Logical Conclusion of Paedobaptism?

[JML]

So, I was digging through some old threads and found this one:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedobaptism-view-credobaptist-children-15435/

At least 2 Presbyterians promoted the position that a credobaptist with children who does not baptize them is not a Christian and will suffer the consequences of such. Since the thread is 9 pages long, here is the argument that was presented in a nutshell:

1. Baptism has replaced circumcision
2. The covenants are continual
3. Therefore, the passages that say those who refuse to circumcise their children should be cut off from Israel (implying a physical and spiritual sense) apply to those who refuse to baptize their children.
4. As a result, credobaptists who do not baptize their children are cut off in a physical sense (from the church) and in a spiritual sense (from Heaven) because they have broken the covenant of God and not expressed repentance

As an ignorant Baptist, largely unfamiliar with paedobaptism, is this a common conclusion that a paedobaptist would come to? I hope not but the people in the thread seemed pretty convinced of it.

 

[steadfast7]

I follow the argument (that you paraphrased) because it seems consistent. I doubt many paedos on this board would go so far to conclude that however. And if not, is it that we pick and choose arbitrarily the aspects of the covenant that carry over and apply to Christians?

thanks for starting this thread John!

 

[MW]

As an ignorant Baptist, largely unfamiliar with paedobaptism, is this a common conclusion that a paedobaptist would come to? I hope not but the people in the thread seemed pretty convinced of it.

As the thread showed -- I hope -- it is quite an uncommon conclusion, and contrary to the reformed system of thought. I think there is also reason to hope that the proponents of the uncommon conclusion have come to a better judgment.

 

[Jack K]

I don't come to that conclusion, nor have I heard it expressed in any of the Presbyterian or Reformed churches I've been around.

 

[JML]

As the thread showed -- I hope -- it is quite an uncommon conclusion, and contrary to the reformed system of thought. I think there is also reason to hope that the proponents of the uncommon conclusion have come to a better judgment.

I did take notice that you did not support their conclusions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That was a very old thread and the person saying Baptist were cut off apologized and recanted. Many have since changed positions and or grown in their understanding since that thread was heatedly debated 5 years ago. Believe me. I wouldn't use many of the arguments in that thread I used in debating the topic today. And I know other Reformed Baptists who wouldn't use some of the arguments I used. Especially the ones concerning the Covenants. In fact it was a Credo Baptist who really challenged me about seeing that the Mosaic Covenant was fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace and not a mixture as I had argued for many many many years.

 

[Scott1]

So, I was digging through some old threads and found this one:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedobaptism-view-credobaptist-children-15435/

At least 2 Presbyterians promoted the position that a credobaptist with children who does not baptize them is not a Christian and will suffer the consequences of such. Since the thread is 9 pages long, here is the argument that was presented in a nutshell:

1. Baptism has replaced circumcision
2. The covenants are continual
3. Therefore, the passages that say those who refuse to circumcise their children should be cut off from Israel (implying a physical and spiritual sense) apply to those who refuse to baptize their children.
4. As a result, credobaptists who do not baptize their children are cut off in a physical sense (from the church) and in a spiritual sense (from Heaven) because they have broken the covenant of God and not expressed repentance

As an ignorant Baptist, largely unfamiliar with paedobaptism, is this a common conclusion that a paedobaptist would come to? I hope not but the people in the thread seemed pretty convinced of it.

I haven't read the thread and so won't comment on it or your summary of it.

A biblical reformed Presbyterian would not argue a parent "makes" his infant child a Christian by baptizing him. It's not within the parent's power to "make" that, nor to "cut off." Redemption is completely of the Lord.

It would be a great sin to neglect the child's baptism, a sin on the part of a believing parent.

 

[steadfast7]

But friends, what makes this aspect of the covenant drop out but circumcision stays in? In other words, what is the hermeneutical principle that regulates the part of the covenant which continues and the part that is abrogated?

 

[steadfast7]

Because I do see some carryover when paedobaptists claim it is a sin not to baptise your infant.

 

[Scott1]

I sense the issue on the thread referred to is one that has been thoroughly and passionately debated there on that thread and in others here on the Board.

Likely, the difference comes down to understanding the "visible" and "invisible" church.

Israel was marked out by circumcision, but as we know from both Old and New Testaments, not all Israel is Israel.

Romans 9:6

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

 

[FenderPriest]

The closest position I've heard advocated that's like that is from Baptists who simply say that paedobaptists are sinning in how they practice the sacrament of baptism, but don't say that they are not in Christ. I feel that somehow this application of the logic of paedobaptists feels much like the Judaizers Paul engaged with...

 

[Scott1]

Without commenting on whether this is a complete and accurate summary of the thread position referred to, only on the logic of this generally:

1. Baptism has replaced circumcision
yes
2. The covenants are continual
yes, in the sense that the promises to the offspring of believers continue
3. Therefore, the passages that say those who refuse to circumcise their children should be cut off from Israel (implying a physical and spiritual sense) apply to those who refuse to baptize their children.
I would need to look at the context of those specific Old Testament passages.
A believer who neglects baptism of their infant child is sinning, but that does not automatically cut them off from identification with the visible church. We all sin, are sinners. In no sense does it, as one sin, remove an adult (or an infant) from the possibility of God's salvation.

4. As a result, credobaptists who do not baptize their children are cut off in a physical sense (from the church) Don't think so, see 3. and in a spiritual sense (from Heaven) No man, no institution, not even the church can cut someone off spiritually- only a sovereign God in Heaven can do that. And He has based that on eternal decree in eternity past- it is not even possible for the creature to undo that. Not even possible. because they have broken the covenant of God and not expressed repentance

 

[JML]

Scott,

I think in the context of the thread the parents were said to be cut off spiritually because they had broken God's covenant and not repented of it. I copied and pasted the following argumentation from the thread:

Genesis 17:10-14 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers

Having read the passage above, are the children of parents whom break this *everlasting covenant cut off? I have to say yes; thats what Gods word clearly says. What about the parents? A parent whom would neglect this *everlasting covenant does not have the faith that the book of Hebrews talks about, because if they did, they would abide by Gods word in this regard.

The way it was handled in the thread is that the parents were not reprobate because of their action of not circumcising their sons but it was a proof that they were unconverted because they refused to do so.

So, my question is, how does the the paedobaptist deal with this?

1. Is this an incorrect interpretation of the verse?
2. Is only part of the covenant still in effect as Dennis brought up?
3. None of the above.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So, my question is, how does the the paedobaptist deal with this?

1. Is this an incorrect interpretation of the verse?
2. Is only part of the covenant still in effect as Dennis brought up?
3. None of the above.

John,

Are you fishing for an answer that will contradict what you have been given? I detect in your line of questioning that you will not be satisfied until you get a specific answer. If you want to make a point then make it but you have been given a clear answer by Rev. Winzer. We don't determine what the Reformed view is by polling people to find a variety of answers. The Confessions will do quite nicely as to the nature of the question.

The Confessions says this:

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

What data do you lack to make a logical inference that a person is not necessarily reprobate or outside the covenant because he/she does not baptize a child?

 

[JML]

Rich,

I know that you don't know me personally so it is hard to determine my motives. For those who do know me personally, they know that I am not a trouble maker. That is one difficult thing about reading posts by people that you do not know. I am not fishing for a contradictory answer. I understand what Mr. Winzer has posted that it is not the Reformed view. My second line of questioning was directed more toward the interpretation of the particular verse that I quoted. If you look at my signature, you will see that I am a Reformed Baptist who is attending a Presbyterian church. I have been trying to get a better grasp on the position of infant baptism. When I saw the old thread, I was concerned by what was said. Mr. Winzer has calmed some of my concerns by saying that this is not a normal paedobaptist view (which I greatly appreciate). However, I was just wanting to know how this verse is interpreted by the paedobaptist since what was said is not their view. I am not trying to trap any paedos nor am I trying to champion the credo view. The title of my thread has a question mark, I am truly trying to understand how a paedobaptist deals with this verse, not trying to disparage paedobaptism. I am sorry if this was what it looked like I was doing.

 

[Peairtach]

Moses was converted when he failed to circumcise his son, but it looks like he exposed himself to some fairly severe judgment by not doing so.

I'm not saying that the Lord follows the same manner of doing things with baptists who don't baptise their babies. The story of Moses is salutary in the debate but it is not to be simplistically applied to today's situation regarding paedobaptism vs. antipaedobaptism.

Of course if Moses had died under God's judgment he'd have gone straight to Heaven.

So I don't believe that failing to have your children baptised is an infallible sign of absence of faith, or even a very good sign of absence of faith, especially when there is this sincere difference between paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists.

In a similar way, when people have been poorly taught about the Sabbath because of dispensationalism, I don't regard a weak or poor or lacking observance of the Sabbath as an infallible sign of absence of faith, or even necessarily a very good sign of absence of faith, depending on a person's theological background.

There are different senses of being in the covenant, e.g. inward and outward, and these don't necessarily meet in the same individual.

Moses was depriving his son of a token of God's covenant that he was entitled to, and also breaking covenant with God in one sense, possibly under pressure from his wife. Baptists have the pressure of the theology on baptism that they have been exposed to, which is a much more understandable reason for not baptising your children, rather than on the say so of a nagging and possibly unbelieving - or unpersuaded of circumcision, anyway - wife.

In another sense - inwardly - Moses remained a justified man after God's own heart, and hadn't broken covenant with God.

 

[Stargazer65]

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I would say that they are trying to make logical inferences from scripture, that aren't backed up by scripture. It gets dangerous to do that, you can come to almost any conclusion you want. If the mode, subjects, and necessity of baptism were such an indispensable part of the covenant of grace, we wouldn't see statements like the above in the NT.

 

[Constantlyreforming]

So, I was digging through some old threads and found this one:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedobaptism-view-credobaptist-children-15435/

At least 2 Presbyterians promoted the position that a credobaptist with children who does not baptize them is not a Christian and will suffer the consequences of such. Since the thread is 9 pages long, here is the argument that was presented in a nutshell:

1. Baptism has replaced circumcision
2. The covenants are continual
3. Therefore, the passages that say those who refuse to circumcise their children should be cut off from Israel (implying a physical and spiritual sense) apply to those who refuse to baptize their children.
4. As a result, credobaptists who do not baptize their children are cut off in a physical sense (from the church) and in a spiritual sense (from Heaven) because they have broken the covenant of God and not expressed repentance

As an ignorant Baptist, largely unfamiliar with paedobaptism, is this a common conclusion that a paedobaptist would come to? I hope not but the people in the thread seemed pretty convinced of it.

I haven't read the thread and so won't comment on it or your summary of it.

A biblical reformed Presbyterian would not argue a parent "makes" his infant child a Christian by baptizing him. It's not within the parent's power to "make" that, nor to "cut off." Redemption is completely of the Lord.

It would be a great sin to neglect the child's baptism, a sin on the part of a believing parent.

excellent. my thoughts exactly. THe sin would be the parent's, and the child would still be considered a covenant child, just without the blessing of the outward mark.

 

[jwithnell]

When you consider the entirety of scripture, it would be inconsistent to say one action (or in this case, inaction) is unforgivable and damns the individual. All sin is a grievous offense against our holy God. In this particular case, it would be in line with failing to attend to all the means of grace that God has so richly given us. The "picking and choosing" here seems to be drawing one verse out of the overall context of the teaching of scripture rather than any inconsistency in an understanding of the covenant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

John,
We live in a fallen world, and today (providentially) we also live in an ecclesiastical world of fragmentation.

In our present context, the "Baptist-world" has grown significantly in the last few centuries, until such exclusive practice has grown to a standing more commensurate with the alternatives. While the "evangelical-Baptist" world dwarfs the "confessionally-Reformed" world, when theological commitments are considered as a whole package-deal, Baptist-Reformed churches (individually, associated, or part of non-Reformed denominations) continue in the minority, though patently grown proportionally from their 17th century English origins. Looked at from that uncommon vantage-point, the Baptist-distinctives can still appear as "schismatic" as they once did, in days of establishment religion and contests for the soul of a national church-uniformity.

Time and separation, disestablishment, many other factors--all such circumstances work to create new perspectives which are often virtually inescapable.

My thought on Baptist-brethren is not that they reject Christian baptism. I think they erroneously misapply (in a negative sense) the doctrine and the practice of baptism as they judge the proper timing for the sacrament. Which is only true for some (infant/minor) cases; whereas in the case of new converts to Christianity Baptists take the same essential position with the historic church as the rest of us.

There are not-a-few disanalogous circumstances between the present age of the church, and the nascent age of the Mosaic-church. There is much that makes the disparate ages one, even as there is much I have in common with the fetus in the womb. We are able to handle differences (even if they are sinful ones, at some level) more easily, as those living in the age of maturity, than was safe to allow in prior times. Just so, God disapprovingly allowed things like polygamy to stand without forcible removal in former times, which in this later age are thoroughly rejected by the Christian church, in obedience to the revelation.

It is a mistake to try to press every correspondence of the present to an OT analogue. Just as it would be a mistake to think of our bellybuttons as performing the same essential function in an adult as our umbilical connection to our mothers once did. There is an obvious connection, a true correspondence, an undeniable unity--but circumstances have changed. It is still wrong--and a "cutting off from covenant" in some sense (in my view), not to publicly acknowledge our children's interest in the covenant which they possess by virtue of God's privilege to them: to be reared in the walls of his kingdom-visible. But it is wrong for us to try to make ourselves over into re-imagined OT conditions.

 

[JML]

He is soooooooooooooo a trouble-maker.

I knew you would do that.

 

[Scott1]

Scott,

I think in the context of the thread the parents were said to be cut off spiritually because they had broken God's covenant and not repented of it. I copied and pasted the following argumentation from the thread:

Genesis 17:10-14 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Was not the parent who rejected this command also cut off from Gods people? The parents are covenant breakers

Having read the passage above, are the children of parents whom break this *everlasting covenant cut off? I have to say yes; thats what Gods word clearly says. What about the parents? A parent whom would neglect this *everlasting covenant does not have the faith that the book of Hebrews talks about, because if they did, they would abide by Gods word in this regard.

The way it was handled in the thread is that the parents were not reprobate because of their action of not circumcising their sons but it was a proof that they were unconverted because they refused to do so.

The premise is not correct.

God alone controls salvation. One sin, e.g. neglecting baptism of an infant child of a believer, is not proof of reprobation (in the eternal sense). It is sin, but not the basis for reprobation, nor absolute evidence of it any more than is another sin.

So, my question is, how does the the paedobaptist deal with this?

The premise is not what those who hold to infant baptism operate from. Therefore, the choices offered do not logically flow.

1. Is this an incorrect interpretation of the verse?
2. Is only part of the covenant still in effect as Dennis brought up?
3. None of the above.

Remember again, not all is Israel is of Israel.

Not in the Old Testament.

Not in the New.

 

[LawrenceU]

Man, I clicked that link up there and almost had to reach for my bottle of laudanum. The terrors and frights of the PB past came a rushing at me like an evil fog.

 

[jwright82]

I think, I hope this isn't off course, that from a pratical/ethical point of view this situation could only happen in a instance where a Baptist became a member of a Presbyterian church. Is it the practice of say most Presbyterian denomminations to discipline a member for not bringing their children to be baptized, I don't know? I don't mean that being under discipline makes you reprobate or anything, nor would I agree with the original threads position (it seems a little to close to FV for my tatses).

Also wouldn't it be better for a Baptist in a Presbyterian church to either find a baptist church or remain a reguler attender? I mean if you join and you don't tell them how you feel about this and they do have the practice of bringing members under discipline for not baptising their children, than you brought it on yourself In my humble opinion. There is the wonderful reality of ecclesiastical mobility in this nation, take advantage of it.

 

[jwithnell]

Is it the practice of say most Presbyterian denominations to discipline a member for not bringing their children to be baptized,

What I've always observed is careful, gentle teaching of the parents. I suppose if someone were to be disruptive due to their credo-baptist beliefs it might be a little different.

 

[Jack K]

Is it the practice of say most Presbyterian denominations to discipline a member for not bringing their children to be baptized,

What I've always observed is careful, gentle teaching of the parents. I suppose if someone were to be disruptive due to their credo-baptist beliefs it might be a little different.

Yep. My observations are the same.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks for clarifying John.

I think Bruce's post is very helpful in applying the general principle of a passage to our present circumstances. In some ways, it's like eating kosher or having tassles on your garments and then refusing to ask the "why is it there?"

I don't wish to minimize the fact that there is sin whenever we contemn or neglect something that God has commanded but there is a fundamental difference between a modern Baptist who refuses to baptize his child because he believes he is obeying God and the Israelite who refuses to baptize his child because he is wantonly repudiating the faith in the process. I think the principle can be understood that, in the latter case, refusal to circumcise is like denying the faith itself.

The Law, as it does in most cases, amplifies the condemnation that our general neglect makes. In other words, we can see that Moses is sinful for not circumcising his child and narrowly escapes with his life. Lest any doubt is left, however, the written Law makes the sin exceedingly sinful for the Israelite who might be tempted to forego circumcision out of laziness or some other motivation that falls short of an outright denial of the faith. The ceremonial Law is a schoolmaster in the sense that the Israelite was treated like a child where any sin of sloth becomes tantamount to the worst possible sin so the Israelite isn't even tempted to go there. We see this general equity in other commands where manslaughter on a work site (your axe head flies off and kills a guy) literally ruins your life (and you may lose it if you don't get to a city of refuge quickly enough).

If you have small children, then, you can see the difference between the law as it operates according to spelling out the consequences of certain things so that you don't even cross the line and the maturity of the believer who has the Law written on his heart and shouldn't need spelled out consequences for every action but ought to be seeking to live for God's glory.

Thus, the idea underlying these "spelled out" rules hasn't disappeared but it is not an appropriate use of the Law to try to find the one-to-one correspondence in the NT with respect to behavior and consequences. It's really sort of a childish way to view the Law when we are called to be "grown" up in the New Covenant as those who have been united to Christ. The principle has not disappeared but it requires a mature application in each circumstance to determine motives and whether or not there is contumacy, laziness, or ignorance.

 

[Scott1]

Is it the practice of say most Presbyterian denomminations to discipline a member for not bringing their children to be baptized, I don't know?

In the PCA one of the vows of membership is to, in effect, peaceably study the doctrine of the church, and to submit to its governance and discipline. This is sealed by vow.

One does not have to vow understanding of, far less, agreement, with every part of doctrine. But to peaceably study it and submit to the church authority.

So, while it does not require someone to believe in infant baptism to join, it would require an openness toward learning it as having a biblical basis, and being the confessed doctrine of the church.

Over time, and not in much time, covenant family and infant baptism are going to be taught and modeled consistently and regularly.

Someone who has a conviction of believer's only baptism could not in good faith take the vows. Someone who was open to the church's doctrine could, but it won't be long before the difficulty of keeping a nonconfessed view is going to surface.

Is it a cause for immediate discipline?
No, not likely for a member (Officers are held to a higher standard).

But longer term, informal admonishment and more formal discipline, maybe.

Also wouldn't it be better for a Baptist in a Presbyterian church to either find a baptist church or remain a reguler attender? I mean if you join and you don't tell them how you feel about this and they do have the practice of bringing members under discipline for not baptising their children, than you brought it on yourself In my humble opinion. There is the wonderful reality of ecclesiastical mobility in this nation, take advantage of it.

A Christian ought not plan to remain a "regular attender" of a church any more than planning to date a suitable woman long term with no intention of marrying her.

Rather, it is the duty of the creature to determine main things at least that pertain to His Creator's will, and then find a communion to submit to in good faith.

A high view of the church will lead to this because it is Christ who died to secure redemption for His Body, the church. He chose them, we do not choose them, and our commitment ought be more from that standpoint. We're not merely "regularly attending" His Body- we are part of it.

While we live in generation that thinks it fashionable even (worldly) wise to not commit to anything, such is not the way of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Peairtach]

Rich

but there is a fundamental difference between a modern Baptist who refuses to baptize his child because he believes he is obeying God and the Israelite who refuses to baptize his child because he is wantonly repudiating the faith in the process.

The case of the Israelite is more like the person who has been brought up in a godly and believing Presbyterian family, but who reaches manhood without believing, and does not want his children to be baptised because he has rejected the faith.

For such people their neglect of, or rejection of, baptism for their children is a consistent expression of their rejection of Christ and His covenant.

Such people sometimes come to faith in Christ later.

Rich

The Law, as it does in most cases, amplifies the condemnation that our general neglect makes. In other words, we can see that Moses is sinful for not circumcising his child and narrowly escapes with his life. Lest any doubt is left, however, the written Law makes the sin exceedingly sinful for the Israelite who might be tempted to forego circumcision out of laziness or some other motivation that falls short of an outright denial of the faith. The ceremonial Law is a schoolmaster in the sense that the Israelite was treated like a child where any sin of sloth becomes tantamount to the worst possible sin so the Israelite isn't even tempted to go there. We see this general equity in other commands where manslaughter on a work site (your axe head flies off and kills a guy) literally ruins your life (and you may lose it if you don't get to a city of refuge quickly enough).

This touches on the study of the judicial law (theonomy debate) in that physical death and excommunication by physical death was used under the law of Moses as a typological pointer to eternal death. The fact that it was typological can be seen also in the fact that not everyone who died under Moses' law in excommunication would have gone to a lost eternity.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich

The Law, as it does in most cases, amplifies the condemnation that our general neglect makes. In other words, we can see that Moses is sinful for not circumcising his child and narrowly escapes with his life. Lest any doubt is left, however, the written Law makes the sin exceedingly sinful for the Israelite who might be tempted to forego circumcision out of laziness or some other motivation that falls short of an outright denial of the faith. The ceremonial Law is a schoolmaster in the sense that the Israelite was treated like a child where any sin of sloth becomes tantamount to the worst possible sin so the Israelite isn't even tempted to go there. We see this general equity in other commands where manslaughter on a work site (your axe head flies off and kills a guy) literally ruins your life (and you may lose it if you don't get to a city of refuge quickly enough).

This touches on the study of the judicial law (theonomy debate) in that physical death and excommunication by physical death was used under the law of Moses as a typological pointer to eternal death. The fact that it was typological can be seen also in the fact that not everyone who died under Moses' law in excommunication would have gone to a lost eternity.

Thanks for the amplification. In retrospect, I should have just referred to it as the Law rather than the ceremonial Law.