A.J.
Puritan Board Junior
Anthony, I understand why you argue the way you do in your comments on the warning passages and the meaning of baptism.
It's because (1) you view of the New Covenant does not allow for a clear distinction between God's decree and His administration. Instead, the decree swallows up the administration. The problem for your position, however, is that the Bible does teach that until the coming of the Lord there are (and there will be) de facto members of the visible church who are not elect (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), as has already been implied. Baptism is not only a sign/seal of blessing. It's also a sign/seal of judgment to those who reject Christ and His benefits. Only in heaven or in the consummation will "...they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them...."
And further, (2) your position denies "sacramental union" (WCF 27:2, 3). Passages like Rom. 6:4-6, Col. 2:11-12, Gal. 3:27 and 1 Peter 3:19-22 make sense only once we bear in mind that the Holy Spirit does exhibit and confer grace to the elect by the right use of baptism (WCF 28:6). Baptism is a means of grace.
The force of Paul's exhortations to children in Col. 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 is lost once we cut it off from its Old Testament backdrop. Paul addresses members of households: husbands and wives, masters and bondservants, and, fathers and children. Col 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 simply repeats what we find in Exo. 20:12 and in Deut. 5:16. In the Old Testament, the children (or "little ones," NASB) were members of God's covenant and people. Why would Paul address them at all if they are now outside the covenant community of the Lord as your position must insist?
But why did the Apostles forbid the Gentiles from being circumcised? What warrant did they have for discontinuing a millenia-old command to administer the sign of circumcision to people who enter God's covenant community? The Acts narratives make sense only if the baptism indeed is the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. The Apostles did not circumcise the Gentiles precisely because the latter have been baptized already.
If infants are now excluded from the covenant and people of God, Acts 15 would have been the perfect time and place for the Judaizers to present another objection to the Apostles. The Apostles already forbade the Gentiles from receiving circumcision. And now they were excluding the children who have been members of God's people for thousands of years? Yet we see total silence on this matter. There was no outcry whatsoever on the part of the Judaizers or even from the believing Jews.
B.B. Warfield notes,
From The Polemics of Infant Baptism. cf. Acts 21
Brother, I don't think you have adequately dealt with the evidence presented by Robert from Mr. Bass's book. As has been shown, both the meaning of the disputed terms and Biblical usage support sprinkling and pouring. Baptism signifies the cleansing done by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the conscience of believers, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in His work of regeneration. Your comments on 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Peter 3 confirm the paedobaptist position. Immersion was a sign of judgment to the unbelieving people of Noah's time and the wicked Egyptians of Moses' time.
Blessings!
It's because (1) you view of the New Covenant does not allow for a clear distinction between God's decree and His administration. Instead, the decree swallows up the administration. The problem for your position, however, is that the Bible does teach that until the coming of the Lord there are (and there will be) de facto members of the visible church who are not elect (Matt 22; John 15; Rom. 11; 1 Cor. 5, 10-11; Heb. 3-4, 6, 10; Rev. 2-3), as has already been implied. Baptism is not only a sign/seal of blessing. It's also a sign/seal of judgment to those who reject Christ and His benefits. Only in heaven or in the consummation will "...they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them...."
And further, (2) your position denies "sacramental union" (WCF 27:2, 3). Passages like Rom. 6:4-6, Col. 2:11-12, Gal. 3:27 and 1 Peter 3:19-22 make sense only once we bear in mind that the Holy Spirit does exhibit and confer grace to the elect by the right use of baptism (WCF 28:6). Baptism is a means of grace.
The force of Paul's exhortations to children in Col. 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 is lost once we cut it off from its Old Testament backdrop. Paul addresses members of households: husbands and wives, masters and bondservants, and, fathers and children. Col 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 simply repeats what we find in Exo. 20:12 and in Deut. 5:16. In the Old Testament, the children (or "little ones," NASB) were members of God's covenant and people. Why would Paul address them at all if they are now outside the covenant community of the Lord as your position must insist?
The jews objected because they clearly saw something New was being done.
They did not say - Paul teaches that the sign of the covenant has been changed, we baptize infants, rather than circumcise now. He clearly taught them they ought not to circumcise their children.
In Acts 15 no one said baptism is a "sign" a replacement sign to be given to infants.
But why did the Apostles forbid the Gentiles from being circumcised? What warrant did they have for discontinuing a millenia-old command to administer the sign of circumcision to people who enter God's covenant community? The Acts narratives make sense only if the baptism indeed is the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. The Apostles did not circumcise the Gentiles precisely because the latter have been baptized already.
If infants are now excluded from the covenant and people of God, Acts 15 would have been the perfect time and place for the Judaizers to present another objection to the Apostles. The Apostles already forbade the Gentiles from receiving circumcision. And now they were excluding the children who have been members of God's people for thousands of years? Yet we see total silence on this matter. There was no outcry whatsoever on the part of the Judaizers or even from the believing Jews.
B.B. Warfield notes,
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.
From The Polemics of Infant Baptism. cf. Acts 21
Brother, I don't think you have adequately dealt with the evidence presented by Robert from Mr. Bass's book. As has been shown, both the meaning of the disputed terms and Biblical usage support sprinkling and pouring. Baptism signifies the cleansing done by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ on the conscience of believers, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in His work of regeneration. Your comments on 1 Cor. 10 and 1 Peter 3 confirm the paedobaptist position. Immersion was a sign of judgment to the unbelieving people of Noah's time and the wicked Egyptians of Moses' time.
Blessings!