed Baptist have made the same errors. I have come to know that the Mosaic Covenant is purely a Covenant of Grace without a Covenant of Works attached to it. It is purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Here is a web page dedicated to the Mosaic Covenant that I found very helpful. https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/

Dr. Welty then discusses some passages that he is convinced shows the differences between the New and Old Covenant. One is breakable and the other isn’t.

Dr. Welty
First, the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant. The very reason why God established this New Covenant with his people is because they broke the old one (v. 32)…. But according to Jeremiah, the covenant as administered in the New Covenant is not breakable by the covenantees.

RMS (PuritanCovenanter)
First off, In all due respect to the good Dr. Welty, his reason why God established the New Covenant is wrong. Where does Jeremiah truly say this? All that verse 32 says is that the New Covenant isn’t like the Covenant they broke. Well, let me first address the reason why God established a New Covenant. The New Covenant is explained in the book of Hebrews as a Better Covenant with better Promises because it has a Better Priest. The reason God made the New Covenant was to fulfill His promises He said He was going fulfill in the Old Covenant. Christ coming and fulfilling the Old Covenant Promises was why the new Covenant was established. It wasn't because of Israel breaking the Law but because Adam broke the Covenant of Works. This establishment of the New Covenant is promised all the way back in Genesis 3:15. The reason for the New Covenant is that we needed a perfect sacrifice. Messiah the Prince had to come and do the Father’s will by dying for our sins which the blood of animals couldn’t take away. So Dr. Welty is incorrect on the reason why God established this New Covenant.

Now some take verse 32 to prove this Covenant is unbreakable. While I believe that is true concerning justification in both the Old and the New Covenant, (mind you I am speaking about justification) I am not so sure you can actually force that meaning on the text. The New Covenant isn’t like the Mosaic in a lot of ways. It is fulfillment of the shadows. It has the full substance of completeness as Christ said it is Finished. It will include both Jew and Gentile. But I don’t see where the text actually says this covenant is unbreakable like the Old Covenant is. Many a man have been baptized and promised to follow God and walked away from the faith breaking the Covenant they made with God. Just like the Old Testament saints. Those of us who are Elect and have a sincere faith in Messiah the Prince are preserved by Messiah the Prince the same in both Covenants. That is the same in both testaments. And if we don’t walk accordingly we shall suffer excommunication and hopefully restoration. But TULIP is the same in both the Old and New Covenants.

I wrote a blog about how the New and Old Covenants are the same in substance.
You can read it here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...ant-same-substance-new-not-according-mrt-792/

Anyways, I just hit point 1 and find it troubling. I hope others do also as I see big gaps in his claims and conclusions. I will address point 2 later.

(Jer 32:39) And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:

(Jer 32:40) And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

 

[Marrow Man]

@ Pastor Tim. I think there good questions because they point to the fact that theres a difference.

One's bloody and one's not. One can be administered to only males and one can be administered to both genders. Of course there's a difference.

But this has been acknowledged by Presbyterians. To assert otherwise is to attack a straw man. For example, Samuel Miller says:

Yet, though baptism manifestly comes in the place of circumcision, there are points in regard to which the former differs materially from the latter. And it differs precisely as to those points in regard to which the New Testament economy differs from the Old, in being more enlarged, and less ceremonial. Baptism is not ceremonially restricted to the eighth day, but may be administered at any time and place. It is not confined to one sex; but, like the glorious dispensation of which it is a seal, it marks an enlarged privilege, and is administered in a way which reminds us that 'there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, in the Christian economy; but that we are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[TylerRay]

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

The Apostle says they have essentially the same meaning:

"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." -Col 2:11-12

Notice that "circumcision without hands" and a spiritual baptism are the same thing. Therefore, circumcision and baptism essentially represent the same things, so baptism is a suitable replacement for circumcision.

As Rev. Phillips noted, they are not the same in all ways; but there is a commonality in what they signify.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.

 

[TylerRay]

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.

Bill,

I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?

So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.

Bill,

I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?

So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.

You are correct that this is an argument from silence, and thus inconclusive, however it is not exactly the same as the example you gave. Circumcision and whether or not it should be continued is a huge topic in the New Testament. More pages are dedicated to this controversy than to virtually any other issue. It just seems to reason, if paedobaptist theology is correct, that this would have been brought up as a resolution to this issue. Again, clearly this is not conclusive, but it is a legitimate question.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

@ Bill the Baptist." Additionally, if circumcision allegedly has the same meaning as baptism, then two important questions need to be asked: Why institute a new sign? Why baptize those who had already been circumcised into the covenant community?" I think these are excellent questions that the author raises.

While all these questions are interesting and important, they can all be answered. The one question that cannot be answered which has always puzzled me is this, if circumcision was such a big issue in the early church whereby the Judaizers were insisting that Gentile converts be baptized against an understandable backlash, so much so that Paul dedicates a good part of several of his letters to this topic (Gal.5) and so much so that the church convened the Jerusalem council to solve this problem, why then if baptism had replaced circumcision did none of the apostles simply solve this problem by stating that circumcision was unneccesary because it had been replaced by baptism? This solution is never offered by Paul or any of the other apostles to address a major problem to which this would have been a perfect solution. That, in my mind, is a serious problem for infant baptism. Theologically it makes perfect sense, and it is fruitless to argue against it in that fashion,but we just don't have any real evidence of the early church practicing it, and the issue with the Judaizers simply highlights this.

Bill,

I hope you know that that's no way to form a decisive argument. I could pose the same kind of question:
If the children of believers were included in the covenant in the OT, and not in the New, why did Jews who converted to Christ never have to be told that their children would no longer be in the covenant? Why was there no controversy over this question with the Judaizers? Why is it never explained to Jewish families that, after many generations of covenantal succession through families, their children would not be born into the covenant?

So both our observations about the silence of the apostles are interesting, but they aren't conclusive.

You are correct that this is an argument from silence, and thus inconclusive, however it is not exactly the same as the example you gave. Circumcision and whether or not it should be continued is a huge topic in the New Testament. More pages are dedicated to this controversy than to virtually any other issue. It just seems to reason, if paedobaptist theology is correct, that this would have been brought up as a resolution to this issue. Again, clearly this is not conclusive, but it is a legitimate question.

This could have been discussed, yet left out of scripture for a reason.