That doesn't say that Issac baptized Esau or Jacob. It seems to me 1 Peter is setting out a definition for what baptism is and is for, and an unbelieving 18year old (which the OP was concerned with) cannot fulfil that definition.
To what extent should Baptism extend to children of believers?
- Thread starter Zenas
- Start date
- Status
That doesn't say that Issac baptized Esau or Jacob. It seems to me 1 Peter is setting out a definition for what baptism is and is for, and an unbelieving 18year old (which the OP was concerned with) cannot fulfil that definition.
If the passage is read in context it will be seen that baptism is equated with the deliverance of Noah and his family through the flood. That deliverance was in accord with the covenant which was made with Noah, Gen. 6:18. The covenant was made with Noah -- thee, singularly -- and the other seven were saved on the basis of their familial relationship to Noah as wife, sons, and sons' wives. After the flood, the covenant was established in the plural with Noah and his descendants, Gen. 9:9, including specifically the line from Shem to Abraham, to Isaac and Jacob. (Incidentally, it included Ham also, and on him fell the curses of the covenant.) The covenant of circumcision was a ratifying of this initial promise made to Noah. The blessing "concerning things to come" was pronounced on the basis of this covenant promise.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Yes, they are covenant breakers.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Have we any reason to believe that the households included adults? Moreover, would you baptise the 30 year old if he was an open homosexual?
As others have stated, the age of 12-13 was significant among the Jews in OT times all the way up to today (the age for Bar Mitzvahs). This likely led to the confusion about Christ's whereabouts as his family left the temple: up until that time, he would have been expected to walk among the women and children, after that time, his mother likely assumed he had taken his place among the men. In my church, the session is reluctant to admit anyone to the Lord's table before this age.
And yes, covenant breakers should be disciplined -- this is far more loving than just permitting them to just drift off without intervention and warning. This is incredibly heartbreaking!
And yes, covenant breakers should be disciplined -- this is far more loving than just permitting them to just drift off without intervention and warning. This is incredibly heartbreaking!
The Baptists ask the same thing about children. The usual answer is, We have no reason not to consider their presence in the household.
On homosexuals, quite obviously such would not be considered as submitting to the CHRISTIAN government of the household. Immorality disbars on all accounts.
I would say that such a man cannot answer God with a good conscience. I apologize, but I am not sure what you are getting at.
I will agree that the context of the verse shows that baptism is connected somehow to the salvation of Noah – although I would have viewed the connection as being that both baptism and the ark are figures of Christ’s resurrection.
However, whatever is the connection between baptism and Noah’s ark, I do not see Peter making the link you make to the point that Noah’s family was saved through him. That a man’s family can be saved in a practical way through him may well be a principle of the word of God, but I do not see that Peter applies it to baptism.
Peter here makes explains something about baptism, and in brackets, in adds in a little comment to clear up possible confusion about what baptism is – “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God”. So baptism does not wash away sins legally according to Peter, but rather is the answer of a good conscience towards God.
As I see it, that is the clear statement of the apostle, and I am not sure how pointing out the context of Noah overturns this interpretation.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
So adult children who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ are also barred?
PS do you believe in the adherents view of baptism that is held in the Scottish Highlands?...just curious.
The apostle speaks of eight souls SAVED BY WATER. He further states that baptism is a LIKE FIGURE. Seven of the souls were saved by their familial relationship to Noah. Ham in fact had no such good conscience toward God, but incurred the curses of God's covenant; and nevertheless he was temporally saved by water. This is pertinent to your original question. The good conscience is the personal responsibility of the person baptised, not a pre-requisite for baptism.
Hence, what difference does it make if it is a child or a false professor in your view. It seems that you cannot administer the ordinance for anyone for fear that the person professing may not really be giving an answer with a "good conscience" by your own admission.
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
Point of Information, not debate:
Daniel is doing no forcing - the hypothetical situation, as originally given by Zenas created the specific situation that Daniel addressed.
The original post concerned a child of at least 18 years of age and asked '...At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child and thus engage in credo-Baptism...'
I admit I was surprised to see some paedobaptists seem to say that an 18 year old could be baptized without having to make a profession of faith, which I believe is against this verse.
I do not believe you need to be 'sure' that a person is really giving an answer with a good conscience before you can baptize. In Acts baptisms happened very quickly after the receipient responded positively to preaching, which would leave no time to investigate the genuineness of a person's profession. However, there was a response to the preaching, and certianly for someone of the age of 18, a profession would at least be required before baptism could be administrated.
Even if this is so, does that mean we should give baptism to a person who we know 100% lacks a good conscience - ie an 18 year old or older person who gives no profession of faith?
Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.
Because of the other NT verses on baptism, I do not believe that the covenant aspect of Noah's salvation, ie his unbelieving family members being saved through him, applies to determining the subjects for baptism. However, I guess a simple credo vs paedobaptism debate is beyond the topic of this thread.
Returning to the topic of the OT - which is an 18 or older child in the family of converted christian, it seems to be in every instance in the NT a person who was capable of making a profession of faith was only baptized after making such a profession - which is completely in line with 1 Pet 3:21 - they were answering God will a conscience made clean by hearing the gospel.
There were household baptisms, but on the strenght of this verse, why should we assume they included the baptism of unbelieving adults? For the jailor it tells us that Paul preached to all his house first (Acts 16:32), for Cornelius we are told he already feared God with his house before even meeting Peter (Act 10:2). When these examples are combined with 1 Pet 3:21, I see no reason to believe that all adults baptized in household baptisms in the NT had believed the gospel first.
It doesn't really matter what the premise of the original post was about. The real point here is that you have just acknowledged that there must be something more said about this "good conscience" as false professors come forward to be baptized and false professors cannot answer with a "good conscience".
Hence, a "good conscience" cannot be the basis for the administration of any baptism and that passage is really quite immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance.
Mr. Ritchie was providing an additional criterion to the OP when he stated "not really," and proceeded to mention repenting and believing as necessary in order to avoid the sitation of excommunication after baptism. Quite clearly he created an either/or situation not mentioned in the original scenario. The fact is, the paedobaptist belief in household baptism is not age relevant; therefore we should not set age limits on the Holy Spirit.
That is something you will need to establish by exegesis, and cannot gratuitously assume for the sake of furthering your position. The apostle states baptism is a LIKE FIGURE of salvation; the burden therefore rests on the person who would introduce dissimilarities.
I don’t think that a verse from a New Testament epistle where an apostle directly addresses the nature of baptism can be described as immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance…
I am not sure what you mean by what more needs to be said about the good conscience. If you like, I can change it to say ‘a profession of a good conscience toward God’ is necessary for baptism. However, this is a principle that operates through all of our relationships with other Christians. Only God can truly see the state of the heart and soul. We as men are restricted to only looking at the external evidence of someone’s Christianity. But that does not mean we do not look for evidence.
It is a fact of the world we live in that false professors will come forward and join the church. Pastors may do all they can to prevent that, but they will never be able to be completely successful.
Similarly by this verse, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God, and pastors should do their best to ensure that those that come to be baptized are doing just that. Can they ever stop a false professor from being baptized? No. But that does not mean they should stop looking for evidence.
Isn't the whole point of a figure to compare two things in a particular way that the speaker has in mind?
I do not believe when people use figures of speech to compare two things in everyday conversation they intend to mean every single aspect of the two things they are comparing is similar.
When I say that someone is like a bull in a china shop, I am meaning to compare only one aspect of that person to a bull - his clumsiness. I do not intend to liken him to a bull in any other way.
Jesus said many times the kingdom of God is like... That does not mean we should go into his argicultural metaphors and derive all kinds of teachings about the kingdom of God from farming. Each metaphor Jesus used was to teach about one particular aspect of the kingdom of God.
So I do not see that the burden should rest on me to prove that baptism and the ark are not alike in every single way. Peter had a particular point to make by bringing up the ark, and his figure should not be pressed beyond that without reason.
Mark,
Your post simply indicates, by its meandering, exactly the point. If you simply stick to you initial answer that a false professor cannot answer God with a good conscience then you make my point that your initial rejection of the baptism of a person on the basis that they cannot answer God with a good conscience is something that you cannot determine in its visible administration. All hand-waving aside to distract from that point about how "...well we try to do our best..." doesn't cut it. Why am I not permitted to simply answer you: "...well we try to do our best..."?
You see, these types of issues, where you try to insist that "...an answer to a good conscience..." is key to the reason why you baptize a professor are convenient until somebody points out that you have absolutely no idea what the real state of the conscience of a man is. You don't know your own heart much less the heart of a man on the basis of a profession.
I'm not stating that the verse is immaterial to the issue of baptism but it is immaterial with respect to the issue of who a Baptist has determined they will now baptize according to the manner in which the verse is typically understood by the same.
Rich,
If my post was meandering I will humbly submit the deficiency was mine, and not the position.
Just in response to the part about 'trying our best' and the fact that we can never really know the heart of a man: As I tried to say in a previous post, while I believe the baptism requires the answer of a good conscience, from Acts, we see that baptisms took place very quickly after a positive response to preaching. So as far as the evidence for a 'good conscience' goes, the preachers did not take it that they needed to know 100% without any doubts that this profession was genuine.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
But how can someone have a good conscience if they are unregenerate?
Mark,
Rich,
If my post was meandering I will humbly submit the deficiency was mine, and not the position.
Just in response to the part about 'trying our best' and the fact that we can never really know the heart of a man: As I tried to say in a previous post, while I believe the baptism requires the answer of a good conscience, from Acts, we see that baptisms took place very quickly after a positive response to preaching. So as far as the evidence for a 'good conscience' goes, the preachers did not take it that they needed to know 100% without any doubts that this profession was genuine.
You're conflating "profession" with "good conscience" and simply begging the question. You haven't demonstrated that a profession is equivalent to or gives warrant to assume that the professor has a "good conscience", that the visible administration is based upon a "good conscience", or that Peter intended any of the above in his use of the term. You simply assume it all and then proceed as if it is established.
The word is literally "antitype." It is not simply a word picture. It possesses "true likeness." That being the case, we assume similarity until it can be shown otherwise that there is dissimilarity.
He can't; but the apostle doesn't require them to have it in order to be baptised. The "answer" is not strictly speaking what the baptised person gives, but something baptism requires of the person. Baptism is an interrogation which demands a good conscience towards God. As such, the baptism comes first, and the answer of a good conscience follows.
- Status
Similar threads
