Some credible Credo arguments In my humble opinion.

[reformedman]

I really wish our non-paedo friends would note this point and deal with it honestly and fairly. There are baptisms of persons in the NT where we are not told anything concerning their consciousness as to the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. One of many examples is Lydia's household, Acts 16:15. The non-paedo might be able to offer an explanation of this point from their distinct perspective, but could they at least acknowledge that there are examples of persons being baptised in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.

"And the oikos rejoiced with her" Yes, they were cognizant.

I agree. In fact, here is a picture of my daughter Sophia rejoicing at a friend's 2 year old Birthday Party. She was even cognizant of the fact that others were clapping and joined in the joy of the celebration.

That is an adorable baby Rich, but your argument is weak on a few accounts.
First and formost,
1. Lydia's house is not said to have infants.
2. I went through a few different versions for verse 15 and I don't see that it indicates "whole" household. It is possible (granted probable), that perhaps it was her "whole" household, but it could also have been that people "of" her household were baptized. This second argument is not strong in either side; yours nor mine.
3. The adorable baby in your picture is happy because:

• she's recieving the undivided attention of all people
• she's realizes this is gift, cake, and picture time with song
• everyon is smiling.

But please say you agree with me that the poor child, further, YOU AND I, at the age of 2 weeks had no concept or clue about our aunt being saved and being able to rejoice with her. Can you rejoice over a soteriological issue at 2 weeks? No, I'm sure you will agree.

And infact, can simply not be soteriologically cognizant to be able to rejoice and therefore, indicate or manifest the fruit of saving belief and repentance which were identity markers for those who were to partake of baptism. To be baptized, you must be able to "consider" things that an infant child simply cannot.

1. Acts 8:38, 39- "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39- Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing."​

Here's an old guy rejoicing.

2. Acts 16:33, 34- "And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34- Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."​

Again, we don't see proof that there were infants here, but the point is, it takes soteriological understanding to truly rejoice in the right way, not just a happy fluffy way of everyone smiling therefore the childs smiles also, no, I'm sure you'd agree, those that rejoiced concerning the BELIEF and CONVERSION is what is called to question here, not that he was smiling.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Frank,

Your argument above may lead you to believe that you have dealt with what you wrote and what my response to your assertion was. Let us back up, shall we?

You wrote:

"And the oikos rejoiced with her" Yes, they were cognizant.

To which I displayed a picture of my child at another child's birthday party rejoicing with her friend.

Now, you may desire to read more into the term rejoicing because you are pre-conditioned to believe, perhaps, that infants are incapable of rejoicing. There is nothing in the word rejoice, however, that requires the recipients to all have the same degree of understanding about what they are rejoicing about.

The argument about Lydia or the jailer or anybody else that states there were no infants present is interesting but: So what if it states that no infants were present? It also doesn't say that adults were present either! I must, therefore, conclude by your logic that no adults were present. In fact, I know nothing about the age, sex, or composition of Lydia's or the jailer's household other than, presumably, they were people. But, since by your assertion I cannot state that human beings were present unless it says "...human beings were present...", then I'm only reasonable confident of that.

I am not postively asserting that infants or adults or teenagers were present in any of these houses but:

a. You cannot exclude infants merely on the basis that those in the household rejoiced.
b. You cannot even use your own "explicit rule" to establish that adults are present.

In other words, you cannot use the narratives as a support for the claim that all those baptized believed in and professed Christ at an adult level. You may wish to read that into the passages but the weakness of an argument on the basis of historical narrative has been shown for what it is.

2. I went through a few different versions for verse 15 and I don't see that it indicates "whole" household. It is possible (granted probable), that perhaps it was her "whole" household, but it could also have been that people "of" her household were baptized. This second argument is not strong in either side; yours nor mine.

As your theology requires you to do. Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are searching the Scriptures, hoping that, just maybe, the whole household didn't believe. "Phew! Good, the whole household didn't believe."

3. The adorable baby in your picture is happy because:

• she's recieving the undivided attention of all people
• she's realizes this is gift, cake, and picture time with song
• everyon is smiling.

Note what I stated earlier about Baptists writing about children in the third person. Do you have any children Frank? Perhaps I could write some stories about what your children are thinking. Do you have some sort of mind reading device?

1. It was not Sophia's birthday. It was her friend's birthday.
2. She was rejoicing with the other child.
3. She hugs and kisses people that are not smiling.

I've seen my 1.5 year old little girl express remorse and hug her sister and say "I'm sorry." She certainly knows what it means to be happy with another - just not at an adult level.

But please say you agree with me that the poor child, further, YOU AND I, at the age of 2 weeks had no concept or clue about our aunt being saved and being able to rejoice with her. Can you rejoice over a soteriological issue at 2 weeks? No, I'm sure you will agree.

What 2 week old are we referring to Frank? What difference does that make to the narrative we were speaking about?

1. Acts 8:38, 39- "So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39- Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing."​

Here's an old guy rejoicing.

Remember the story of David and Saul? Remember that story where Saul went to relieve himself in the cave? That was an old guy relieving himself. Ergo, only old people relieve themselves.

 

[reformedman]

So what if it states that no infants were present? It also doesn't say that adults were present either!
You are sliding out of the point at hand. The point of this thread is infant baptism. Whether there were other adults present in the house is a moot point and we don't care because we both agree that if they converted they should be baptized. The point in fact is--we don't see whether there were children present, we both agree; but more, the verse says that her house rejoiced. My point in my previous point was entirely that infants, 2 week old (I'm assuming that's about when you baptize children in the paedobaptist faith), could not rejoice. If you do a peekaboo or a happy happy dance with a garnish of "A-Goo A-Goo" I can get almost any infant to laugh and rejoice--BUT this is not the contextual rejoice that is being referred to here.
There must be a certain regard toward depravity to understand what I mean in this case. If a person in your family says that he has embraced the Jehovah's Witness faith, you CANNOT rejoice, why? because you have the truth and JW'S and their faith are heresy. To an infidel, the Christian faith is heresy to their depraved godless faith. One of my three children demonstrates a desire toward God and His will, he has professed salvation in Christ, the other two don't affirm nor deny, therefore, I cannot baptize them. To set your mind at ease with your incorrect generalization, you may with my permission and the permission of the bible say that my other two children are heathen unbelievers, just as you and I were.

I am not postively asserting that infants or adults or teenagers were present in any of these houses but:
a. You cannot exclude infants merely on the basis that those in the household rejoiced.
b. You cannot even use your own "explicit rule" to establish that adults are present.

a. infants 2 week old do not typically rejoice over soteriological matters, I say typically because I only know of John the baptist as the only case ever recorded.
b. I never said other adults were present. My focus is on the possibility of a child understanding the concept of redemption, sin, hell/punishment, reconciliation, regeneration and conversion.

2. I went through a few different versions for verse 15 and I don't see that it indicates "whole" household. It is possible (granted probable), that perhaps it was her "whole" household, but it could also have been that people "of" her household were baptized. This second argument is not strong in either side; yours nor mine.

As your theology requires you to do.Yours doesn't? ? ? Doesn't it seem strange to you that you are searching the Scriptures, hoping that, just maybe, the whole household didn't believe.

Brother, I'm sure you didn't want to accidentally show that you are assuming something of me. Are you assuming that I'm looking for an isegetical reason? I could then easily do that against anyone I debate. "You are reading the bible because your theology requires you to do so, you are looking for a reason to disagree with me." Sorry but this was a bit surprisinging I must say.

Note what I stated earlier about Baptists writing about children in the third person. Do you have any children Frank? Perhaps I could write some stories about what your children are thinking. Do you have some sort of mind reading device?

You can call my unprofessing children what they are and I would encourage you to realize that perfectly so that then you would consider coming over and sharing a message in a devotional with them. TWO OF MY CHILDREN NEED Christ!
I will not cover that fact and claim they don't need conversion, I will not stand by and think they are ok, I will not fold my arms and claim they have become part of a family of God to be bestowed graces of which I do not read in the bible. My children need Christ, they are infidels. Now that we spoke of my children, do you feel a bit comforted? I don't know why you are so angered by Baptists, your generalization of them and their presumed thoughts of your children go unmeritted. The fact is all children need Christ. All people born of a woman, need Christ, they are infidels until regeneration and conversion.

I've seen my 1.5 year old little girl express remorse and hug her sister and say "I'm sorry." She certainly knows what it means to be happy with another - just not at an adult level.

Again, the point of my post is not happiness, it is happiness for soteriological purposes.

 

[MW]

OK, I'll bite! I acknowledge that in the example of Lydia, it is clear that she believed, but says nothing about her household believing. And it does show her household getting baptized. Thus there is at least one example of persons being baptized in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.

I'll also acknowledge that it proves absolutely nothing either way. There are a lot of things both in the gospels and in the book of Acts that are not recorded. In fact, the baptism of the 12 Apostles is never recorded. Do we assume that they were not baptized? Of course not. The Bible never claims to record every event that happened, only those that God wanted us to know about...maybe so we could have fruitful discussions like these!

Thankyou for the candid acknowledgment. To proceed -- the non-paedo is unable to point to any passage of Scripture which says that ONLY those who profess faith for themselves ought to be baptised. His position is built entirely on the basis of NT example. He usually says, we ONLY have examples of people being baptised in the NT who profess faith; and consequently he will usually ask the paedo to provide just one example of infants being baptised. The paedo responds, it is not necessary, seeing it is not infants as infants who are baptised, but infants who are unable to make a profession for themselves. The paedo insists that he only needs to provide examples of persons being baptised without making a personal profession of faith. Here, however, as you have acknowledged, we have a NT example of people being baptised without a recorded profession of faith.

 

[MW]

I really wish our non-paedo friends would note this point and deal with it honestly and fairly. There are baptisms of persons in the NT where we are not told anything concerning their consciousness as to the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. One of many examples is Lydia's household, Acts 16:15. The non-paedo might be able to offer an explanation of this point from their distinct perspective, but could they at least acknowledge that there are examples of persons being baptised in the NT of whom no profession of faith is recorded.

"And the oikos rejoiced with her" Yes, they were cognizant.

Here is the passage:

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

I do not see, "and the oikos rejoiced with her." Perhaps you are conflating this narrative with another.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Again, Frank, you are missing the essence of the discussion. You stated, without Scriptural support, that the rejoicing spoken of was merely an adult rejoicing. You claimed that, on the basis of the word rejoice, that the household could not contain any young children.

You keep getting distracted by ages of children and perhaps misunderstand that I am positing that the entire corpus of Covenant theology has to rest on this verse. I would not go to this verse to establish to Baptism of an infant. Yet, in contrast, you utilize verses like these to establish that infants should not be.

My only point was to show that no ages can, at all, be determined by the verse. You can read into it but it would be irresponsible exegesis to conclude, on the basis of the word "rejoice", that no infants were present. I demonstrated that fact by displaying a rejoicing infant. Whether or not she is rejoicing with the full blown understanding that you believe rejoicing must entail is not the issue. It is irresponsible to say that the Eunuch's rejoicing, as an adult, is what rejoicing means in the Scriptures.

Frankly, if you were to extend your exegetical methodology to the Scriptures at large it would be a complete disaster. I tried to show, in a different post, how if we woodenly apply this methodology that we could insist that no human beings were present because we don't have human beings identified in the household explicitly. Further, I could more easily establish the fact that only adults relieve themselves because the Scriptures give us no example of children relieving themselves. It makes for nice "hand waving" to distract from the issue but it is a completely pointless thing to examine.

In the end, you cannot, as much as you would like to argue for it, use the mere use of the word "rejoice" to claim that only adults were present in the household. It could have been a house full of adults, a house full of teens, a house full of sectagenarians - who knows - but it is simply irresponsible to read into a single verb everything that you attempted to establish.

 

[reformedman]

Again, Semper you are missing the essence of the discussion, I was responding to the OP with respect to the fact that infants do not typically have the ability nor capability of understanding to a right degree the necessary things needed to identify themselves as "considering" what they need to in order to qualify for baptism.

Again, Frank, you are missing the essence of the discussion. You stated, without Scriptural support, that the rejoicing spoken of was merely an adult rejoicing. You claimed that, on the basis of the word rejoice, that the household could not contain any young children.

The point I raise with the word "rejoice" has to do with the necessity of maturity to understand at the most basic level; a soteriological understanding of the conversion of the family member that was converted. To rejoice necessarily requires a person to understand the joy that one feels but more than that, it is a deeper joy in that both recipient and the person have an intimate, personal knowledge and experience of this joy.

My only point was to show that no ages can, at all, be determined by the verse.

I understand brother and to some extent and impartially I can agree with you in most cases and although the following is not a defense, it is something to consider. I will try to be blunt:

• When a person "C" defends a doctrine because he sees a command given to certain people, he uses that instant as an example to similarly apply it as far and to the extent that it is used biblically. Regulative principle is to do only what is seen biblically and not do anything that is not seen biblically.
• When a person "P" defends a doctrine because he doesn't see a negation for it, it (in my eyes at least) is a weaker argument.

You see, part of the Paedo's defense, as we have been discussing it (you and I), has been in your position that "We do not see anything against this position". You are right my brother, we do not see by the verses shown that a baby has not been baptized. BUT,
the Credo's defense of his position, as we have been discussing it (you and I), has been that we never see a baby baptized. The language throughout indicates that you must "Believe and be baptized for the remission of sins". A recently born fertilized embryo conceived 9 months prior, and born 2 weeks ago, cannot understand the most basic requirements to qualify for 'Believing for Baptism'. You must then disregard the 'Believe' part of that verse and paraphrase it to say, "Peter said to them, 'be baptized for the remission of sins'.

In the end, you cannot, as much as you would like to argue for it, use the mere use of the word "rejoice" to claim that only adults were present in the household.

Has any of the infants you have baptized, been seen to rejoice at the announcement of anyone's conversion?

 

[Larry Hughes]

Are you saved by Christ's active and passive work alone?

Or

Are you saved by Christ's active and passive work alone + faith and/or a certain intellecual grasp?

Never forget faith is nothing more than an instrument and a gift at that, not something we produce in the least. In fact saving faith works against and in spite of us.

Blessings,

Larry

 

[Larry Hughes]

Another big difference concerning so called “professions of faith”. In baptism, even in baptistic baptisms the note, as it were, does not ring on “one’s profession of faith”. Think about that for a minute (and I’m sure exceptions exist) but what did you DO when you WERE baptized. Go back to your baptism if you were baptized as adults or youth and just recall it for a minute, the details. Keep that in your mind of a bit. What did YOU DO?

You stood there silent, maybe at best a quick nod of the head or at best an inaudible or low audible affirmation of some kind. But where does the “note” sound in the ENTIRE ceremony? On you? Not at all. God’s officer takes water (another’s action) and dips/places it on you (another’s action) (you are utterly passive) and he says (another’s action) in the place of God as called minister for God (another’s action), “I baptize you (another’s action) in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (another’s action)” (You are, oddly, still very passive). Where does the note sound, where does the glory ring? In your “profession of faith”? Not at all, but in God’s doing and name where it belongs.

Blessings,

Larry

 

[tellville]

Thankyou for the candid acknowledgment. To proceed -- the non-paedo is unable to point to any passage of Scripture which says that ONLY those who profess faith for themselves ought to be baptised.

I haven't really thought this out, but how is this different from the Roman Catholic who says the words "faith alone" are not found in Scripture, and that actually, the only time they are found together is with the word "not"?

While we would "candidly acknowledge" that this is the case, wouldn't we say that Scripture still teaches faith alone?

So how is the Baptist saying that adults alone is the valid form of Baptism even though scripture doesn't say "adult's only" a different hermeneutic? At least we don't have the word "not" in front of the adults!

 

[MW]

I haven't really thought this out, but how is this different from the Roman Catholic who says the words "faith alone" are not found in Scripture, and that actually, the only time they are found together is with the word "not"?

Rom. 4:6, the equivalent of an exclusive argument is made when the imputation of righteousness is claimed to be "without works" -- xwris ergwn.

The NT nowhere specifies that profession of faith is a pre-requisite for baptism. The fact that some of the baptisms of the NT took place after profession of faith was made, is no indication that such is an absolute qualification for baptism.

 

[JohnOwen007]

I haven't really thought this out, but how is this different from the Roman Catholic who says the words "faith alone" are not found in Scripture, and that actually, the only time they are found together is with the word "not"?

While we would "candidly acknowledge" that this is the case, wouldn't we say that Scripture still teaches faith alone?

Scripture clearly teaches the concept of faith alone without using the words "faith alone". For example, Eph. 2:8-9 pits "faith" on one side against "works" on the other. Sure, it doesn't use the words "faith alone" but the concept is clearly there. To demand that "faith alone" has to be used for the doctrine to exist is to put illegitimate rules on language. If at dinner I ask for the "salt", I don't have to ask for the "salt alone" for people to know that I don't want the "pepper". One doesn't have to use "alone" to mean alone.

So how is the Baptist saying that adults alone is the valid form of Baptism even though scripture doesn't say "adult's only" a different hermeneutic? At least we don't have the word "not" in front of the adults!

Paedos would teach that the concept is not taught in Scripture as well as the words. Matthew's point is that the non-paedo's can't build a doctrine on simply example (description). The fact of the matter: there is a description of children being baptized in the Bible (1 Cor. 10:1-2).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Again, Semper you are missing the essence of the discussion, I was responding to the OP with respect to the fact that infants do not typically have the ability nor capability of understanding to a right degree the necessary things needed to identify themselves as "considering" what they need to in order to qualify for baptism.

Again, Frank, you are missing the essence of the discussion. You stated, without Scriptural support, that the rejoicing spoken of was merely an adult rejoicing. You claimed that, on the basis of the word rejoice, that the household could not contain any young children.

The point I raise with the word "rejoice" has to do with the necessity of maturity to understand at the most basic level; a soteriological understanding of the conversion of the family member that was converted. To rejoice necessarily requires a person to understand the joy that one feels but more than that, it is a deeper joy in that both recipient and the person have an intimate, personal knowledge and experience of this joy.

My only point was to show that no ages can, at all, be determined by the verse.

I understand brother and to some extent and impartially I can agree with you in most cases and although the following is not a defense, it is something to consider. I will try to be blunt:

• When a person "C" defends a doctrine because he sees a command given to certain people, he uses that instant as an example to similarly apply it as far and to the extent that it is used biblically. Regulative principle is to do only what is seen biblically and not do anything that is not seen biblically.
• When a person "P" defends a doctrine because he doesn't see a negation for it, it (in my eyes at least) is a weaker argument.

You see, part of the Paedo's defense, as we have been discussing it (you and I), has been in your position that "We do not see anything against this position". You are right my brother, we do not see by the verses shown that a baby has not been baptized. BUT,
the Credo's defense of his position, as we have been discussing it (you and I), has been that we never see a baby baptized. The language throughout indicates that you must "Believe and be baptized for the remission of sins". A recently born fertilized embryo conceived 9 months prior, and born 2 weeks ago, cannot understand the most basic requirements to qualify for 'Believing for Baptism'. You must then disregard the 'Believe' part of that verse and paraphrase it to say, "Peter said to them, 'be baptized for the remission of sins'.

In the end, you cannot, as much as you would like to argue for it, use the mere use of the word "rejoice" to claim that only adults were present in the household.

Has any of the infants you have baptized, been seen to rejoice at the announcement of anyone's conversion?

Frank,

All you proved again, is how much you are able to "read into" a passage and assert theology that is not present. As I stated, it does not state the nature of their rejoicing, it simply says that they rejoiced. I have proven definitively the case of an infant rejoicing with adults for another child without necessarily fully grasping what she is rejoicing about. Now you might want to assert that more is in the text but you cannot argue it from the text itself but are forced to import the entire "back story".

As I have repeatedly stated, if a Baptist consistently applied the "example" methodology then the theology would be monstrous. Let me ask you a simple question Frank, and think carefully before you answer because I will press you on it: Do you think that the examples we see in the New Testament narratives should be the basis for our theology? Again, be careful before you answer because I'm going to list the doctrines that will flow from that assertion. I do want an answer to the question, however, as you are insisting that example is the normative method for doctrine in this case.

 

[reformedman]

Frank,

All you proved again, is how much you are able to "read into" a passage and assert theology that is not present. As I stated, it does not state the nature of their rejoicing, it simply says that they rejoiced. I have proven definitively the case of an infant rejoicing with adults for another child without necessarily fully grasping what she is rejoicing about.

Sorry, no you haven't, you showed a child rejoicing which I never denied is possible for comprehension. You still have not shown an infant comprehending.

As I have repeatedly stated, if a Baptist consistently applied the "example" methodology then the theology would be monstrous. Let me ask you a simple question Frank, and think carefully before you answer because I will press you on it: Do you think that the examples we see in the New Testament narratives should be the basis for our theology? Again, be careful before you answer because I'm going to list the doctrines that will flow from that assertion. I do want an answer to the question, however, as you are insisting that example is the normative method for doctrine in this case.

Sorry brother, even though it looks like I'm wimping out, this post is not about me, it's about credible arguments for credo-baptism. This is not a debate, this is a post about believer baptism. Also, I am not a proper representative of 1689, but if you state a thread on a discrepancy that you find in it, you can create a thread and get better answers from mature cred0-baptists, of which I am not.

 

[JM]

I find them credible, thanks brother for posting them.

This is a blog entry from someone who use to belong to the board but is no longer with us.
He is not allowed here but these thoughts are I am sure. So have at it.

Four Paedobaptist Arguments Reviewed and Critiqued

Those who baptize babies have a number of problems if they want to think of themselves as following the Bible. There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible. Moreover, throughout the New Testament, baptism is coupled with repentance, faith and discipleship (Matt 3:6; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12f, 37; 11:47; 1Cor 1:16 taken with 16:15 ).

Yet Paedobaptists do not let these things discourage them. They have a number of arguments of their own. I want to look at three that are relatively new, along with a fourth argument which is much older and is perhaps the most important of them all. I hope to show that they do not stand up to Biblical scrutiny, and are in fact, myths.

The first argument concerns Acts 2:37-9:-

‘Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."’

Now the paedobaptist argument from time immemorial has been that the reference to children means that children are part of the New Covenant. However, the natural reading of the text is that the children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and that this is true for all generations (‘you and your children’) and also for all the Gentile nations (‘to all that are afar off’- compare Eph 2:11-13, 17 ). Repentance and faith in Christ are not inherited (John 1:12-13 ).

The new argument states that Peter could not possibly have referred to the Gentiles because up until his encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10, he thought that salvation was only for the Jews. Therefore he must have been referring to the children, grandchildren and later descendants of the Jews. This is a quite ridiculous statement unless one supposes that Peter did not know the Jewish Scriptures. Starting with Gen 12:3, there are literally dozens of OT Scriptures that speak of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Covenant (eg. Psalm 22:27; Jer 16:19; Zech 2:11 ). Peter himself refers to one of them in Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 2:28: ‘And it shall come to pass afterwards (ie. in New Covenant times) that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.’ Peter knew perfectly well that the Gentiles would come into the Covenant and that it would happen in the time of the Messiah (Isaiah 60:1-3 ). What he did not understand until Acts 10 was that the Gentiles would not first need to become Jews by being circumcised. This was a misunderstanding shared by many Jewish Christians, even some considerable time later (Acts 15:1 ).

The truth of this interpretation is clearly seen in Acts 2:41: ‘Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.’ This is a limiting statement. Who were baptized? Those who gladly received Peter’s word. They did not go and fetch their infant children who had not even heard Peter, and would not have understood him anyway, so that they could be sprinkled. It was a simple case of Believers’ Baptism. If further proof of this be needed it is found in verse 42: ‘And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ Can tiny infants learn and continue in Apostolic doctrine? Would paedobaptistic churches be happy to have them sharing in the breaking of bread?

The second argument concerns a part of Hebrews 10:30. ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ The paedobaptist case is that people in the New Covenant are subject to judgment, and so the Covenant cannot be composed solely of believers as Reformed Baptists claim. This claim has no respect for either the immediate or the larger context of the argument of Hebrews. It is important to note at once that these words are a quotation from the Old Testament (Deut 32:36 ) and therefore originally applied to Israel.

It is generally agreed by commentators that the author of Hebrews was concerned that the Jewish believers to whom he was writing were being tempted to revert from their faith in Christ back into Judaism once more. Therefore much of the letter is taken up with proving the superiority of Christ to the prophets, the angels, to Moses, to Joshua and the Levitical Priesthood, to the Temple and, in the early verses of Heb 10, to the OT sacrifices and the Mosaic Law itself.

Let us now consider Heb 10:14. For by one offering [Christ] has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.’ The word for ‘perfected’ (Gk. teleo) could equally well be translated ‘completed’ or ‘consummated.’ The state of Christians is infinitely better than that of those under the Old Covenant, who were obliged constantly to offer the animal sacrifices that could never finally take away their sins (vs1-3 ). The Christian has been cleansed once and for all from his sins by the blood of Christ (Rom 8:1 ) and is regarded by God judicially as perfect, even though he is still ‘being sanctified’ and receiving God’s Parental chastening, mentioned in 12:5ff.

It is these Christians who make up the New Covenant, as is made perfectly clear in vs15-18. The covenant promised by God through Jeremiah and inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20 etc) is made with the people described in verse 14. The law which had been written on tablets of stone as a ministry of condemnation to the Israelites (2Cor 3:7-11 ) is now written by the Holy Spirit on the hearts of believers and God is pleased to forget all their sins.

In the light of all this, the writer to the Hebrews urges these wavering Jews to place their trust fully in the promises of God in Christ (vs19-23 ). They are justified by faith, so long as they really have faith, and so he urges them to ‘hold fast the confession of our hope,’ and to encourage each other with the promises of God. He continues (vs24-26 ):-

'And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins…….’.

What then is this ‘wilful sin’ that places us outside the mercy of God, bearing in mind that in verse 17 we were told that God remembers the sins of New Covenant members ‘no more’? Surely it is the sin of unbelief? These Hebrews are being tempted to reject their Lord, to forsake the assembling of themselves together in His Church and to return to Judaism. But the writer warns them that if they do that there will remain for them, ‘no longer a sacrifice for sin.’ The Old Testament sacrifices looked forward to Christ, but if Christ is rejected, then no meaning remains in the sacrifices. Moreover, if they will return to the Law, to the Law they shall go. If the penalty for sinning against the Law was death (v28 ), how much greater will it be for those who sin against Him to whom the Law pointed, despising the very blood of the covenant by which our Lord was set apart for the saving of sinners (v29. cf. John 17:19 )?

If they will return to the Old Covenant, they will be judged by it. The Israelites were God’s chosen people under the Old Covenant, but by their rejection of their Messiah, they came repeatedly under judgment (Isaiah 1:9; Matt 23:37-8 etc). If these Hebrews will reject Christ, then ‘The Lord will judge His people,’ and they will be found to be ‘Not My people’ (Hosea 1:9 ) because they have scorned His way of salvation. They were never truly His and the Lord Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you” (Matt 7:23. cf. 1John 2:19 ) and they will find just what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God. These words, ‘the Lord will judge His people,’ do not refer therefore to true Christians, who are kept by the power of God (1Peter 1:5 ), but to those who follow Christ for a while and fall away (cf. Mark 4:16-17 ).

The third argument states that baptism is the successor to circumcision, and therefore because infants were circumcised under the Old Covenant, they should be baptized under the New. This myth has a much nobler pedigree than the first two, being traceable to Calvin. That, however, does not make it true. The two ordinances are very dissimilar in nature. If a man were blindfolded and then had one of them performed upon him, I think he would be able to tell which one of them it was!

The most obvious difference between circumcision and baptism is the fact that circumcision was performed only upon males. We will return to this presently. The second obvious difference is that while baptism is repeatedly and specifically associated with faith, repentance and discipleship, as we saw at the beginning, circumcision is never associated with anyone’s faith except Abraham’s. In Rom 4:9ff, we are told that faith, not circumcision was accounted to Abraham for righteousness, and then that circumcision was the seal, not of his faith, but of the righteousness of his faith- a righteousness that would be gained for him in due time by Christ. It was a faith, moreover that he had before he was circumcised (Gen 15:6 ). Even the Abrahamic covenant was made while Abraham was still uncircumcised (Gen 15:18 ), and the sign of that covenant appears to have been the animal sacrifices, rather than circumcision (vs 8-9 ).

Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of the faith of Abraham, and of him alone. No faith was required of any of Abraham’s servants when they were circumcised (Gen 17:13, 27 ), nor of Ishmael, nor, indeed, of Isaac. Nor was circumcision a voluntary business. ‘He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised’ Gen 17:13 ). Anyone who refused was to be ‘cut off from his people’ (v14 ). Nor was faith required under the Mosaic Covenant. All Hebrew infants were to be circumcised, whether or not their parents were true believers. A foreigner living in Israel who wanted to partake of the Passover had to be circumcised along with ‘all his males’ but no mention is made of a true faith in Jehovah (Exod 12:43-49 ). Yet Naaman the Syrian, who did come to true faith (2Kings 5:15 ) was not circumcised. Nor apparently were those Persians who became Jews as reported in Esther 8:17. Circumcision seems to have been reserved for those of Jewish blood, and those foreigners who were living in Israel and who wanted to eat the Passover, along with their families and servants. It was never a sign of or for those with true saving faith. It is worth noting that Ishmael was circumcised despite being specifically excluded by God from the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26 ). Indeed, Ishmael stands as a type of those who persecute the true people of God (Gal 4:28-31 ).

‘Circumcision neither signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant to the individuals to whom it was by Divine appointment administered. It did not imply that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs of the promises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them individually as heirs of the promises. It did not imply this even to Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham. Their interest in the promises was secured to them by God’s expressly giving them the covenant (Gen 26:4; 26:13f; Exod 2:24 ), but was not represented in their circumcision. Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself……………. The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this; but it did not sign this to any other. Any other circumcised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was given by name, might have been childless. -Alexander Carson

What then was the purpose of circumcision, if it sealed nothing to those who received it? God ordained it to be administered to all of Abraham’s male descendants to distinguish from all other nations that people from which the Messiah should come. It served as a continual reminder that from the Abrahamic stock, the promised Seed should spring and, along with the Scriptures and the Mosaic Law, kept them separate as a nation so that Christ should be born into a people that had at least an outward knowledge of the true God. Therefore, once He had come, circumcision lost all significance (Gal 5:6; 6:15 ). Next, circumcision was the title deed to the earthy inheritance of Abraham, this being a figure of the heavenly inheritance that is what Abraham truly sought and found (Heb 11:16 ). As A.W.Pink points out, ‘The servants and slaves in Abraham’s household “bought with money” beautifully adumbrated the truth that those who enter the kingdom of Christ are “bought” by His blood.’

Nor should we imagine that the Abrahamic Covenant is somehow in force today. God has not promised to me, nor to you the reader, that we should be the father of many nations, nor that we shall inherit any real estate in the Middle East. The land promises were fulfilled completely to Israel after the flesh (Josh 21:43-45 ). The other promises were fulfilled in Christ (Gal 3:16 ), and come through the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, not to those who have Abraham’s circumcision, but to those who have his faith (Gal 3:7-9 ). It is they who are the proper recipients of baptism.

If baptism were the successor to circumcision, we might expect to see some reference to it in the Bible, but there is none. In Acts 15, we see a great palaver over the question of whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised. Why didn’t Paul simply say to the Judaizers, “These people have been baptized; they have the new version of circumcision. Why would they need the old version as well?” It would have ended the discussion at a stroke. Moreover, those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were all Jews (Acts 2:5 ). The males had all been circumcised. Why did they need a second covenant sign when they already had the first? It appears that the Jewish Christians continued to circumcise their boy babies even after Pentecost. We read in Acts 21:20 that they were all, ‘zealous for the law’ which obviously included circumcision. Yet Paul seems to have been quite relaxed about this situation and was happy to be associated with them in an Old Covenant ceremony. The fact is that circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham. It had nothing to do with faith, as we have seen. Baptism is for Abraham’s spiritual descendants, the children of promise (Gal 4:28-29; 3:7 )

There is one place in the Bible where circumcision and baptism are mentioned together. It is Col 2:11-12. A. W. Pink has a simple but accurate explanation of this text:-

It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour; as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ; so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ. ‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him’ (v12 ) is something additional: it is only wresting the Scriptures to say these two verses mean, ‘Being buried with Him in baptism ye are circumcised.’ No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is ‘ made without hands’ and baptism is administered with hands! The circumcision ‘made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’ has come in the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the New Covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal (Eph 1:13; 4:30 ). - A. W. Pink: The Divine Covenants (Pietan Publications )

Note that Paul is speaking to all the Colossian Christians; ‘In whom you were also circumcised…’ All of you. Every true Christian has the circumcision of the heart which was lacking in Israel after the flesh (Jer 9:25-26; Acts 7:51 etc). It is having God’s law placed in the mind and written on the heart as described in Jer 31:33. It is being born again by the Spirit of God through faith in Christ (1Peter1:3ff). This is the reason why both male and female are baptized, whilst only males were circumcised. Ciecumcision had nothing to do with anyone's faith but Abraham's and nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It signified that that the coming Messiah should be born (according to the flesh) of the line of Abraham. Baptism signifies the New Birth and the coming of the Spirit, which according to Joel and repeated by Peter on the Day of Pentecost, would be given to both male and female (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:16ff). This is not, of course, to say that no one under the Old Covenant received the Holy Spirit, but at Pentecost, the Spirit was given in a new and much wider way.

Immediately I foresee an objection from my paedobaptist brethren. Baptists do not know, they say, that those whom they baptize are born again just because they have professed faith. This is true, but it misses the point. We are not comanded to baptize only regenerate people for the very good reason that we don't know who they are. On the Day of Pentecost, 'those who gladly received' Peter's words were baptized (Acts 2:41 ). Maybe not all of them were regenerate, and some fell away. We are not told. But the Apostles did not for that reason baptize everyone in the crowd, but only those who professed faith. Those who later revealed themselves not to be true disciples were disciplined and eventually expelled from the Church (Acts 8:21; 1Cor 5:13; 1Tim 1:20 ).

A helpful analogy here is that of banks. If you ask a banker to whom he lends money, he will answer, 'only to credit-worthy people.' However, he knows perfectly well that occasionally mistakes are made and money is lent to people who cannot repay it. However, they do not therefore throw up their hands and lend to everybody. On the contrary, they run their credit checks and vet their customers all the more closely because they know that mistakes are inevitable. So it should be with the churches. Because we know that unregenerate people are sometimes baptized, we should seek to make this as rare as possible by ensuring as best we can that professions of faith are credible.

The final argument need not detain us long. It is the claim that we should not look for Scriptural evidence for infant baptism because there is no such evidence for women being admitted to the Lord’s Supper. This is a wretched suggestion. If paedobaptists can really not find such evidence then they should bite the bullet and not admit women to Communion. In fact, the proof is not hard to find if one follows the principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture. It is clear that women were counted as members of the church (Acts 1:14; 8:12; Rom 16:1 etc). Then in 1Cor 11:17ff, we learn that the whole church came together for the Lord’s Supper. Therefore women must have joined in. It is this clear Scriptural evidence that is lacking for infant baptism. It simply isn’t there; no command, no instance, no regulation, and therefore no warrant.