Question for Paedo Baptists

[nicnap]

We as baptists dont inject mans wisdom of a family solidarity into the doctrine of baptism when all the apostles and Jesus give us our marching orders with minute details as to how and in what order. Infant baptism is so confusing youve got virtually every group who practices it differing with eachother because the bible gives no instructions on it. Youve got dutch reformed with presumptive regeneration, others with no its because God promises all children of believers thay will be saved, others who say a seed of regeneration is planted within them at baptism,etc,etc. WHY because the scriptures say nothing of it. CLing to those household verses though and a cryptic verse in 1 cor 7. to build it on yet it contradicts the order sacred scripture commands of the NT believer.
make disciples-one is made by faith alone=regeneration(there is no such thing as an unregenerate disciple of Chirst) baptise that disciple, and then teach him. that is the order. show me otherwise

With all due respect - as a baptist you inject man's wisdom of dividing God's covenant people. You received no such marching orders. The misunderstanding of what baptism does by some does not make void the call to baptize children.

As far as baptists go, they have their varying groups as well - The Church of Christ who says you must profess, there is your key word as a baptist, and then be baptized, but if you are not baptized you are not saved...you have some baptists that say that immersion is not necessary...we could go on and on, but we won't. Your last portion of your post does nothing to refute covenantal baptism, only stir strife...stick to the texts, and interact with other posts, it might be that you will learn something...or teach someone something.

 

[Houston E.]

Well as a baptist I told my son the gospel just like you tell your covenant children. My son believed at 4 and is a Christian by faith alone. He is baptised and his baptism is symbolic of the saving work God already wrought in him. I told him repent and believe and then be baptised because the promise was for me and my children. My son is in the New Covenant. He is in Christ by faith alone. He was not before he was saved. He was unsaved before he was saved as Paul said all are who are not in Christ-without hope and Christ, lost.

Hmmm...So you know beyond a shadow of doubt when God regenerated your child? You KNOW he is elect?

To the reformed....
To the reformed....
But the reformed....
The reformed....

Sir, I must ask, are you reformed? This is a reformed board.

make disciples-one is made by faith alone=regeneration(there is no such thing as an unregenerate disciple of Chirst)

And you have anything to do with this???

baptise that disciple, and then teach him. that is the order. show me otherwise

Ok, so by this, you acknowledge, you didn't teach your son anything of the scriptures or of God, but can only do such after his conversion.

 

[toddpedlar]

Todd,
It is also the case that these kinds of example-appeals are to narrative portions of Scripture. It really doesn't matter which side of the debate claims what as to example. Both sides must appeal to a wider range of Scripture-teaching, particularly didactic portions, to establish the meaning and proper subjects of baptism.

Precisely. I should have made more of a positive argument, rather than just arguing that the case for credo-only baptism cannot be made on the basis of these narrative examples.

 

[semperveritas]

no interaction with the order of faith before baptism? So you make a disciple by baptizing THEM and teaching THEM? Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis. NO,baptizing "them" refers to the disciples already made from the nations when they believed the gospel and were saved then you baptise and teach THEM. The THEM are not made by baptism and teaching. They are begotten through the incorruptible word of the gospel. And of course I never said the evangelists DO the regenerating. God does it through the preaching of the gospel. A disciple is NOT made by baptizing, but FIRST by hearing and believing. Eph 1:13 and Romans 1:16; 10:9ff That is how a person becomes a disciple.

13In him you also, when you heard(AF) the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him,(AG) were sealed with the(AH) promised Holy Spirit, 14who is(AI) the guarantee[d] of our(AJ) inheritance until(AK) we acquire(AL) possession of it,[e](AM) to the praise of his glory.

16For(AC) I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is(AD) the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes

if(L) you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and(M) believe in your heart(N) that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11For the Scripture says,(O) "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12(P) For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek;(Q) for the same Lord is Lord of all,(R) bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13For(S) "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him(T) of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear(U) without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written,(V) "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But(W) they have not all obeyed the gospel.

Then after one has become a disciple by monergistic faith giving grace-that new disciple is baptized and taught all the Word of God.


Paul told the jailer he would be saved if he believed, and his whole household. Meaning his household would be saved if they believed TOO. There is divine monergistic faith given to every relative, slave,and servant in the house just because the leader is regenerated. That is pure eisegesis.

Sirs,(AW) what must I do to be(AX) saved?" 31And they said,(AY) "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you(AZ) and your household." 32And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

Belief is the only way to be saved as I quoted in Rom 1:16; 10:9; John 3:16 etc, ad nauseum. Nobody is saved apart from faith and God never promises each and every individual is elect in the family. See Esau and Ishmael. SO how can these texts be twisted to say when the jailor was saved all in his house were without them believeing. But we know that Paul preached the gospel to ALL in the house and they did in fact believe.

they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to "all who were in his house".

Then they all(the household believed and were baptized)

And he(BC) rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.

Yes they all rejoiced that he believed in God, but that doesn not say that they di NOT also believe. Because they ALL REJOICED. Unbelievers do not rejoice. THey were all told the gospel, all rejoiced and all were baptized. And yes the focus of the narrative was on the jailor so the emphasis was on his faith but GNC implies they believed. To say otherwise is foolish. Otherwise Pauls words were a lie when he told the jailor his household would be saved. Were they not saved, if they were it wasnt because only the jailor believed but because they did too. Pauls command on how one is saved was "believe" That promise of salvation attached to such God-given faith in Christ is true if he believes and his whole household. There are not two ways of salvation, one for the head and another for the house. To say the house was baptized before they believed is nonsense. Luke spells out the fact the word was preached to ALL IN THE HOUSE(not just the jailor) and according to the order everywhere in the NT the believers were baptized, and they all rejoiced that the jailor believed-why, one reason is because since the jailor believed IN THE PRISON upon the preahcing of the gospel, the jailor invited Paul to his home and household where THEY WERE PREACHED THE GOSPEL TOO and obviously believed because they rejoiced. The natural man does not rejoice in God, but hates the works of God. So they all rejoiced that the jailor believed because the gospel came to the family and they believed and THEN were baptized. That is the order.
Lydia was baptized AFTER she believed. THAT is the pattern for all according to Acts 2:38-39, Matt 28-18-20 and ALL the examples in the bible

13And(R) on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate(S) to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we(T) sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. 14One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods,(U) who was a worshiper of God. The Lord(V) opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15And after she was baptized,(W) and her household as well, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay." And she(X) prevailed upon us.

To argue her house could be baptized before they believed is reading into the text. Lydia believed first and was baptized. The whole household was baptized-not just infants were in there were there-she just left them there to fend for themselves while at the river. I doubt it. You pleading for household baptism begs too much, otherwise all the servants, and consenting adults too which were in the house must needs be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit without any precondition of faith in God is preposterous. They were baptised obviously because they believed.

The house of Stephanus was baptised. But they must have ALL believed because Paul says the same household(making no exceptions) ...

You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and "they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints"

They devoted themselves, the entire household. So yes households were baptized but only because the households BELIEVED! To say more is eisegesis.

Jesus healed the mans son in John 4 and he and his household BELIEVED

The father knew that was the hour when Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." And he himself believed, and all his household.

Cornelius' house was saved, but only because they BELIEVED,
They were devout and feared God THEY were, not just Cornelius

a devout man(A) who feared God "with" all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God.

Acts 10:2

So those devout men who feared God in his House believed the gospel

11And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. 12And the Spirit told me to go with them,(F) making no distinction.(G) These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. 13And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, 'Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; 14(H) he will declare to you a message by which(I) you will be saved, YOU AND ALL YOUR HOUSEHOLD.' 15As I began to speak,(J) the Holy Spirit fell on them(K) just as on us at the beginning

Crispus believed TOGETHER WITH his house. THUS because of their(God given monergistic faith) THEY ALL were baptized, not because only Crispus believed.

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together(B) with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

Acts 18:8

My household has been saved and baptised in that order praise be to God.

 

[Zenas]

Good for you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Mike,

Please provide some exegesis as to what a disciple is using the grammatico-historical method. Define the term.

 

[semperveritas]

Sorry to all for hurting anyones feelings. I was given a notification of being churlish. Please forgive.

 

[Rocketeer]

Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis.

That is no argument. We do not disbelieve the Virgin Birth of the Christ because the Lutherans and the Catholics believe it. Neither do we disbelieve the divine Creation of the Earth because the Catholics and the Mohammedans hold to that tenet, too. It is possible for someone who is wrong in many ways, to be right in some. Indeed, either the orthodox credo- or the orthodox paedo-baptists must be in error in only one way, and right in all the others. Consider: if this type of argument holds true, you should renounce all your beliefs because I, who am a peado-baptist, hold them as well, and obviously I am wrong. This merely is a variation on what is called in dog Latin Reductio ad Nazium or ad Hitlerum, that is to say, the argument that a position must be invalid because Hitler and/or the Nazis held it. Wikipedia has a great article on that: Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Secondly, you tell us we are reading things into texts. We could accuse you of the very same thing. Nothing is said explicitly about the faith of the household in those texts, yet you assume there is, and why? Because you think they could not have been baptized without having believed. I, on the other hand, think nothing is said explicitly, and, nothing is said implicitly either, because I, too, have my bias.

The question then is the same as that which was earlier asked of you: where do you find the doctrine that the as yet or forever unregenerate infants are excluded from the new covenant? The reason for this is, that, for all the other changes in the new vs. the old covenant there is some pretty clear doctrinal teaching in the Bible. Consider, for example, the disappearing of the ceremonial law , and of the food laws, and of circumcision, and of the inclusion of the heathens who believe in the covenant, there are very clear doctrinal passages (amongst others, Colossians 2, Acts 10, Galatians 5) in the Bible supporting those alterations to the new covenant; in all the instances where the two covenants differ, there are very clear doctrinal passages. Then where is this one? Where does Paul or Peter or John or Jude or the Lord Himself say, anathema on those who think that the believer's children are still included in the covenant?

And another dilemma I will bring before you, three, actually: One, does it not reflect poorly on God that, when He widens His new covenant in almost every sense, He restricts it on this account, namely, by casting the children out from the covenant?

Second, what about the transition period? When the young children where circumcised, they were under the law and in Gods covenant, which was a way to grace, as Paul shows in Romans and Hebrews. Then the new covenant is there, their parents believe, but they are cast out from the new covenant, because God no longer promises to young children all the good that he promised to the line of Abraham, if they would stick to Him. So then, did God default on his promises? Or were there then two covenants simuktaneously, with the old one dying a slow death? But then, how could the new covenant be a renewal of the old one, if they both exist together and have together the same power. Where there then two ways open at the same time, both working through saving faith, but the one with circumcision and the other with baptism as their sign?

Third, why did God so strangely change His mode of working? We know that He did not do that before or after that; the things seen in the old covenant are all present in the new covenant, only, in a fuller shape and form, and less shadowy. We still have a High Priest, a King, a Prophet, a heavenly Jerusalem, a Kingdom, a Sacrifice, a Substitute. We still abstain from many things the world delights in, we still worship, we pray, we give alms, we help our neighbours, we love God and our fellowmen; but for some reason, our children are no longer promised a thing by God, they are not set apart from the world anymore, they do not have a sign to remind them of their God - what prompted this? Did God learn that the sign thing didn't work out as planned? (I speak after the manner of men.)

Does not this credobaptism of yours lead to a change in the God you worship, does this not make Him one Who is mutuable, or changes His mind, or goes back on His promises, or is resticted in His knowledge? But I will uphold that He is none of the aforementioned, and I think I know you will, too. So then, how do you explain?

 

[semperveritas]

I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.

 

[InevitablyReformed]

I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.

Friend,

If you are looking into the covenantal paedo view, you should go to Monergism.com and check out their massive section on baptism. I would probably start there. Glad to have you on the board.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.

Mike,

What you are sensing is the difficulty in bridging the gap between visible signs and the spiritual realities they signify. Scripture uses unequivocal language about a visible sign that could only be true of the Elect. How? Well, the Church has wrestled with that question in different ways. I think many Early Church Fathers simply state things as facts about what baptism does and it is true as far as it goes. Like many things they state and don't flesh out later Church theologians flesh out.

The Roman Catholic Church combines their idea of baptismal regeneration with a merit theology and sacerdotalism to try to integrate the Biblical texts. They fail at the root of the issue.

Lutherans try to hold together an inconsistent view of Sovereign election and Baptismal regeneration.

Many run of the mill Baptists (Reformed company excluded) actually tend to be as staunch about the idea that Baptism regenerates even going so far as to utilize the "dying in the watery graves of baptism to be risen again" to have a sort of ex opere operato view of the ordinance.

Reformed baptists, as admitted in a recent thread, admit that baptism doesn't confer anything. It only proclaims what it is believed the believer already possesses. Thus, the sign is either valid or invalid depending upon the regenerated status of the recipient. There's actually no way for the Church to know one way or the other as only God knows who His elect are. Hence, the ordinance has no necessary attachment to regeneration but is a badge intended to communicate probable regeneration.

The Reformed view is what I believe most Biblical. It guards against any sacerdotal or necessary baptismal regeneration view while doing justice to the Biblical data and not having to speak of baptism in a way that is dissonant with the Scriptures. We don't see Paul or the other Apostles having to go back and "guard their speech" all the time to qualify themselves and saying "Oh, but make sure you understand I'm talking about baptism in the spirit...." The sign, then, has to have some objective quality that doesn't rely upon the Church's "guesswork" about who it believes most probably elect. At the same time, however, the Holy Spirit is sovereign in regeneration for the baptized just as He was for the circumcised Nicodemus. For a more detailed discussion of this view, you can read this recent thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/valid-baptism-presumes-actual-union-w-Christ-42683/

 

[Contra_Mundum]

no interaction with the order of faith before baptism? So you make a disciple by baptizing THEM and teaching THEM? Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis. NO,baptizing "them" refers to the disciples already made from the nations when they believed the gospel and were saved then you baptise and teach THEM. The THEM are not made by baptism and teaching....

etc., etc., etc.

Did you catch the part where I quoted the Baptist grammarian, with reference to Matthew 28:19-20? It's not "Lutheran" exegesis, it's just Greek sentence structure. Same rules for everybody. I can't help it that the sentence isn't giving you the ORDER that you assumed it was, using an English translation.

Participial use is a whole subset of the verbal syntactical analysis that goes into exegeting a passage. You MUST determine the relationship those subordinated terms have to the "main verbal idea" of a sentence, otherwise you will NOT understand the author's intent.

In my post, I suggested that you offer an alternative grammatical argument that would sustain a different understanding of the relationship of the participles to the main verb, and I would consider it. However, all that is contained in the above quote (relevance) from your post is partial invective, and the insertion of "believed the gospel and were saved," terms and conditions NOT PRESENT in the text of Mt.28. This is not a grammatical argument.

So, if Matthew seems to say that "baptizing and teaching" is how a "disciple" is made, then perhaps your idea of "disciple" needs to be broad enough to fit Matthew's description. Was Judas Iscariot (the son of perdition) a "disciple" (Mt.10:1-4)? I would think that any definition of the term "disciple" would at a minimum need to encompass the original Twelve.



I realize that the tone of the post as a whole was already addressed, and so no need to rehash the admonishment.

I think that it might be helpful for you to focus just a little bit on the parts of not only other people's arguments, but yours as well.

The "shotgun" approach to presenting your position just shows how reliant you are on all those pieces being true and properly interpreted and then it all just hangs together so tight and ...

so I pick one piece here or there and point out a potential problem with the way you've understood it, or just answer one of your specific questions, and (naturally) you see that as a threat to the whole picture you've laid out. Either that, or it's treated as unworthy of your attention.

I think even your credo-compatriots will urge you to build an argument from a strong base, and work your way out to a particular, discrete conclusion that gives you confidence. When you start off with premises your opponents agree with, it can often help your argument immensely. At the very least it forces the other side to consider whether it has reasoned well to arrive at such different conclusions. And if they answer well, it will help you also to sharpen your critical thinking skills, even if they don't persuade you.

Also, beginning with areas of strong, vital agreement should help you avoid casting unfounded slurs at your opponents. If you are reasonably sure you share a common understanding of core truths, it should help you argue vigorously but charitably, and avoid making gaffes that you wish later you hadn't said.

For example, if I point out that the whole passage Acts 16:27-34 deals textually with the actions and behaviors of essentially one person, sometimes associated "with his", and you treat my "covenant" view of the passage (happens to be the view of Calvin) as non-Reformed, how exactly does that work??

The idea of "house" and "household" is one that is found copiously throughout the Scriptures. It is quite easy to define the term, and should not be arbitrarily restricted. Luke (and other NT writers) assumes he doesn't need to qualify the language whenever he makes reference to such. You can no more exclude a toddler than you can include an alien. So, when the passage says "they rejoiced," it's simply arbitrary to say that the description excluded any one-year-olds (for example) in the house, or downs-syndrome youth, or gramma who's getting mighty slow...

See what I mean? I hope that by patience and tact, you can spend a long time enjoying the board, giving and receiving knowledge within our Confessional framework. May God bless your studies.

 

[A.J.]

I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.

Lutherans are (happily) inconsistent in their view of baptism. Despite their belief in a form of baptismal regeneration, they do believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. The problem I see with the Lutheran view of the sacraments, however, is that it fails to do justice to the continuity of the NT with the OT especially in the area of the sacraments (cf. Rom. 4). The key to understanding the texts you mentioned is the idea of sacramental union.

The WESTMINTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and the effects of the one are attributed to the other.a

a. Gen 17:10; Mat 26:27-28; Titus 3:5.

That is why the Scriptures have no problem calling baptism as the washing of regeneration and renewal without teaching baptismal regeneration, or the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper as the body and blood of Christ, respectively, without teaching transubstantion or consubstantiation. There is a union between the sign (application of water) and the thing signified (regeneration and renewal). If we understand the language of the sacraments in this way, we also avoid the error of thinking of them as bare signs.

To know and understand the Reformed view, it's always good to go back to the confessional standards which teach us what the sacraments are, and what they do for God's people. I grew up in churches which either taught baptismal regeneration or held a memorialist view of these means of grace. So learning the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments was literally life-changing for me.

The LARGER CATECHISM

Q162: What is a sacrament?
A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[1] to signify, seal, and exhibit [2] unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[3] the benefits of his mediation;[4] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[5] to oblige them to obedience;[6] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[7] and to distinguish them from those that are without.[8]

1. Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19
2. Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25
3. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48
4. Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16
5. Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27
6. Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21
7. Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13
8. Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14

Q163: What are the parts of a sacrament?
A163: The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.[1]

1. Matt. 3:11; I Peter 3:27; Rom. 2:28-29

Q164: How many sacraments hath Christ instituted in his church under the New Testament?
A164: Under the New Testament Christ hath instituted in his church only two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's supper.[1]

1. Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19; I Cor. 11:20, 23

Q165: What is Baptism?
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.[2]

1. Acts 2:38; 8:36-37
2. Gen. 17:7, 9; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:16; I Cor. 7:14; Matt 28:19; Luke 18:15-16

Q167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
A167: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;[1] by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;[2] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[3] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[4] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[5] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[6] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[7] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[8] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[9]

1. Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 6:4, 6, 11
2. Rom. 6:3-5
3. I Cor. 1:11-13; Rom. 6:2-3
4. Rom. 4:11-12; I Peter 3:21
5. Rom. 6:3-5
6. Gal. 3:26-27
7. Rom. 6:22
8. Acts 2:38
9. I Cor. 12:13, 25-27

The HEIDELBERG CATECHISM

Lord's Day 25

65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, where does this faith come from?
The Holy Spirit creates it in our hearts1 by the preaching of the Gospel,2 and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments.3
1 Jn 3:5; 1 Cor 2:10-14; Eph 2:8; Php 1:29; 2 Rom 10:17; 1 Pt 1:23-25; 3 Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 10:16

66. What are the sacraments?
The sacraments are holy, visible signs and seals, instituted by God so that by their use He might the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel;1 namely, that He grants us out of free grace the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, because of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.2
1 Gen 17:11; Deut 30:6; Rom 4:11; 2 Mt 26:27-28; Acts 2:38; Heb 10:10

67. Are both the Word and the Sacraments intended to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?
Yes indeed; for the Holy Spirit teaches us in the Gospel, and by the Holy Sacraments assures us, that our whole salvation rests on the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.1
1 Rom 6:3; 1 Cor 11:26; Gal 3:27

68. How many Sacraments has Christ instituted in the New Covenant?
Two: Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper.1
1 Mt 28:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-26

Lord's Day 26

69. How does holy baptism signify and seal to you that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross benefits you?
In this way: that Christ has instituted this outward washing with water,1 and has joined with it this promise, that as surely as I am washed outwardly with water, whereby commonly the filthiness of the body is taken away, so certainly I am washed with His blood and Spirit from the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins.2
1 Mt 28:19; 2 Mt 3:11; Mk 16:16; Jn 1:33; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-4; 1 Pt 3:21

70. What does it mean to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ?
It is to have the forgiveness of sins from God, through grace, because of Christ’s blood, which He shed for us in His sacrifice on the cross;1 and also, to be renewed by the Holy Spirit, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die to sin, and lead holy and blameless lives.2
1 Ezek 36:25; Zech 13:1; Eph 1:7; Heb 12:24; 1 Pt 1:2; Rev 1:5, 7:14; 2 Jn 3:5-8; Rom 6:4; 1 Cor 6:11; Col 2:11-12

71. Where has Christ promised that He will wash us with His blood and Spirit as surely as we are washed with the water of Baptism?
In the institution of baptism, where He says, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”1 “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be damned.”2 This promise is also repeated where the Scripture calls baptism “the washing of regeneration” and “the washing away of sins.”3
1 Mt 28:19; 2 Mk 16:16; 3 Tit 3:5; Acts 22:16

Lord's Day 27

72. Is then the outward washing with water itself the washing away of sins?

No; for only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins.1
1 Mt 3:11; 1 Pt 3:21; 1 Jn 1:7

73. Why, then, does the Holy Spirit call baptism “the washing of regeneration” and “the washing away of sins?”
God speaks in this way for a good reason. He wants to teach us that the blood and Spirit of Christ remove our sins just as water takes away dirt from the body;1 but more importantly, He wants to assure us by this divine pledge and sign that we are as truly washed from our sins spiritually, as our bodies are washed with water.2
1 1 Cor 6:11; Rev 1:5, 7:14; 2 Mk 16:16; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27

74. Are infants also to be baptized?
Yes, since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,1 and both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who creates faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents.2 Therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,3 as was done in the Old Covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which in the New Covenant baptism was instituted.5
1 Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14; 2 Ps 22:11; Isa 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39, 16:31; 3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14; 4 Gen 17:9-14; 5 Col 2:11-13

Also, if you are looking for online resources (articles, sermons, and debates) on the Reformed belief in infant baptism, please check my post here from another thread. Aside from the books I have read, and am currently reading on this controversial subject, these resources have been helpful to me. I have included resources defending the covenantal Baptist view for the sake of objectivity. As always, iron sharpents iron!

 

[jbotkin]

Weighing into this debate is always fun! Can I pull back a little and ask a big picture question to my paedo baptist brothers? If baptism replaces circumcision, why doesn't Paul just say that? Especially in places like in Galatians? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to put down the Judaizers he had to fight so hard against? Yes, it's an argument from silence, but I find the silence deafening. Just a thought. Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Weighing into this debate is always fun! Can I pull back a little and ask a big picture question to my paedo baptist brothers? If baptism replaces circumcision, why doesn't Paul just say that? Especially in places like in Galatians? Wouldn't it be the easiest way to put down the Judaizers he had to fight so hard against? Yes, it's an argument from silence, but I find the silence deafening. Just a thought. Blessings!

The question belies a basic ignorance of the issue in the Galatian Church. This error is so common, I believe, because people are mining the text for verses and not for the root issue.

Circumcision, in the context of Galatians, is mostly used in a way that is synonymous with "keeping Torah". This is a Judaizing perversion of what circumcision was about.

Hence, to simply say "baptism replaces circumcision" would simply replace one sign with another but the underlying substance of what each pointed to would be corrupted. If one does not understand the nature of Justification and Union with Christ then it would be pastoral malpractice to simply tell a person to become baptized. For such a person baptism and un-baptism is nothing - there are plenty of baptized people that treat the sign of baptism no differently than a Judaizer - "yeah, you begin by faith, but then you become sanctified and perfected by being on fire for Jesus and doing what He commands."

 

[jbotkin]

The question belies a basic ignorance of the issue in the Galatian Church. This error is so common, I believe, because people are mining the text for verses and not for the root issue.

Nice.

Circumcision, in the context of Galatians, is mostly used in a way that is synonymous with "keeping Torah". This is a Judaizing perversion of what circumcision was about.

Maybe. I would certainly agree that it could be an example of that, but not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians). And in the midst of his argument against the Judaizers' legalism, he still makes the assertion that Gentiles should not be circumcised (Acts 15:10; Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 7:18; ; etc).

And so my question still stands. Why didn't Paul simply explain that baptism is now the sign of the new covenant? Surely he could have done this without being "pastorally irresponsible"? Paul could have BOTH battled the legalism and made it a closed case for the Gentiles by simply asserted they didn't need to be circumcised since they had been baptized = received the sign of the new covenant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

John,

not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians)

1) Can you give, please, one concrete example from Galatians where circumcision is not treated as "shorthand" for law-fulfillment? It would help the discussion if we had an instance of what you say is the case. Thanks.

2) The Judaizers were trying to force circumcision on the Galatians. These were circumcised folks who had been baptized by water themselves. They were telling Gentile Christians that they needed circumcision, which was simply the beginning of Torah-observance.

If you keep one law ceremony because it's Torah, then it's simple to demonstrate that you are debtor to keep the whole thing. That's Paul's argument.

3) What possible good would it do, on Paedo-baptist presuppositions, to tell the Galatians to answer the baptized Judaizers by telling them "We're already baptized"? It is a total waste of time, or ink. If you think it's an answer, then you don't understand how it is we view the correlation between these signs.

4) The problem with these circumcisers was they had confidence in the flesh. The answer to confidence in the flesh isn't to point to some other sign and say, "Oh no, we have confidence in THIS sign over here!"

Great. Now we've replaced one confidence in the flesh with another? And you know what the answer to that is: "Neither is [baptism] anything nor [unbaptism] anything".

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Circumcision, in the context of Galatians, is often used in a way that is synonymous with "keeping Torah". This is a Judiazing perversion of what circumcision was about.

Maybe. I would certainly agree that it could be an example of that, but not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians). And in the midst of his argument against the Judaizers' legalism, he still makes the assertion that Gentiles should not be circumcised (Acts 15:10; Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 7:18; ; etc).

Excuse me, did I say that this is how circumcision is defined across the New Testament? In fact, in Romans 4:11, the proper understanding of circumcision is defined but to understand Paul in Galatians you actually have to pay attention. I actually see you underlining your basic misunderstanding of Paul's argument. If you would like to understand it better than you can go here: Galatians | Central Baptist Church, Okinawa, Japan

Otherwise, it seems, you don't really seem to understand why it is that Paul would not just say: "Baptism just replaces circumcision even though the Judaizers don't understand what circumcision was about."

And so my question still stands. Why didn't Paul simply explain that baptism is now the sign of the new covenant? Surely he could have done this without being "pastorally irresponsible"? Paul could have BOTH battled the legalism and made it a closed case for the Gentiles by simply asserted they didn't need to be circumcised since they had been baptized = received the sign of the new covenant.

He actually does this in a different way but, again, your problem is a more basic misunderstanding of Galatians and I would urge you to study that and you will find where Paul actually notes to the Gentiles that they already possess everything and need not be jealous for anything they might have been envious of in the Judaizers.

 

[A.J.]

Maybe. I would certainly agree that it could be an example of that, but not that is meant that way exclusively across the NT (or even my one example, Galatians). And in the midst of his argument against the Judaizers' legalism, he still makes the assertion that Gentiles should not be circumcised (Acts 15:10; Rom 2:25; 1 Cor 7:18; ; etc).

And so my question still stands. Why didn't Paul simply explain that baptism is now the sign of the new covenant? Surely he could have done this without being "pastorally irresponsible"? Paul could have BOTH battled the legalism and made it a closed case for the Gentiles by simply asserted they didn't need to be circumcised since they had been baptized = received the sign of the new covenant.

John, I think the answer to your question is found in the fact that there is an essential continuity between OT Israel and the NT church (Rom. 4; Rom. 11; Acts 7; Gal. 3.; Eph. 2; the entire book of Hebrews). Reformed Baptists grant this. To be outside Israel was to be a stranger to the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12) and to be outside God's household of faith (Eph. 2:19), which is the church itself (1 Tim. 3:15). In the OT, Gentiles who professed faith in the God of Israel would have to be circumcised, they and their households with them (Gen. 17:9-14; Gen. 18:19). No one became a formal member of God's covenant community apart from circumcision for circumcision was the OT initiatory ordinance appointed by God Himself for that very purpose.

Now Scripture clearly tells us that the New Covenant which the Lord Jesus Christ inaugurated (see texts above) is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17). God's covenant community is now to expand to all the nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 3:8). If circumcision is no longer the initiatory rite in the NT (which is true, cf. Acts 15), and if baptism did not in fact replace circumcision, then there is no NT initiatory rite! But there is a NT initatory rite, the sacrament of baptism (Matt. 28-18-20; Acts 2:41ff). Since baptism has now come in place of circumcision, those who profess faith in God are now to be baptized, they and their households with them (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:14-16; Acts 16:31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). So the pattern is prescribed. The sign is to be administered to confessors and their families. That was the OT pattern, and is still the NT pattern.[1]

B.B. Warfield's response to this Baptist argument is helpful.

How fully Paul believed that baptism and circumcision were but two symbols of the same change of heart, and that one was instead of the other, may be gathered from Col. ii.11, when, speaking to a Christian audience of the Church, he declares that "in Christ ye were also circumcised "-- but how? -- "with a circumcision not made with hands, in putting off the body of the flesh," -- that is, in the circumcision of Christ. But what was this Christ-ordained circumcision? The Apostle continues: "Having been buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Hence in baptism they were buried with Christ, and this burial with Christ was the circumcision which Christ ordained, in the partaking of which they became the true circumcision. This falls little, if any, short of a direct assertion that the Christian Church is Israel, and has Israel's circumcision, though now in the form of baptism. Does the view of Paul, now, contradict the New Testament idea of the Church, or only the Baptist idea of the Church? No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party! Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles. (emphasis mine)

- B.B. Warfield, The Polemics of Infant Baptism

Aside from the heretical understanding of the Judaizers about the purpose of the Law, they did not understand that baptism has now come in place of circumcision. It is for this reason that they insisted that the already baptized Gentiles who have already received what circumcision signified (i.e., regeneration, which is signified by baptism) be circumcised also. The point of Warfield is that the Baptist argument against infant baptism is similar in this manner to the Judaizers' argument against the apostolic teaching about circumcision. The Judaizers denied that baptism has replaced circumcision. And many (not all) Baptists are unfortunately doing the same thing. The decision of the Acts 15 Synod is clear: baptism has replaced circumcision as the entrance sign of God's covenant community. Gentiles should not be circumcised because they have not only received what circumcision signified. The reality of regeneration (which circumcision signified) was signifed and sealed also for them by baptism (Acts 10-11). There is thus no need for circumcision anymore.[2]

Lastly, we must remember (as Rich has pointed out many times) that the NT writers especially the Apostle Paul use the words "circumcision" and "Jew" in different ways. On the one hand, they use them to describe the unbelieving Jews and/or the Pharisaical sect of the Judaizers, their false understanding of the significance of circumcision, or the Jews in general.

(All quotations are from the ESV)

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, - Acts 11:2

But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him. - Acts 13:45

But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. - Acts 13:50

For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. - 1 Cor. 7:19

For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. - Gal. 2:12

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. - Gal. 2:5-6

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. - Gal. 5:3-4

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. - Gal. 5:6

For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. - Gal. 6:15

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— - Eph. 2:11

For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. - Titus 1:10

On the other hand, the NT writers use these words to describe true Christians and the Christian Church.

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. - Rom. 2:28-29

How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. - Rom. 4:10-12

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— - Phil. 3:3

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, - Col. 2:11-13

So the next time we read Baptists apologists arguing against infant baptism on the basis of prooftexts from the NT dealing with circumcision (e.g., Galatians, which is essentially a defense of justification by faith from the Judaizers), we must ask ourselves again and again: which circumcision are these NT writers talking about? Are they dealing with the true meaning of circumcision, or with the Pharisaical and the Judaizers' perversion thereof?

Footnotes:

[1] See Lee Irons' The Oikos Formula (which is based on Joachim Jeremias' The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland) for a list of Scripture texts from both the OT and the NT using this oikos formula.

[2] For a more detailed response to this Baptist argument, please see Dr. Gregg Strawbridge's Infant Baptism: Does the Bible Teach It? Though Strawbridge's views have become problematic and anti-confessional in recent years, his written works on infant baptism are excellent. Look for that part of the booklet discussing the so-called "Judaizer Objection."

 

[jbotkin]

Here's the telling quote!

) What possible good would it do, on Paedo-baptist presuppositions, to tell the Galatians to answer the baptized Judaizers by telling them "We're already baptized"? It is a total waste of time, or ink. If you think it's an answer, then you don't understand how it is we view the correlation between these signs.

Is it possible to read the text apart from a paedo-baptist presupposition? I honestly think this is part of the "talking past" each other that takes place in discussions like this.

AJ, thanks for your excellent reply! After seeing a reformed view of salvation is more in line with the Bible, I read hundreds of pages of arguments from paedo-baptists on baptism. You've presented an excellent summary of all that I read.

But here is the nub of the disagreement:

Now Scripture clearly tells us that the New Covenant which the Lord Jesus Christ inaugurated (see texts above) is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12, 15, 17). God's covenant community is now to expand to all the nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Gal. 3:8). If circumcision is no longer the initiatory rite in the NT (which is true, cf. Acts 15), and if baptism did not in fact replace circumcision, then there is not NT initiatory rite! But there is a NT initatory rite, the sacrament of baptism (Matt. 28-18-20; Acts 2:41ff). Since baptism has now come in place of circumcision, those who profess faith in God are now to be baptized, they and their households with them (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 16:14-16; Acts 16:31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16).

Yes, there is continuity, but also discontinuity. And as I read the Scriptures, there is a major difference when it comes to the formation of the covenant people. Baptism does NOT bring one into the covenant, regeneration - or a circumcision of the heart - brings one into the covenant (John 3; Col 2; etc). Baptism points back to this reality. I believe this fundamental difference is what causes us to put things together so differently, one side seeing baptism as necessary for children, the other side seeing it the result of a profession of faith.

Either way, we rejoice together as brothers and sisters to the salvation we have in Christ! SDG

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's the telling quote!

) What possible good would it do, on Paedo-baptist presuppositions, to tell the Galatians to answer the baptized Judaizers by telling them "We're already baptized"? It is a total waste of time, or ink. If you think it's an answer, then you don't understand how it is we view the correlation between these signs.

Is it possible to read the text apart from a paedo-baptist presupposition? I honestly think this is part of the "talking past" each other that takes place in discussions like this.

Why...? Your question (which I bolded) to me is... just confusing. Are you presenting a real curiosity, or simply being facetious? Do you mean Galatians, or any portion of the Bible?

I mean, do you expect me to read Rev.1 with my paedo-baptist presuppositions in mind? Mat.27? Is.25? Because I think you are way smarter than that, to think that any reasonable person brings ALL their theological baggage to every textual destination.


**********


OK, I actually wrote that entire bit above, before it dawned on me WHY you might have said what you said. Because I'm wondering the whole time: why ANY person would be thinking of baptism when he was reading Galatians for Paul's argument?

Other than the Church of Christ dude (for example) who ought to be comparing his own doctrine of (credo) baptism to the Judaizers doctrine of circumcision, and going pale. But, of course, that too is an application of the text, and not an explanation of the text.

What is interesting to me is that you would assume that any passage with the word "circumcision" in it automatically makes a paedo-baptist think of baptism. I assume this is the substance of the reason you wondered what you did.

But, as I wrote (and you quote): you don't understand the position you're abnegating. I agree, misunderstanding is the biggest reason we just 'talk past' one another.

Nice thing about the PuritanBoard: I have learned why the Baptist doesn't agree with me. I know why we ask totally different questions, and I don't put questions that don't arise from the text into his mouth.

Your whole "argument from silence" thing is just amazing to me. It proves you are asking an alleged Paedo-baptist question from a preset Credo-baptist mind.

If you can ever understand why, from an exegetical and theological standpoint, it would never occur to a Paedo-baptist to ask the question you think he should be asking, then you are that much closer to understanding what it is you don't agree with.

Peace.

 

[A.J.]

Yes, there is continuity, but also discontinuity. And as I read the Scriptures, there is a major difference when it comes to the formation of the covenant people. Baptism does NOT bring one into the covenant, regeneration - or a circumcision of the heart - brings one into the covenant (John 3; Col 2; etc). Baptism points back to this reality. I believe this fundamental difference is what causes us to put things together so differently, one side seeing baptism as necessary for children, the other side seeing it the result of a profession of faith.

John, it is true that the sign (the application of water) does not result in regeneration (the thing signified). That is why historic Reformed Theology has made a clear distinction between those who are in the covenant narrowly, and those who are in it broadly (John 15; Rom. 2:28-29; Rom. 11:17-24, etc.). See our previous posts on this.

The LARGER CATECHISM

Q61: Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?
A61: All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.[1]

1. John 12:38-40; Rom. 9:6; 11:7; Matt. 7:21; 22:14

Q62: What is the visible church?
A62: The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion,[1] and of their children.[2]

1. I Cor. 1:2; 12:13; Rom. 15:9-12; Rev. 7:9; Psa. 2:8; 22:27-31; 45:17; Matt. 28:19-20; Isa. 59:21
2. I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Rom. 11:16; Gen. 17:7

Q63: What are the special privileges of the visible church?
A63: The visible church hath the privilege of being under God's special care and government;[1] of being protected and preserved in all ages, not withstanding the opposition of all enemies;[2] and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation,[3] and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,[4] and excluding none that will come unto him.[5]

1. Isa. 4:5-6; I Tim. 4:10
2. Psa. 115:1-2, 9: Isa. 31:4-5; Zech. 12:2-4, 8-9
3. Acts 2:39, 42
4. Psa. 147:19-20; Rom. 9:4; Eph. 4:11-12; Mark 16:15-16
5. John 6:37

Q64: What is the invisible church?
A64: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.[1]

1. Eph. 1:20, 22-23; John 10:16, 11:52

Q65: What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?
A65: The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.[1]

1. John 17:21, 24; Eph. 2:5-6

What baptism does is that it marks out people as God's people even though many of these men and women eventually turn out to be reprobates. The point is baptism initiates us as members of the visible church.

The WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH

Chapter 28. Of Baptism.

1. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,a not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church,b but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,c of his ingrafting into Christ,d of regeneration,e of remission of sins,f and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life:g which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.h

a. Mat 28:19. • b. 1 Cor 12:13. • c. Rom 4:11 with Col 2:11-12. • d. Rom 6:5; Gal 3:27. • e. Titus 3:5. • f. Mark 1:4. • g. Rom 6:3-4. • h. Mat 28:19-20.

I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"? The olive tree example of Paul is clear on this.

But if some of the branches [the Jews] were broken off, and you [the Gentiles], although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches [the Jews], neither will he spare you [the Gentiles]. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you [the Gentiles], provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you [the Gentiles] too will be cut off [just as the Jews were cut off]. And even they, if they [the Jews] do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. - Rom. 11:17-24 (ESV emphasis added)

How can the Gentiles be cut off (assuming they do not continue in God's kindness) if the Baptist view of the church is true? Apostasy in the church? There have been attempts by Reformed Baptists to deal with warning passages like this.[1] But I am not convinced.

Peter is equally explicit.

For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? - 1 Peter 4:17 (ESV emphasis added)

What is the household of God?

if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. - 1 Tim. 3:15 (ESV emphasis added)

How can God judge the church if the Baptist interpretation of Jer. 31:31-34 is true? Everyone without exception in the covenant is elect? I don't think so. The Covenant of Grace has a substance, and an administration. And we must properly distinguish these two.

Either way, we rejoice together as brothers and sisters to the salvation we have in Christ! SDG

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, you un-baptize me, and would not allow me to partake of the Lord's Supper if ever I visit your church.

Footnote:

[1] See this book's chapter on paedobaptism.

Amazon.com: A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: Samuel, E. Waldron, Richard, C. Barcellos: Books

 

[jbotkin]

AJ,
Amazingly dense post, brother! But I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree here. I would agree with the LC quote expect for the statement of children. And I agree with the state on baptism in the WCF.

I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"?

Are you saying you don't believe people can be part of the visible church and not the invisible church, or you can't see that from a baptist perspective? I would point to Judas and Demas as examples and John's comments (1 John 2:19) to say it's more than possible, but does happen. They appeared to be believers, but were in fact not and made that clear by their apostasy. Jesus teaches this as well (Matt 7:21-23).

"(totally) regenerate church membership"

Maybe the problem comes in how you understand this. Here we simply want to say that unless someone has professed faith in Christ, they cannot join the church. This is to try to have local church membership - as much as possible - accurately reflect membership in the true Church universal (= genuine belief). This also helps prevent false assurance. Even still, we know we are fallible and some will deceive themselves or deceive others into believing they are saved when they are not.

Unfortunately, you un-baptize me, and would not allow me to partake of the Lord's Supper if ever I visit your church.

For the record, you WOULD be permitted to partake at the Table at my church (so feel free to stop in some time when you're in the States!

Blessings

P.S. As a related question of curiosity, if an unchurched man professed faith, would you baptize him along with his wife and children? That would seem to be consistent with the Acts passages, but I've never heard of a church doing that. I'm asking this, not as a criticism, but as an honest inquiry into paedo-baptist church practices.

 

[A.J.]

AJ,
Amazingly dense post, brother! But I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree here. I would agree with the LC quote expect for the statement of children. And I agree with the state on baptism in the WCF.

Thank you, John. I think we should start another thread since the thread starter's questions are quite different from what we are discussing now. The previous posts (including ours) show that no specific question is being answered anymore.

I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"?

Are you saying you don't believe people can be part of the visible church and not the invisible church, or you can't see that from a baptist perspective? I would point to Judas and Demas as examples and John's comments (1 John 2:19) to say it's more than possible, but does happen. They appeared to be believers, but were in fact not and made that clear by their apostasy. Jesus teaches this as well (Matt 7:21-23).

I'm not sure if I understood your question. My quote from Rom. 11 is simply to indicate why I find it hard to accept the Baptist view of the New Covenant, and the nature of the church. Rom. 11 is far from teaching that only individual elect people are now what God is concerned about in including in his church. Simply put, I don't see how Jer. 31:31-34, which is central to the Baptist position, supposedly excludes the children of believers now given the fact that other prophecies of the New Covenant explicitly include them. (All quotations are from the ESV.)

And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. - Jer. 32:38-40

But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments. - Psa. 103:17-18

“And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring,” says the Lord, “from this time forth and forevermore.” - Isa. 59:21

“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. - Ezek. 37:24-27

This is the same promise given to Abraham. It is the same promise proclaimed in Pentecost at the beginning of the New Covenant.

And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. - Gen. 17:7

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” - Acts 2:38-39

"(totally) regenerate church membership"

Maybe the problem comes in how you understand this. Here we simply want to say that unless someone has professed faith in Christ, they cannot join the church. This is to try to have local church membership - as much as possible - accurately reflect membership in the true Church universal (= genuine belief). This also helps prevent false assurance. Even still, we know we are fallible and some will deceive themselves or deceive others into believing they are saved when they are not.

Exactly. The disagreement is inherently about what the church is, and how the covenant sign is to be administered. Also, infant baptism does not create false assurance. The fact that a child is a child of believing parents does not diminish any responsibility at all. It increases it since the child is raised in an environment where Christ is preached and taught to him, a privilege a child of an unbeliever does not have. Since much has been given to the covenant child, much will be demanded of him as well.

Unfortunately, you un-baptize me, and would not allow me to partake of the Lord's Supper if ever I visit your church.

For the record, you WOULD be permitted to partake at the Table at my church (so feel free to stop in some time when you're in the States!

Blessings

I'm aware of Reformed Baptists who hold to a view like that. But I wouldn't have a problem if you deny the Lord's Supper to those who aren't validly baptized the Baptist way. It's okay with me.

P.S. As a related question of curiosity, if an unchurched man professed faith, would you baptize him along with his wife and children? That would seem to be consistent with the Acts passages, but I've never heard of a church doing that. I'm asking this, not as a criticism, but as an honest inquiry into paedo-baptist church practices.

It's an honest inquiry which I think is not sufficiently dealt with even in Reformed literature. The question fortunately has been discussed in the PB Forums in the past, and Reformed Paedo-Baptists have provided answers to it. See the threads here and here. Dr. Kim Riddlebarger deals with this question in this way.

Yes, the covenant head must believe, make profession of faith, and understand the basic meaning of Christian baptism before being baptized! Yes, all of those old enough to receive instruction must also profess faith before baptism. But again, all this proves is that those in the households who were not infants and small children were instructed and even that they came to faith before baptism as well. Remember that instruction from the Scriptures to all of those under his or her authority is indeed the responsibility of the head of the authority unit. Children born into a Christian home, like Timothy [1 Timothy 3:15], should know the Scriptures from infancy! They should never know what unbelief is like! Indeed, it is also equally plausible that there were older children, adult servants, a spouse, and even teenagers in these households, who were instructed, came to faith, and were then baptized, as well as infants and small children who were baptized upon the covenantal authority of the believing parent before they could believe. The difficulty raised by the varying ages and levels of comprehension possible within these households does not negate the principle of covenant authority, upon which infants are baptized, or the need for those in the household old enough to profess faith before baptism.

- Kim Riddlebarger from his Lectures on the Sacraments

 

[jbotkin]

Thank you, John. I think we should start another thread since the thread starter's questions are quite different from what we are discussing now. The previous posts (including ours) show that no specific question is being answered anymore.

I understand!

After the other prophetic quotes you mentioned, I got what you were driving at. It's interesting because I had never read those references to children thinking, "Oh my Presbyterian friends would be thinking this here." Having that pointed out to will cause me to ponder more my own understanding/position about such things.

Exactly. The disagreement is inherently about what the church is, and how the covenant sign is to be administered. Also, infant baptism does not create false assurance. The fact that a child is a child of believing parents does not diminish any responsibility at all. It increases it since the child is raised in an environment where Christ is preached and taught to him, a privilege a child of an unbeliever does not have. Since much has been given to the covenant child, much will be demanded of him as well.

Sorry, I wasn't implying that paedo-baptism necessitates false assurance. In fact, I was thinking more of my own denominations failure on the outset to preach clearly the gospel message and are too quick to baptize. The idea of regenerate membership means those coming as candidates for membership in our church go through an interview process where their understanding of the gospel and profession of faith is examined.

Thanks for the direction to the other posts, I will check them out. Thanks also for the tone of your responses. I know that conversational print is hard to read, but some other posters tend to have a very harsh tone that suggests an certain egotism. I'm not saying it's true, but they come off that way. I would have added an official 'thank you' for your posts if I could do it!

Blessings

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Is it OK if I chime in again? I hope so...

AJ,
Amazingly dense post, brother! But I'm having a hard time seeing where we disagree here. I would agree with the LC quote expect for the statement of children. And I agree with the state on baptism in the WCF.

I think one of the issues here has to do with terms being used differently by the two sides. John, do you agree that ALL members of the visible church (however you define or limit) ARE members, fully and without an asterisk, even when they are revealed later as apostates?

The Presbyterian would say, that even after this was made plain, we wouldn't go back and hang an asterisk on that membership. He was a "member" as far as any human recognition could take it, and following discipline he has been dis-membered. His baptism was real and an unchangeable fact. He was a member; he is one no longer.

We distinguish between membership in the administration only, which is visible, and membership according to the substance, which is something God himself keeps track of. We would say that the body of Christ (on earth) can in fact be dismembered, whether by individual deaths, by disciplinary amputation, by massive schism or corruption, or by overwhelming persecution from without. All such things would result in a "form" of dismembership. It is the price we pay for not being in heaven yet.

I'm not so sure that's the Baptist view of membership. Wouldn't you say that the apostate was NEVER a member of the church (invisible), and you are simply recognizing this fact, and indeed hanging an asterisk on that earthly membership? And stating that his "baptism" was no baptism but only a wetting?

Wouldn't you call this "dis-fellowship" as opposed to "dis-membership"? I just find it hard to believe that the average Baptist is OK with the idea that Christ's body (the church) can in any sense of the word be dismembered.

Otherwise, it seems to me that you would be accepting that folks who are fooling others, and possibly themselves, are members of the church while they go undetected. Is that consistent with Baptist ecclesiology?

If I have raised valid questions, then while you might be able to agree with those catechism statements as agreeable words once they are run through a different filter, that's not the same thing as accepting them in the sense in which they are written.

I disagree with the Baptist view of the church because the NT teaches that it is possible for people to be members of the visible church, and be on their way to hell at the same time. How can this be if the church is to have a "(totally) regenerate church membership"?

Are you saying you don't believe people can be part of the visible church and not the invisible church, or you can't see that from a baptist perspective? I would point to Judas and Demas as examples and John's comments (1 John 2:19) to say it's more than possible, but does happen. They appeared to be believers, but were in fact not and made that clear by their apostasy. Jesus teaches this as well (Matt 7:21-23).

I think you misread AJ here. He thinks that the Baptist view of church membership views only those as real members even here below who are regenerate. Hence the phrase "regenerate church membership" common in Baptist circles.

And when you conflate the terms "members" and "believers" you are showing that you hold to such a view. But AJ is saying that it is possible for people to be "on their way to hell" AND to be bona fide members of the church, albeit exclusively in the administrative (and not the substantive) sense. Again, I don't think that view fits the Baptist paradigm.

"(totally) regenerate church membership"

Maybe the problem comes in how you understand this. Here we simply want to say that unless someone has professed faith in Christ, they cannot join the church. This is to try to have local church membership - as much as possible - accurately reflect membership in the true Church universal (= genuine belief). This also helps prevent false assurance. Even still, we know we are fallible and some will deceive themselves or deceive others into believing they are saved when they are not.

I just want to highlight one of your words here: "try", as in "try to have membership reflect..." I agree that we use the term "member" in a similar fashion (and here I'm attempting to be vague enough to say something we agree on in substance): to denote the regular gathering of people who sit under one rule. But when you use the word "try", I have to assume you are saying there is something essentially provisional about this list.

For us, that list is not provisional, but predicated although mutable. Our list can be changed, adding and taking away names. But if a name is taken away by discipline, we do not say "never was a true member," nor do we say he was not baptized. He is a "former" member. He doesn't belong here anymore.

P.S. As a related question of curiosity, if an unchurched man professed faith, would you baptize him along with his wife and children? That would seem to be consistent with the Acts passages, but I've never heard of a church doing that. I'm asking this, not as a criticism, but as an honest inquiry into paedo-baptist church practices.

I'm going to give you one pastor's view here. It might differ on some particular or other with another man's understanding. But I think in general it is a fair description.

Preliminarily, patriarchs don't wield the same kind of authority in our culture as they did, even in NT times. But still I do not think it is reasonable to assume that anyone who was positively unwilling to be baptized in NT-culture was forced into it.

Nor, then, would we baptize a wife who was not desirous to be included in the church, and to be called a Christian disciple. Her refusal is the refusal of a grown and independent person, emancipated from even the husband in many things in our culture. But a truly submissive wife, who though ignorant of many things of the faith still desired to follow her husband into a new identity, and take a new name "Christian"--I couldn't comprehend why she wouldn't be a good candidate. It isn't as though she comes not having had any basic preparation, an elementary instruction in the gospel which prepares her to accept or reject this rite.

We would baptize non-rebellious, non-refusing children. Children are in natural order under authority, they are not emancipated (yet), they have not attained majority, nor do they have any proper right to refuse baptism if they are commanded to submit to it, by the 5th commandment. (Please remember, you asked for the Presbyterian attitude.) And, again, in the nature of the case, they shall have received basic instruction in that of which they are engaging. Assuming total incomprehension of a teenager or even much younger seems rather artificial to me.

Now, I wouldn't baptize a rebellious youth, because he is refusing the Christian name. It is clear that this person isn't under his parent's authority, or is actively seeking its overthrow. In this way, he is refusing a "right" the paedo-baptist thinks he has, and therefore is not a proper subject.

And anyone who's emancipated, or in the judgment of the church should be examined for his own profession, then this is a wise course to take.

 

[jbotkin]

Is it OK if I chime in again? I hope so..

Of course!

If I have raised valid questions, then while you might be able to agree with those catechism statements as agreeable words once they are run through a different filter, that's not the same thing as accepting them in the sense in which they are written.

That is something I don't want to do. I hate word games, particularly when it comes to confessionalism, so If I have misunderstood the meaning of the confession, then I would want to be corrected. But I'm not sure I have misunderstood it. Although perhaps the meaning of baptism (creedo vs paedo) is what is helping muddy the waters in our discussion - no pun intended!

So let me begin by asking, if a child was baptized but then as an adult turned away from God and Christ, proving himself never saved, would you still say he was baptized in the NT sense? As I understand NT baptism, it is an external act that points to the invisible union of a believer with Christ (Rom 6, Gal 3) and so with his people (1 Cor 12). Therefore, even is one participates in a baptismal service, the sign ( = baptism) proves to be false if they fail to persevere, showing themselves to never have been a true believer. It was not a true baptism because they had not been truly united to Christ.

So, as the pastor of my local church, when I had the unfortunate task of disciplining one of our members, I said he was no longer a member of our church. I did not say he wasn't ever a member. I said he was, and now he is not. Time will tell if he is a member of the invisible Church and he repents and is restored to membership in a local, visible church. So, I would say it's possible to have an earthly church membership without having a heavenly Church membership.

I think you misread AJ here. He thinks that the Baptist view of church membership views only those as real members even here below who are regenerate. Hence the phrase "regenerate church membership" common in Baptist circles.

Again, I would draw a distinction between visible members and invisible members. We work hard to try our best to ensure they are the same, but some visible members are not invisible members.

Of course, I could be out of step with traditional Baptist views!

Dis this clarify my position or make it more confusing?

I'm going to give you one pastor's view here. It might differ on some particular or other with another man's understanding. But I think in general it is a fair description. . .

Very helpful, thank you. Again, curiosity - how does refusal to be baptized by older children affect their being considered covenant children? Does simply being the children of believing parents make them covenant children, or baptism?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

if a child was baptized but then as an adult turned away from God and Christ, proving himself never saved, would you still say he was baptized in the NT sense? As I understand NT baptism, it ... was not a true baptism because they had not been truly united to Christ.

There's your credo-paedo distinction, expressed very clearly right there. We answer the bold question affirmatively. Because under our understanding it doesn't depend on the state of the individual's heart for the church validly to declare in the name of God that "God saves everyone who puts their faith in Christ."

Baptism is so tied to gospel-proclamation, that we say it has no efficacy where no gospel-word accompanies it. That is to say, where the gospel does not function as the rarefied air in this church, there baptism fails to teach real gospel truth. Christians are hot-house plants that thrive only in a gospel-saturated environment.

This is why the very deep theological divisions between Reformed baptism and Roman baptism need to be appreciated. Just because they may practice baptism in a similar mode upon formally similar subjects (old or young) does not mean that they are much alike at all. Rome is missing the gospel! And you should have to say something similar about the Church of Christ, or JW's.

We say that baptism is applied, it is something set to a person, done by an outside agent (God's institution on earth being his church), affecting a person symbolically and outwardly. It is "monergistic" under our view, and not dependent for any of its intrinsic meaning on the subject. The participant is entirely passive in undergoing this ordinance.

It is the individual's duty to believe (have faith) in what baptism teaches God does objectively to save people. Baptism reflects a subjective "inward reality" when the meaning of baptism is apprehended by faith. But because baptism, as Presbyterians understand it, is a declaration of God's work in salvation, and is not intrinsically or infallibly a declaration of God's saving work in this person right here, then the timing of baptism makes no difference to us.

It makes no difference because God in Scripture doesn't make his promise to save SPECIFIC NAMED PERSONS, but to save ANYONE who has faith in Jesus Christ. The promise predates all mankind's existence, except for Adam and Eve. It was declared to the patriarchs, and restated many times by the prophets. The promise received a full expression and fulfillment in the Person and Work of Christ. And it continues to be restated in the Apostles and by their successors in the ministry of the NT church.

God's promise stands no matter what man does or fails to do with it. In fact to reject one's baptism, which is nothing more than a pictorial representation of the gospel-word, after receiving it (the baptism/gospel) and understanding it (the baptism/gospel), is to turn one's back on Christ.

So, when (for example) a baby is baptized, God promises to save him IF/WHEN he believes in the gospel. Why he has a right (or doesn't) to receive this sign of God's promise is what we argue about a lot around here. But the Reformed think that he is living and being reared in the gospel-context of the church, which is the PLACE where the gospel-promise is supposed to be held out each time we meet for worship.

If a person (let's say he's an adult) falsely professes yet is baptized, unless baptism is taken in the Baptist sense--of being a visible depiction of a subjectively realized AND objectively true invisible spiritual reality, at that moment, for that individual--then the divine declarative statement is true, irrespective of whether that sinner means what HE declares!

And if said sinner is still an elect person, then despite his falsehood at that time, unbenownst to him God has in fact made the secret promise personally to him before the world began. And it still awaits its revelation in time unto faith. But the fact is that before he was even ready for it, in baptism the promise is made PUBLIC, with special reference to him, since he is the subject.

Baptism has no efficacy where no gospel accompanies it, because it has no efficacy apart from faith. But if right now I am believing in God's promise of salvation made to the elect before time, declared to my fathers and mothers in Scripture, and to my biological parents, and declared to me for the first time in my life before I was barely aware and alert (in baptism), and thousands of times since... "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"--

Yea... I believe that--then I understand that even as a child, God knew me before I knew him, and he was already making promises to save me, but not somehow apart from means, nor apart from perseverance in faith.

And if that child denies the gospel? He also denies what the baptism symbolized: "God will wash clean everyone who has faith in Jesus." But he wasn't elect (demonstrated if he persists in unbelief until he dies), and the promise was never for him. "But it is not as if the promise of God failed" (Rom9:6).

So, as the pastor of my local church, when I had the unfortunate task of disciplining one of our members, I said he was no longer a member of our church. I did not say he wasn't ever a member. I said he was, and now he is not. Time will tell if he is a member of the invisible Church and he repents and is restored to membership in a local, visible church. So, I would say it's possible to have an earthly church membership without having a heavenly Church membership.

I guess my only question is: does he need to be baptized again? If he does, or anyone does, that shows a distinctly different view between us of the meaning of the term "member."

how does refusal to be baptized by older children affect their being considered covenant children? Does simply being the children of believing parents make them covenant children, or baptism?

1) We say a covenant child is one by birth. His parent(s) render him such, 1Cor.7:14. Now my mother is a covenant child, but she is over 60 now. Time moves us beyond previously appropriate considerations relative to our status all our lives long. But consider, there is a sense in which covenant children owe MORE to their parents in their old age than heathen children owe theirs. There are clear reciprocal covenant obligations.

2) A rebellious covenant child is just that, a rebel. A despiser of mercy. God gave him to believing parents, so that he should receive a blessing of being trained up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and he hates them. Since in this scenario the child grew up in an unbelieving house for quite a while, perhaps he's angry that he's no longer permitted to have his wicked fun with his parents approval (or at least without any discipline).

3) He's showing by his actions that he is demanding treatment on his own standing, as an adult. So, he needs to be evangelized that way.

 

[jbotkin]

I guess my only question is: does he need to be baptized again? If he does, or anyone does, that shows a distinctly different view between us of the meaning of the term "member."

No one is ever baptized again - at least they shouldn't be. Either the baptism was biblical baptism and never needs to be repeated, or it was not biblical baptism and the person just got wet. If a disciplined member repents and returns, there is no need to do anything than continue to disciple them.

However, for example, if someone came with a Catholic "bathtism" we would tell them they were not really baptized and need to be in accordance with Christ's command.

t is the individual's duty to believe (have faith) in what baptism teaches God does objectively to save people. Baptism reflects a subjective "inward reality" when the meaning of baptism is apprehended by faith. But because baptism, as Presbyterians understand it, is a declaration of God's work in salvation, and is not intrinsically or infallibly a declaration of God's saving work in this person right here, then the timing of baptism makes no difference to us.

Obviously this is the core of our difference. Though I agree that baptism is "is a declaration of God's work in salvation, and is not intrinsically or infallibly a declaration of God's saving work in this person" the pattern of Scripture, as I read it, makes the timing of baptism very important. The sign (baptism) signifies what has happened (salvation). Thus, the sign should follow after that to which it points. Furthermore, try as I might - and trust me I have tried hard! - some of my heroes seem to read far too much into the OT connects to baptism. I just don't see any specific reference to the practice of paedo-baptism; it must come as a "consequence" and inference from larger biblical themes.

I don't think either of us expected to change the other's mind. But your very helpful posts have allowed me to better understand your position while strengthening me in mine.

Blessings to you, brother! I'll see you around the board.

 

[A.J.]

; it [infant baptism] must come as a "consequence" and inference from larger biblical themes.

John, that's the beauty of Covenant Theology and Reformed heremeneutics! Baptism is a covenant sign, the initiatory ordinance of the visible church, and is administered to households. These are the larger Biblical themes necessary in understanding the proper subjects of baptism. Examining them thoroughly does justice to all of the Biblical data. I agree with that powerful statement (even though you disagree with the necessary conclusion derived from these themes).

I say, . Thanks for sharing your thoughts.