Question for credobaptist about Childeren of believers in the Church

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeremy
Please provide one New Testament reference to an infant being baptized ______.

I guess Charles Spurgeon is in hell right now. He opposed paedobaptism pretty strongly. Yet somehow, many people came to Christ through this apostate's preaching.

Jeremy,
To begin with, your hermeneutic is flawed in that you have excluded all of the OT in your statement above. Placing the sign upon an infant has to do with an eternal command of God originating in the OT and carried over into the New. Thinking like a Jew, show me the positive command that infants are now excluded from such a benefit. Also, God said that this command was eternal, was He lying? The burden of proof is upon you as the whole of the OT demands placing the sign; this is exactly why the paedobaptist responds in such a manner. No positive command abrogating the principle. You are aware that there are examples of families being baptised? Families have infants and young children! As well, you have not one example in the NT of a child coming to faith, i.e. Johns son came to faith at a young age and was baptised. Scott and Tina's daughter Zoe came to faith at 15 years old and was baptized. Why is that?

As far as Spurgeon goes, I never said HE apostasized. I was referring to the paedobaptist who does not hold fast their confession and perfect their baptism. So, I have no idea what you mean by that??? For the record, God will use even devils to bring His elect to Himself. * Not saying that Spurgeon was a devil.

The reason Spurgeon rejected paedobaptism is because he had a flawed hermeneutic as well and was dispensational.

PS: You didn't interact with my responses above. Care to do so?


[Edited on 6-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Jeremy]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Jeremy
Dear Brothers,

I have been away for a while, having left in a disorderly fashion, but have returned under certain self-imposed limitations. I do ask the forgiveness of those who remember me and may have been turned off to my lack of brotherly unity in the past. But after some time away, having time to reflect on things, I wanted to jump in and start discussing with you again, but this time hopefully in a more Christian manner. Although at times, yes a heated godly debate is good.

God is good and His mercy and kindness endure forever.

Anyway, this thread interested me since I have been struggling with this issue immensely. There have been very godly, spirit filled men from both sides of the camp, therefore I believe we ought to exercise charity on the issue. My goal is the truth. I don't really care what he said or she said at any point in history, I want to know what God says.

Welcome back!

Amen & amen to the above; if what you say is true, you are to be commended!

But I would like to make a few observations about those who claim the paedobaptist view: there seems to be a tendency for those believing parents to assume a lot about their children.

Not assumption but presumption! Gods word states that He will be a God to us and our children, does it not?

This seems to lead to a false sense of security on the part of those children as they move along in years.

No more false than what I or you may have. How is your security any different? because you made an outward profession? Outward professions do not save and are not guarantees of one's position in Christ; in this, I am presuming that you are a believer and part of Christs church; this is exactly what we do with all members.

My heart goes out to them.

In may ways, the credo baptist is more guilty. Going back to the original question, one that has been exhausted here on this board, does the credo give false assurance by praying with, encouraging their children to pray, all upon the premise that the unregenerate child can pray at all to God, without mediation. Would you pray w/ a Jehovah's Witness? Does the Holy partake of the same table as the demons? The credo baptist in this regard is hypocritical and hermeneutically inconsistent. Unregenerates are at odd with God; their father is the devil! As a former credo, I would teach my children to pray the Lords prayer. They would call God, "father"; this is blasphemous and a lie; shame on me!

Now in many cases the children may have truly repented of their sin and trusted in Christ, but in many cases, I believe they have not.

Jeremy,
This is an assertion that none of us can make. It is opinion.

Many times the paedobaptist will tell you that their children do not know of any point in their life they were converted...they just know they are Christians.

To understand the statement, one needs to understand how Gods covenant works. I ask you, was Esau, was Ishmael in covenant w/ God?

I have even spoken to a young man who told me this. He grew up in a Christian home and he told me that he knows of no point in his life where he was converted. He just knows he is a Christian. But isn't that assuming an awful lot?

Has this young man proved otherwise?

We are not Christian by natural birth but only by the new birth. We are not Christian by association or osmosis, even through our Christian parents.

This is true. How does this conflict with Gods word? The infant is not above regeneration.

Certainly if we are honest about the scriptures, there are certain truths about conversion that ought to be considered. A few ways the Bible speaks of conversion are as follows:

1. Passing from death to life (Jn 5:24).
2. Being born again (Jn 3:3).
3. Being turned from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to God, receiving the forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Christ (Acts 26:18).
4. Being delivered from the power of darkness and being translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13-14).
5. Being reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
6. Being made alive, who were once dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1).
7. Being buried with him through baptism unto death...being raised unto newness of life (Rom. 6:4).
8. Having died to the law to be married to Christ (Rom. 7:4).
9. Having been delivered from the law to serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (Rom. 7:6).
10. Having been delivered from the wrath to come (I Thess. 1:10)


...etc.

Why can an infant not possess these things? Can the imbecile?

Another observation I would like to make is this. And I'll first quote Eph. 4:5 "...one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM". If a baby is baptized, then does he need to baptized again as a believer? If he does then he has had TWO baptisms.

Why would he need to be re baptized?

Also, if, as some say that baptism has replaced circumcision, was anyone in the OT circumcised twice? Once as a baby and another time as a believer?

Thats the point Jeremy. Men have always been saved the same way; whether OT or NT is irrelevant. The same gospel was preached to Abraham. The sign that is to be placed was commanded by God, to Abraham. Gods word states that that command, to place that sign on our children is eternal, else be cut off. May God be true and every man a liar! Sadly, those that do not hold their circumcision/baptism in the highest regard, improve upon, perfect, are no less than Judas' and will find themselves apostate, hanging from the tree in the lake of fire.





[Edited on 6-3-2006 by Scott Bushey]

1. Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

2. My security is based on the finished work of Christ and the promise that He has made to save me. I am counted righteous in Christ because I have placed my faith in the divine promise and I deem God to be capable of doing what He promised (Rom. 4:20-25). My confidence and security are in Him and are evidenced within me by the witness of the Holy Spirit (I John 5:10). Outward professions are not the issue in saving faith, neither are physical signs, but rather a broken and a contrite heart that is ready to receive the kingdom of God like a little child. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

3. You condemn your former way of thinking for trying to get your kids to call God Father and you confess they were at the same time of the devil. How do you then turn around and say that children of the devil have a basis for a sense of security because they are under a "covenant" of baptism? They are still unregenerate as infants aren't they? Surely you don't think that if you baptize them they become believers due to your "obedience"? If you baptize them, are they allowed to then pray to God even though they never personally exercised faith in Christ? You said before that I have no more reason to believe I am secure than one of these children of the devil even though I am born again and know it.

4. It is an opinion, that's why I used the words "I believe." But it's a pretty good assumption, isn't it? There are plenty of kids who think God has grandchildren.

5. According to Gen. 17, Abraham had everyone in his house, including Ishmael circumcised, even those who were bought with money from a foreigner. As far as being in a saving covenant with God, I'm not sure about this whole point. I just know that Galatians teaches us that Isaac and Ishmael served as an allegory to show the difference between the law and the gospel. One produces bondage, the other produces freedom. And my question to those kids who think they're saved because they grew up in a Christian home is this...how do you know? Because you were baptized as a baby and you think you are in an inherited covenant with God, even though you never personally repented of your sin and called on the Lord for mercy? Is it because you never did anything overtly sinful in your life? Thou hypocrite, thy father the devil hath deceived you just as he did your forefathers the Pharisees.

6. Yes, the young man did prove otherwise by his own words, because he had a self-righteous attitude and told me about how he never really was that overt sinner his neighbor was. Such is not a spirit of brokenness and contrition before God.

7. If we are referring to those infants who die in their infancy, one cannot logically believe they will go to heaven unless they believe in the Sovereignty of God. If God were to so choose that the child be taken of his life at that age, then we leave it to God what He would do with him. Because I believe and know God to be Sovereign, I believe that these children are covered under His grace. But there is no reference anywhere in scripture to an infant who is born again in the sense we would apply to ourselves. They are unable to believe in the same way an imbecile is. But God has prerogative to save them. But a child whom God has decreed would grow to full age must be therefore brought to repentance and saving faith and thus be saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, even as they. When it comes to these types of issues which no one truly knows but God, we should probably go with what Jesus said to Peter, "What is that to you? You follow Me?" Jn. 21:22


8. The child would need to be baptized as a believer, wouldn't he, as a sign that he has been buried with Christ and risen unto a new life? Because Christ commanded it in the great commission. To be honest with you, the whole paedobaptist view is a fine way to get kids to disobey the commandment of God to be baptized as a sign of their faith in Christ.

9. "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." -Gen. 17:13-14
a) But if you read Galatians, Paul pronounced the curse of God on those who still pushed for circumcision. Why did he not then answer with the simple response, "Because it's been replaced by baptism." No. His argument was for faith in Jesus Christ apart from the law entirely. Isn't that the New Testament revelation? The righteousness of God apart from the law. And didn't the New Testament writers argue that God's redemptive plan went beyond Israel to all peoples and to the ends of the earth?
b) The Jews could not comprehend the idea that a Gentile could be saved apart from the law and circumcision. They no doubt held to texts such as Genesis 17.
c) Romans 2 states plainly that the Gentiles do not have the law in written code. That law was given to Israel. In God's eyes, the greater of the two was the believing Gentile, who not having the law in the way the Jews did, but actually had it written in their heart.
d) I guess I misunderstood your little anathema you pronounced. I thought you were condemning me to hell because my 2 year old hasn't been baptized. If I misunderstood you I'm sorry. But it seems to me you are saying that if one holds the conviction that they are to baptize their children as under the law and do not do so, they will be damned. I would have to agree. If you place yourself under the OT law, even in a Christianized form, you are condemning yourself if you do not keep it to the letter.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you at this particular point here. The main concern though is this...if this were a requirement under the New Covenant, then it would be specified in the New Covenant. Don't make that which is waxing old and ready to vanish away superior to the New.

Just remember, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." "“Rom. 10:4

-Jeremy

 

[Scott Bushey]

Jeremy,
I have been through this all here on the board many times; I will just say this without meaning to be disrespectful. You do not understand 1) covenant nor 2) covenant theology. If you did, you would see Gods word differently. Your whole outlook would change if you just understood 'covenant'. For instance, Gods word says that he will never destroy the earth again with water;

Genesis 9:11-17 11 "And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." 12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 "And it shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 "When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth." 17 And God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth."

This was a covenant he made w/ Noah and mankind. Do you doubt this for a second that he will never again destroy the earth with water? No! But when we are talking about His eternal covenant, you doubt! Even though he Himself said it was eternal! You make God out to be a liar.

d) I guess I misunderstood your little anathema you pronounced. I thought you were condemning me to hell because my 2 year old hasn't been baptized.

The WCF summarizes scripture and states:

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23


Gods word says:

Genesis 17:10-14 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

If I misunderstood you I'm sorry. But it seems to me you are saying that if one holds the conviction that they are to baptize their children

I am!

.......as under the law

The command is not part of the ceremonial law.

.......and do not do so, they will be damned. I would have to agree. If you place yourself under the OT law, even in a Christianized form, you are condemning yourself if you do not keep it to the letter.

Christianized form??? Thats a new term! Is the law abrogated Jeremy? You never answered my earlier question; How were men in the OT saved? Is this what Paul meant in Galatians? The distinction needs to be made in regards to the ceremonial aspect of Gods law and the moral command. Apparently, you've confused the two or have not made the distinction. Question: Does the book of James contradict the book of Romans? No. Get it?

I will end this with this, study the above and get back to me in another 6 months. Read Calvin on circumcision/paedobaptism. Read Owen, Edwards and Poole and then lets talk. It's silly to go step by step through this stuff; especially when you have obvious presuppositional barriers in the way from dispensationalism etc. all attached. If you say you want to know the truth, release your presups, abandon any specific position for the time being and read the stuff I suggest.

Have a great Lords day.

Scott



[Edited on 6-4-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Jeremy]

Scott,

First of all, we aren't acting like Christians. I'm not impressed with your attitude or mine. Although you said you were ending the discussion because I obviously don't understand the gospel (and in many points of theology, I am quite deficient), I must in all good conscience respond to these charges.

First of all, I don't appreciate the way you have tried to belittle my understanding of the Word of God. I don't have a lot of background with covenant theology, but I'm not the first child of God to oppose infant baptism. I'm not some Lone Ranger. I'm very cautious about it, because I would hate to add to the gospel of Christ or put words in God's mouth. I DO want the truth about this. But I'm not about to let you belittle me in an unChristlike manner.

Aside from your reference to the WCF, which scriptures it cites give no statement that Baptism has replaced circumcision, you still have given me 0 passages of scripture stating we ought to baptize a baby, because there are none. And you want me to go away for 6 months and study the words of men? You hypocrite.

I already stated plainly that I couldn't care less what other people have already said about it. The bottom line is...there is not one New Testament reference to infant baptism. If it really were a great and heinous sin to neglect such an ordinance, it would be in the New Testament. This is why you keep going back to the OT and you are frustrated. But Paul new the law like the back of his hand and he never mentioned a thing about circumcision somehow being replaced by baptism. God told Abraham that CIRCUMCISION was an everlasting covenant with him. But that didn't mean the particular ordinance would be required of all people forever.

As far as Old Testament salvation, believers were saved by grace through faith. In the New Testament believers are saved by grace through faith. Faith in the promise of God to save them (Rom. 4:20-25). We are "kept by the power of God through faith". God says "...thou shalt be saved." What could be better than the promise of God? He cannot lie. When I put all my hope in the promise of God then I entered into a covenant with God in which He has sworn to save me and I have agreed to trust Him. He is able to save and will do it because long ago Christ had already done it on the cross. My faith does not effecate the saving blood of Jesus, but rather receives what He has already purchased for me. And praise God, even at those difficult times in life when I am riddled with unbelief, God is still faithful to His promise, he cannot deny Himself.

Well, I must say, this has been an interesting discussion. I never knew that it could turn into such a big deal. My suggestion is though that you work on having a humble, Christlike attitude with those who disagree with you (I will too). I don't assume I know everything and if I come across as being so, then I'm sorry. Just please don't assume you know it all.

A question I would ask you is this...has God graced your life yet to the point where you have been able to lead someone else to faith in Jesus Christ? I hope so. Because that is what matters, other people, not your fine points of theology.

May God bless you,

Jeremy

 

[Herald]

Jeremy,

My reasons for participating on the PB are manifold. It has stretched my knowledge in key theological areas. I have been humbled (by my ignorance), confirmed (in some theological positions) and changed (in other theological areas). I have also disagreed with some of my fellow PB members. That includes those who run the board. My disagreements have always been theological in nature, not personal. I have made a "covenant" with myself that I will not air any personal accusations or comments. If I am that upset with a particular brother, I will email them directly. The conversation will be had off-line. There is no edifying reason why a personal disagreement among brothers should be aired on this board. Theological disagreement? Certainly. That is the spirit of debate. Personal? Go to your brother privately. Don't call them a hypocrite in an open forum. At best, it harms a fellow brother in Christ in front of all. At worst, it is slanderous and divides the body of Christ.

You made the following statement in your first post:

I have been away for a while, having left in a disorderly fashion, but have returned under certain self-imposed limitations. I do ask the forgiveness of those who remember me and may have been turned off to my lack of brotherly unity in the past. But after some time away, having time to reflect on things, I wanted to jump in and start discussing with you again, but this time hopefully in a more Christian manner. Although at times, yes a heated godly debate is good.

My friend, I think you need to read your words again. For some reason you seem to be drawn to extreme reactions during debate. Those reactions seem to transcend your passion for the topic at hand. The result? The discussion lacks grace and turns personal. Our words are a reflection of what we hold most dear. Paul wrote:

Ephesians 4:29 29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear.

The word for "unwholesome" is "sapros." It means "rotten or worthless." I have uttered more unwholesome words during my lifetime than I care to admit. I have been guilty of terrible things with my mouth. I know the pain that is caused by careless words. The scripture tells me:

Matthew 12:36-37 36 "And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned."

Jeremy, as I slowly and thoughtfully write these words I pray they are well received. The PB can be a blessing for some. I pray it is a blessing for you and that we will, in turn, be blessed by your words. May I admonish you to settle whatever issue(s) remain between brother Scott and yourself offline so that we spend our time on the PB encouraging one another and fulfilling our quest to seek the truth of God's word?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Jeremy
Scott,

First of all, we aren't acting like Christians.

Speak for yourself. Jesus spoke the truth in love; I follow his lead.

I'm not impressed with your attitude or mine. Although you said you were ending the discussion because I obviously don't understand the gospel (and in many points of theology, I am quite deficient), I must in all good conscience respond to these charges.

Feel free.

First of all, I don't appreciate the way you have tried to belittle my understanding of the Word of God.

I recall prefacing my statement with:

I will just say this without meaning to be disrespectful

You've essentially called me a liar; i was meaning to be disrespectful?

Your understanding: Well, lets see; You've hyper-dispensationalized Gods word, you don't understand covenant or C. Theology, You don't understand the difference between the moral law and the ceremonial and seem to imply that Gods law is abrogated, and you want to talk about infant baptism.

I've asked you more than once if Gods "OT Law" is abrogated? Is it?

I don't have a lot of background with covenant theology, but I'm not the first child of God to oppose infant baptism.

This is true. How can you oppose something you don't understand? You have positioned yourself br default. This is sad. How can one choose a position when one has only one side?

I'm not some Lone Ranger. I'm very cautious about it, because I would hate to add to the gospel of Christ or put words in God's mouth. I DO want the truth about this. But I'm not about to let you belittle me in an unChristlike manner.

Exhorting you to study the topic for 6 months is belittling? Don't study the topic then; remain in the quandry.

Aside from your reference to the WCF, which scriptures it cites give no statement that Baptism has replaced circumcision, you still have given me 0 passages of scripture stating we ought to baptize a baby, because there are none.

Show me one passage in the NT abrogating the command. Do you tithe; the NT is silent on that issue; Does your wife take the supper? The NT is silent on this as well. You better remain consistant and stop tithing as well as allowing your wife to partake of the supper!

And you want me to go away for 6 months and study the words of men? You hypocrite.

Hypocrite? How is what I suggest, hypocrisy? Nice.

I already stated plainly that I couldn't care less what other people have already said about it.

See, you do not want to learn, you want to argue. This discussion is over.

The bottom line is...there is not one New Testament reference to infant baptism. If it really were a great and heinous sin to neglect such an ordinance, it would be in the New Testament.

It is IN Gods bible. The NT and OT are only seperated by a page. They are not seperate books,

This is why you keep going back to the OT and you are frustrated.

I keep going back to the OT because it is the reference point and part of Gods word. You have hyperly dispennsationalized Gods word. Where have you been for 6 months? Over w/ the New Covenant Theologians?

But Paul new the law like the back of his hand and he never mentioned a thing about circumcision somehow being replaced by baptism.

He never mentioned the sabbath changing to the first day of the week as well. I guess you will have to remain consistant again and go to church ion Saturday now.

God told Abraham that CIRCUMCISION was an everlasting covenant with him. But that didn't mean the particular ordinance would be required of all people forever.

What don't you understand here:

Genesis 17:10-13 10 "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 "And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. 13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:7 7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Isaiah 59:21 21 "And as for Me, this is My covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor Isaiah 59:21 from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring's offspring," says the LORD, "from now and forever."


Questions:
1) Has God commanded that a sign be placed?
2) Has God promised this covenant to be eternal?
3) Has the NT abrogated the command?

As far as Old Testament salvation, believers were saved by grace through faith. In the New Testament believers are saved by grace through faith. Faith in the promise of God to save them (Rom. 4:20-25). We are "kept by the power of God through faith". God says "...thou shalt be saved." What could be better than the promise of God? He cannot lie. When I put all my hope in the promise of God then I entered into a covenant with God in which He has sworn to save me and I have agreed to trust Him. He is able to save and will do it because long ago Christ had already done it on the cross. My faith does not effecate the saving blood of Jesus, but rather receives what He has already purchased for me. And praise God, even at those difficult times in life when I am riddled with unbelief, God is still faithful to His promise, he cannot deny Himself.

Ok.

Well, I must say, this has been an interesting discussion. I never knew that it could turn into such a big deal. My suggestion is though that you work on having a humble, Christlike attitude with those who disagree with you (I will too). I don't assume I know everything and if I come across as being so, then I'm sorry. Just please don't assume you know it all.

Sounds like you're assuming I think I know it all. You yourself admitted you are not schooled in CT; so, the suggestion stands, gostudy the men I suggested and lets talk then.

A question I would ask you is this...has God graced your life yet to the point where you have been able to lead someone else to faith in Jesus Christ? I hope so. Because that is what matters, other people, not your fine points of theology.

Yes he has, and no, you're wrong about theology. Because of the ineptitude of the teachers out there, Gods people perish for lack of knowledge.



And for the record, I have discussions like this everyday on the board. This is not necessarily unChritian-like. It is iron sharpening iron. As I have mentioned before. metal gets hot, sparks fly and heat exchanged. This does not stumble me nor cause me to doubt. I learn and know Christ better because of all of it. You must again ask yourself, is this good for me?

Scott


[Edited on 6-5-2006 by Scott Bushey]