Scott Clark and Infant Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ahhh, not so! One of the glories of the new covenant is that only the elect are in it--I'm glad someone sees the baptist position here, even if you disagree with it...baby steps. Peter alluded to the Abrahamic covenant because here was the real fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham: that his descendants would be as the sand of the sea. Not his physical descendants, though their great number was a type of the real thing, but spiritual descendants. The multitude in Acts finally understood--the promises to Abraham weren't about Palestinian real estate, or innumerable physical descendants, but about spiritual seed. It's kind of sad that presbyterians want to return to the physical aspect of Abraham's promise when it was something so different.
@Ben Zartman - Can you give me the name of one person in your local congregation whom you know is a member of the New Covenant? The first name will suffice so as not to give away the identity. After you've provided the name, can you tell me the basis of your knowledge that this person is in the New Covenant?
 
@Ben Zartman - Can you give me the name of one person in your local congregation whom you know is a member of the New Covenant? The first name will suffice so as not to give away the identity. After you've provided the name, can you tell me the basis of your knowledge that this person is in the New Covenant?
Are you saying here that one cannot know that their have been saved? As the scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit Himself bears witness to us that we now are the child of God!
 
Are you saying here that one cannot know that their have been saved? As the scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit Himself bears witness to us that we now are the child of God!

As many have already said, a number of times, anyones estimation of another member is no less than presumption at best.
 
Peter didn't need to qualify--it was, and is abundantly clear to those who do not have the blinders of a preconceived notion on.

No blinders it’s just a preconceived notion based on Scriptural data on what God had previously promised. And unless the new data shows otherwise we continue to hold to the notion the previous data led to. And based on that it seems clear Peter was making a deliberate connection to the previous promise given to Abraham. Otherwise if it changed he would have qualified his statement as not to cause confusion.
 
Last edited:
@Ben Zartman - Can you give me the name of one person in your local congregation whom you know is a member of the New Covenant? The first name will suffice so as not to give away the identity. After you've provided the name, can you tell me the basis of your knowledge that this person is in the New Covenant?
I know of one, for absolute certain. His name is Ben. As for others, I am as certain as I dare to be in this life that they are regenerate. Still, they could surprise one in the end, and sometimes do. But what of that? The New Covenant is the application of grace by God in the heart--the external administration of it, being judged by fallible men (even Peter and the apostles were duped at times), matters less. I don't deny the necessity of the local church or it's administration, but sometimes they judge wrongly of a person. And so we judge charitably, regard each other as brethren when a credible profession has been made, and apply the sign upon the answer of a good conscience. We just don't see the command or necessary consequence to apply the sign to infants, given the differences between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic.
 
Neither a winsome reply nor a helpful one.
Tom,
I have tried to be both winsome and helpful--I have stated several times that we ought to let the subject rest. I joined this thread to answer the question asked by the OP (who is a baptist), about an article, and have been answering assaults against the confessional Baptist position since then. Every time I have brought the discussion to a decent resting place someone else has chimed in with a question that it would have been rude not to engage with. Even though their purpose was not to learn but to try to poke holes in my replies to others, I did my utmost to clarify to them my position. If my method has offended you I am sorry, but I'm beginning to run a little short on winsome. There is never an "I see now what you believe, even though we disagree" but always another "you're dead wrong, and here's why."
If emphatic statements can be made by presbyterians, can they not by Baptists? I realize this is a presbyterian forum, and holding a baptist position here is an uphill battle, but you should judge your own camp by the same standard to which you wish to hold me.
No hard feelings, friend. No doubt I'll have some more winsome in the morning. Good night to you.
 
It's not poking holes if the holes are already there. ;)

Not offended. Just as I said: saying someone has "blinders of preconceived notions on" is unhelpful. (Remember, too, that many here were formerly credobaptists.) Meanwhile, you're not about to earn any sympathy from your opponents.
Well now. Talk about un-winsome comments. I get that the winky-face emoji is supposed to make it tongue in cheek, but still--I think you're doing the very thing you wanted to scold me for.
But never mind that. I stand by my statement about the blinders of preconceived notions. There is no other way to fetch infant baptism into the New Covenant administration than if you already really, really want it to be there.
Is it strange that I should say that? That has been the position of confessional baptists since Day One. Is it unwise for me to state that on a heavily paedobaptistic forum? Probably. But there's the nub of the issue, and as I've stated before, there's little hope of that rift being mended this side of glory.
Brethren, I have a great respect for all you, and I love you as fellow pilgrims on this road to the Celestial City. I will leave this discussion now, but know that my failure to reply to further posts is not rudeness but charity.
 
Well now. Talk about un-winsome comments. I get that the winky-face emoji is supposed to make it tongue in cheek, but still--I think you're doing the very thing you wanted to scold me for.
My words were meant jokingly, but I have to agree that it is substantially similar to the one I had earlier criticized. My apologies. I have deleted my comment.
 
Well now. Talk about un-winsome comments. I get that the winky-face emoji is supposed to make it tongue in cheek, but still--I think you're doing the very thing you wanted to scold me for.
But never mind that. I stand by my statement about the blinders of preconceived notions. There is no other way to fetch infant baptism into the New Covenant administration than if you already really, really want it to be there.
Is it strange that I should say that? That has been the position of confessional baptists since Day One. Is it unwise for me to state that on a heavily paedobaptistic forum? Probably. But there's the nub of the issue, and as I've stated before, there's little hope of that rift being mended this side of glory.
Brethren, I have a great respect for all you, and I love you as fellow pilgrims on this road to the Celestial City. I will leave this discussion now, but know that my failure to reply to further posts is not rudeness but charity.

I know you're trying to exit, but can I detain you just a post longer?

From one who has attempted to end the discussion charitably and which I hope is plain from my final posts here; I understand you are angry and frustrated, and I sympathize that these discussions push us to our limit, and I've had to think doubly hard about my own tone when posting here in this discussion, and I sure hope I managed well as a redeemed sinner can--and in fairness to you, you were answering replies to two men at once from the outshoot, so maybe I'm a contributor--; but can I persuade you to rethink this sentiment?

I come into this with an assumption about all my Baptist brethren--they are honest and godly men, they know the Scriptures, and are convinced from Scripture of their position (though I disagree with their conclusion). I'll always believe that unless it stretches charity. To me the paedo position is plain from the Scripture, and seeing as our inward dispositions have been implicated I will say that God is witness that I believe the paedo position from the Scripture, and I came to it from a sincere desire to know and practice the truth, and certainly not an utter desperation for it to be right; yet being that persuaded I've got no rights to judge in another the things that no man can see.

I consider you a brother, and I think well of you. For fruitful discussion, we need you do the same for us.

So if I can at least win you over on this, I consider the discussion a success, even if we never meet eyes on the baptism issue, and we can share the blessing of Psalm 133. Hopefully, we can all think closely about this whatever side we are on.
 
Last edited:
I know of one, for absolute certain. His name is Ben. As for others, I am as certain as I dare to be in this life that they are regenerate. Still, they could surprise one in the end, and sometimes do. But what of that? The New Covenant is the application of grace by God in the heart--the external administration of it, being judged by fallible men (even Peter and the apostles were duped at times), matters less. I don't deny the necessity of the local church or it's administration, but sometimes they judge wrongly of a person. And so we judge charitably, regard each other as brethren when a credible profession has been made, and apply the sign upon the answer of a good conscience. We just don't see the command or necessary consequence to apply the sign to infants, given the differences between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic.
So even though you baptize on the basis that the NC is not like the OC, the only person you know for certain is in the NC is you? Does baptism confer membership in the NC?
 
So even though you baptize on the basis that the NC is not like the OC, the only person you know for certain is in the NC is you? Does baptism confer membership in the NC?
No, as it is the outward sign that one has already became part of the NC with God.It normally confers that one is now member of the local assembly itself.
 
No. Actually, exactly what David said above.
But I'm not here anymore, remember?
So baptism is an outward sign that one is a member of the NC but you don't know that anyone in the Church besides you is in the NC? To whom does it signify that the person is in the NC? Just the individual?
 
So baptism is an outward sign that one is a member of the NC but you don't know that anyone in the Church besides you is in the NC? To whom does it signify that the person is in the NC? Just the individual?
The person receiving water Baptism is testifying in a public display that they have already passed over from death to life. When infants are water baptized, not all if them are actually in the NC , correct? As the Spirit does not regenerate and indwell the baby at that time?
 
The person receiving water Baptism is testifying in a public display that they have already passed over from death to life. When infants are water baptized, not all if them are actually in the NC , correct? As the Spirit does not regenerate and indwell the baby at that time?
To your first sentence: An adult receiving water baptism will be doing so following a profession of faith, but we don’t believe that the baptism is the testimony of the one being baptized. Rather it is God who is testifying; he is the one acting and saying something in baptism. That’s why infants of believing, professing parents are baptized; it is God doing the speaking and acting, not the recipients.

To your second sentence: Not all professing adults are spiritually members of the new covenant, either. But both baptized adults and babies are now under, at the least, the outward administration of the new covenant- i.e., they are now members of the visible church- and recipients of much blessing as well as being accountable to God as such.
 
To your first sentence: An adult receiving water baptism will be doing so following a profession of faith, but we don’t believe that the baptism is the testimony of the one being baptized. Rather it is God who is testifying; he is the one acting and saying something in baptism. That’s why infants of believing, professing parents are baptized; it is God doing the speaking and acting, not the recipients.

To your second sentence: Not all professing adults are spiritually members of the new covenant, either. But both baptized adults and babies are now under, at the least, the outward administration of the new covenant- i.e., they are now members of the visible church- and recipients of much blessing as well as being accountable to God as such.
Paul seems to state though that the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Holy Spirit and have received Jesus as Lord, hence the so called believers baptism .
 
Paul seems to state though that the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Holy Spirit and have received Jesus as Lord, hence the so called believers baptism .
Could you provide your texts for this? Then they can be discussed.
 
Could you provide your texts for this? Then they can be discussed.
The primary verses used by the Apostle Paul would be:
Rom 6:3-4, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:5, and Col 2:12
All seem to affirm the work of the Holy Spirit in indwelling and having now saved us!
 
The primary verses used by the Apostle Paul would be:
Rom 6:3-4, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:5, and Col 2:12
All seem to affirm the work of the Holy Spirit in indwelling and having now saved us!
Paul knew that not everyone who had been baptized or would be baptized was truly a Christian, or ever became one. He is affirming what is true for those who go on to remain in Christ. In other words, Paul is not affirming that "the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Spirit".
 
Last edited:
Paul seems to state though that the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Holy Spirit and have received Jesus as Lord, hence the so called believers baptism .
Are those baptised sealed by the Holy Spirit or are they not? It seems to me you're not being consistent.
 
Paul knew that not everyone who had been baptized or would be baptized was truly a Christian, or ever became one. He is affirming what is true for those who go on to remain in Christ. In other words, Paul is not affirming that "the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Spirit".
Paul seemed to be saying that those already baptism by the Spirit are then water baptized!
 
Those who gave been saved were sealed by the Holy Spirit when converted, not at time if water Baptism.
Paul seemed to be saying that those already baptism by the Spirit are then water baptized!
You say that Paul says recipient of baptism is first baptised by the Spirit.

The question that has been already advanced countless times is this:

How does one determine the authenticity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
 
You say that Paul says recipient of baptism is first baptised by the Spirit.

The question that has been already advanced countless times is this:

How does one determine the authenticity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
By being a fruit inspector, does the person exhibit any signs of the rebirth, such as desire to pray, read bible, attend assembly etc?
 
By being a fruit inspector, does the person exhibit any signs of the rebirth, such as desire to pray, read bible, attend assembly etc?
Is there any possibility that a "fruit inspector" would err? Might baptism be administered to an unregenerate person?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top