CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings men:
I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?
Have you forgotten that there is no Biblical evidence for dipping in the whole Bible? That the very Greek word which specifically means bapto"to dip" is never used by the Holy Spirit to indicate baptism?
I mean no offense on this, but if you can only answer part of the presentation, then you have not answered paedo-baptism.
Randy:
Circumcision as it is a physical rite in the Church has been abrogated, but what circumcision meant has not been abrogated:
For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Are you going to deny this very truth of the Scriptures - a truth which was taught in the Old Testament?
Romans 4:11 completly contradicts the credo-baptist position:
And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
Ph 3:3 puts this beyond doubt:
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
When Paul talks negatively about circumcision he is speaking about the physical rite which can do nothing to regenerate the soul. When he is talking positively about circumcision he is speaking about the Spirit of God circumcising the heart:
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.
If you, Randy, or anyone here, is not circumcised by the circumcision made without hands, then you are not a true believer in Christ. What is the circumcision made without hands but the Spirit of God regenerating the heart.
But the physical rite of circumcision was not given only to those who believe (like Abraham), but also to the children of Abraham 8 days old.
In the same fashion the rite of water baptism does not avail anyone unless it is united to baptism by the Spirit of God:
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts 11:16.
The New Covenant has changed the rite of entrance into the Church of God, but it has not changed the meaning nor the recipients of it. You will have to do better than simply pointing out that faith is necessary for the rite of water baptism to be effective.
You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.
Acts 2:38,39 - you are not looking at the pronouns correctly:
Peter said to them - "them" refers to the crowd that he is currently addressing:
The promise is to you, and to your children...
The word "you" in verse 39 refers to "them" in verse 38, so, then, what do we do with the word "your" that preceed the word "children" here? Does the word "your" refer to the children of those who respond positively to the Gospel call? We find Peter speaking to the Jews concerning the faith of Abraham, and we could paraphrase it this way:
For the promise is to Abraham, and to the children of Abraham, and to those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
As the promises were given to Abraham when he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and these promises were mediated to his infant children. Therefore, the promises are given to all who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and these promises are mediated to the children of believers both near and afar off.
Abraham had to believe God before he was given the Covenant sign of circumcision, and his children (both elect and reprobate) were also given the sign of the Covenant.
You have to believe God before you are given the Covenant sign of baptism, and your children (both elect and reprobate) are also given the sign of the Covenant as well.
If all Peter meant was that one had to believe the promises in order to receive baptism, then adding the phrase "your children" would make no sense. Because, "your children" would either be included in "you" or in "all who are afar off."
1 Corinthians 7:14
The point that Paul is making here is the status of a believer's child in a mixed marriage. The unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believer "else were your children unclean, but now they are holy."
I have read the blog post, but I do not see anything in Mr. Conner's argument that would forbid either the unbelieving spouse or the child water baptism. Here are some points concerning his statement:
1) He notes that there are two different Greek words to describe the unbeliving spouse (hengiastai), and the child of a believer (hagia). I am not sure that Strong's here is helpful (my Greek notes are back in Pittsburgh), but he does note that they are two different words. He identifies (hengiastai) as #37 (hagiazo) probably in a plural aorist tense, and deriving the meaning as "to make holy." (that would be consistent in an aorist tense). The word concerning the child is #40 (hagia) which means "to be holy." The differences in the meanings are obvious. If Paul wanted to refer to the unbelieving spouse in the same fashion as the child, then there is no rule in Greek for him to use two different words. In fact, since word order is not important in Greek, it would demand Paul to use one word to mean the same thing - if that was what he meant to write.
The difference is clear even in the English: "sanctified" means "to make holy" while "holy" means that one is holy.
Mr. Conner does not see that Paul is using two different words to describe two different people, and, thus, they should be treated differently:
2) Matthew Poole, writing in the 1600's, addresses this argument well:
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body, Ep 5:23.
Blessings,
Rob
I assume that since you are not commenting on the OP, that you are then in full agreement with it?
Have you forgotten that there is no Biblical evidence for dipping in the whole Bible? That the very Greek word which specifically means bapto"to dip" is never used by the Holy Spirit to indicate baptism?
I mean no offense on this, but if you can only answer part of the presentation, then you have not answered paedo-baptism.
Randy:
Circumcision as it is a physical rite in the Church has been abrogated, but what circumcision meant has not been abrogated:
For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Are you going to deny this very truth of the Scriptures - a truth which was taught in the Old Testament?
Romans 4:11 completly contradicts the credo-baptist position:
And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.
Ph 3:3 puts this beyond doubt:
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
When Paul talks negatively about circumcision he is speaking about the physical rite which can do nothing to regenerate the soul. When he is talking positively about circumcision he is speaking about the Spirit of God circumcising the heart:
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.
If you, Randy, or anyone here, is not circumcised by the circumcision made without hands, then you are not a true believer in Christ. What is the circumcision made without hands but the Spirit of God regenerating the heart.
But the physical rite of circumcision was not given only to those who believe (like Abraham), but also to the children of Abraham 8 days old.
In the same fashion the rite of water baptism does not avail anyone unless it is united to baptism by the Spirit of God:
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, Acts 11:16.
The New Covenant has changed the rite of entrance into the Church of God, but it has not changed the meaning nor the recipients of it. You will have to do better than simply pointing out that faith is necessary for the rite of water baptism to be effective.
You will have to provide a clear command from the Scriptures that the children of believers are not to be given water baptism.
Acts 2:38,39 - you are not looking at the pronouns correctly:
Peter said to them - "them" refers to the crowd that he is currently addressing:
The promise is to you, and to your children...
The word "you" in verse 39 refers to "them" in verse 38, so, then, what do we do with the word "your" that preceed the word "children" here? Does the word "your" refer to the children of those who respond positively to the Gospel call? We find Peter speaking to the Jews concerning the faith of Abraham, and we could paraphrase it this way:
For the promise is to Abraham, and to the children of Abraham, and to those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
As the promises were given to Abraham when he believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness, and these promises were mediated to his infant children. Therefore, the promises are given to all who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and these promises are mediated to the children of believers both near and afar off.
Abraham had to believe God before he was given the Covenant sign of circumcision, and his children (both elect and reprobate) were also given the sign of the Covenant.
You have to believe God before you are given the Covenant sign of baptism, and your children (both elect and reprobate) are also given the sign of the Covenant as well.
If all Peter meant was that one had to believe the promises in order to receive baptism, then adding the phrase "your children" would make no sense. Because, "your children" would either be included in "you" or in "all who are afar off."
1 Corinthians 7:14
The point that Paul is making here is the status of a believer's child in a mixed marriage. The unbelieving spouse is "sanctified" by the believer "else were your children unclean, but now they are holy."
I have read the blog post, but I do not see anything in Mr. Conner's argument that would forbid either the unbelieving spouse or the child water baptism. Here are some points concerning his statement:
1) He notes that there are two different Greek words to describe the unbeliving spouse (hengiastai), and the child of a believer (hagia). I am not sure that Strong's here is helpful (my Greek notes are back in Pittsburgh), but he does note that they are two different words. He identifies (hengiastai) as #37 (hagiazo) probably in a plural aorist tense, and deriving the meaning as "to make holy." (that would be consistent in an aorist tense). The word concerning the child is #40 (hagia) which means "to be holy." The differences in the meanings are obvious. If Paul wanted to refer to the unbelieving spouse in the same fashion as the child, then there is no rule in Greek for him to use two different words. In fact, since word order is not important in Greek, it would demand Paul to use one word to mean the same thing - if that was what he meant to write.
The difference is clear even in the English: "sanctified" means "to make holy" while "holy" means that one is holy.
Mr. Conner does not see that Paul is using two different words to describe two different people, and, thus, they should be treated differently:
We insist on it because the Bible insists upon it. Since we are to baptize disciples, and if an unbelieving spouse desires to be baptized (if he/she has never been baptized), then I would explain very carefully what the rite means, and so baptize him/her if he/she so desires.And why do some insist on calling the children "saints" (holy ones), but not the unbelieving parent? Since both are made holy by the believer, to make one a holy covenant member and not he other, and to baptise one and not he other is an inconsistency which renders this view point completely unacceptable.
2) Matthew Poole, writing in the 1600's, addresses this argument well:
Jesus Christ is the Covenant Head of the Church. That does not disanull that families have covenant heads as well:I rather think it signifies, brought into such a state, that the believer, without offence to the law of God, may continue in a married estate with such a yoke-fellow (unbeliever); and the state of marriage is a holy state, notwithstanding the disparity with reference to religion. Else were your children unclean; otherwise he saith, the children begotten and born of such parents would be unclean, in the same state that the children of pagan parents are without the church, not within the covenant, not under the promise. In one sense all children are unclean i.e. children of wrath, born in sin, and brough forth in iniquity; but all are not in this sense unclean, some are within the covenant of grace, within the church, capable of baptism. But now are they holy these are those that are called holy not as inwardly renewed and sanctified, but relatively, in the same sense that all the Jewish nation are called a holy people and possibly this may give us a further light to understand the term sanctified in the former part of the verse. The unbelieveing husband is so far sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife so far sanctified by the believing husband, that as they may lawfully continue in their married relation, and live together as man and wife, so the issue coming from them both shall be by God counted in covenant with him, and have a right to baptism, which is one of the seals of that covenant, as well as those children both whose parents are believers.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body, Ep 5:23.
Blessings,
Rob