|
|
November 16, 2006, Matthew Cochrane, A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
 I must say, I have been quite surprised at the lack of serious theological objections to my defense of paedobaptism. I have received very little in the way of serious attempts to defend the traditional Baptist position or earnest challenges to the practice of baptizing infants. I planned to wrap up this series by addressing some of the comments I had received that refuted this doctrine because I know a good many of my readers are Southern Baptists, and I thought I was sure to get at least some of the usual objections to infant baptism. I suppose the possibility exists that I defended the practice so convincingly that I persuaded my Baptist friends of its legitimacy and they are now ardent paedobaptism advocates. Perhaps. However, just on the off-chance their silence is due to the fact they have not yet found the time to comment, I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the more well-known objections to the doctrine of paedobaptism and humbly point out the fallacies in those positions. Or, as John Calvin put it, “Since in this age certain frantic spirits have grievously disturbed the church over infant baptism, and do not cease their agitation, I cannot refrain from writing…to restrain their mad ravings.”
Before we look at these commonly held arguments objecting to infant baptism, however, I want to make it clear that the reasons I give for debunking these objections are not why I believe the practice of baptizing infants is ordained by God. In previous posts, I have already carefully explained my reasoning for this. Now I am merely attempting to communicate why the following arguments are not nearly enough to persuade me to believe otherwise. So, without further ado…
Objection to Paedobaptism #1 – According to Scripture, baptism is conditioned by an active faith accompanied by a credible profession.
Wayne Grudem, the Research Professor of Bible and Theology at Phoenix Theological Seminary, perhaps articulates this view best among modern-day Baptist scholars. He writes in his Systematic Theology:
The pattern revealed at several places in the New Testament is that only those who give a believable profession of faith should be baptized. This view is often called “believers’ baptism,” since it holds that only those who have themselves believed in Christ (or, more precisely, those who have given reasonable evidence of believing in Christ) should be baptized. This is because baptism, which is a symbol of beginning the Christian life, should only be given to those who have in fact begun the Christian life.
We must first notice that Grudem does not fully grasp the significance of baptism. As we have already established in previous posts, baptism signifies an individual’s entrance into the God’s eternal covenant with his people, not the “beginning of Christian life.”
Moving beyond that, however, it must be noted that it is true; the Bible does, indeed, point to faith as a requirement for baptism in several different passages:
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)
But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. (Acts 8:12)
So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 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. (Acts 16: 31-34)
 There are other, similar passages found in Acts but nobody has ever denied the legitimacy of these examples. What one must ask, though, is if the individual being baptized must always display an active faith before being baptized. If the answer is yes, then babies and young children would not be able to partake in the sacrament. However, most theologians throughout the centuries would disagree with that premise. Just because, in these select instances, faith was a prerequisite for baptism does not mean that that is always the case. Nowhere in the Bible is there a verse that says anything even remotely close to that! The narrative in Acts of the first century church’s attempts at evangelism cannot be construed to mean that the same rules would apply to children raised in Christian homes. Louis Berkhof, a professor for years at Calvin Theological Seminary, wrote in his Systematic Theology:
But though the Bible clearly indicates that only those adults who believed were baptized, it nowhere lays down the rule that an active faith is absolutely essential for the reception of baptism. Baptists refer us to the great commission, as it is found in Mark 16: 15, 16. In view of the fact that this is a missionary command, we may proceed on the assumption that the Lord had in mind an active faith in those words. And though it is not explicitly stated, it is altogether likely that He regarded this faith as a prerequisite for the baptism of the persons intended. But who are they? Evidently, the adults of the nations who were to be evangelized, and therefore the Baptist is not warranted in construing it as an argument against infant baptism.
In other words, the baptism aspect of the great commission was, of necessity, meant for the adults in those nations who were being evangelized and was never meant to be applied to the children of believers. If this was not the case, there would have been explicit instructions prohibiting the children of covenant families from receiving the sign of the covenant as they had previously.
Objection to Paedobaptism #2 – There are no examples of infant baptism found in the New Testament.
Once again, there is some truth in this argument. There are no such incidents recorded in Scripture. That being said, there are several accounts of baptism being administered to whole households:
And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us. (Acts 16:15)
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. (I Cor. 1: 14-16)
While it cannot be said for sure that these households included young children or infants, there is certainly no evidence to the contrary either! Apparently it was a rather common practice for households to be baptized together and one would think that, if children or infants were not to be included, then there would be explicit statements recording their exclusion. Of course, no such statements can be found. Furthermore, it must be emphasized again that the narrative history recorded in Acts mostly concentrates on the evangelical efforts of the church, not the day-to-day workings of the local congregation. This means that the examples of baptism found in the New Testament have to do with Gentile adults converting to Christianity, not children being raised within the organized church.
Objection to Paedobaptism #3 – Circumcision was a carnal and nationalistic sign given to the Hebrews. Such carnal laws have no place in the New Testament Church.
John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, subscribes to this popular Baptist line of reasoning in his book Brothers, We Are Not Professionals. He writes:
God is forming His people today differently from when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The visible people of God are no longer formed through natural birth but through new birth and its expression through faith in Christ.
Out of all the arguments against infant baptism, this one might have made me pause the most before deciding to have my son, James, baptized. Oddly enough, I now find it the easiest to refute.
We have already established in a previous post that baptism does indeed symbolize the washing away of our sins and, using the Bible, we understand why circumcision held a similar meaning for the Hebrews in the Old Testament era:
Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. (Deuteronomy 10:16)
And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings.” (Jeremiah 4:4)
“Behold, the days are coming,” says the LORD, “that I will punish all who are circumcised with the uncircumcised — Egypt, Judah, Edom, the people of Ammon, Moab, and all who are in the farthest corners, who dwell in the wilderness. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.” (Jeremiah 9:25, 26)
When you brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary to defile it—My house—and when you offered My food, the fat and the blood, then they broke My covenant because of all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of My holy things, but you have set others to keep charge of My sanctuary for you.” Thus says the Lord GOD: “No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel. (Ezekiel 44:7-9)
Furthermore, as Louis Berkhof explains, baptism “corresponds with circumcision in spiritual meaning. As circumcision referred to the cutting away of sin and to a change of heart…so baptism refers to the washing away of sin…and to spiritual renewal.” It should be clear enough from these passages that circumcision held a nearly identical meaning to baptism in God’s eyes.
 This wraps up my series on the spiritual meaning of baptism and, more specifically, why Karen and I had James baptized despite our Southern Baptist upbringing. I deeply appreciate all of the conversations I have had with my family members on this very subject. This has been a topic for many of the infamous theological discussions my family has taken part in through the years and my understanding of the subject was greatly enhanced by these give-and-take conversations (some would call them debates but, in the Cochrane household, they were just a part of everyday life). In most cases, we would patiently (or impatiently) explain our views to each other and would graciously wait until the other person was done explaining their views, so we could then tell them why they were wrong. Some might find that type of conversation frustrating, but I learned a lot about defending my beliefs and faith intelligently from these lively discussions (and, after all, what's better than talking about our beliefs with other believers and walking away from the conversation knowing more about God. The more we know and understand our Creator and Savior, the deeper the relationship we are able to enjoy with Him.)
More than anybody else, though, I want to thank my wife, Karen, for spending hours studying this subject with me during her pregnancy. We read everybody from John Piper, Wayne Grudem and John MacArthur on the Baptist side of the aisle to Charles Hodge, Louis Berkhof, R.C. Sproul, John Calvin and B.B. Warfield for the paedobaptist point of view. We discussed the subject amongst ourselves and prayed about it incessantly. We finally came to the same conclusion and we are both confident that it was the right one.
Finally, I want to emphasize that this is an important doctrine for Christians to understand and embrace. (I would not have spent so much time writing about it if I thought otherwise!) Karen and I both feel we came to a much better understanding of God and His redemptive work throughout history as we studied His Word on this matter. I exhort you to do the same and come to your own informed conclusion about what God teaches on baptism and whether it is proper and right for infants to receive this holy sacrament.
|
| Comments |
| Matt,
Thanks for reviewing these thoughts again for me. It's been a while since I have studied these views and of course, during the last 30 years there have been new church leaders expressing their views on this subject. I have been updated. - Mops |
|
| What a beautiful child. You are truly blessed. - unbiased |
|
| Although I liked your baptism series a lot, what I really appreciated was all the effort and study the two of you put into the subject to determine what course your family would follow. It reminded me of the Berean Christians who were called noble because they searched the scriptures “daily to find out whether these things were [are] so” (Acts 17:16 NKJV). At the very least you now know why you believe as you do because you have studied this issue in some depth and I think this is a great example for other believers to folllow.
Even those who study the issue and arrive at a different conclusion then you have are better off for having made the effort. We can only pray that this practice of studying issues of importance will continue and expand in the church! Many thanks for althe work you put into this. - Steamboat Willie |
|
| Came across your post - and I thought I would toss this your way for I am in process of studying and discerning the same question but it seems from the other side. Here is a e-mail I sent a brother who we are using each other to a little spirited debate.
Man – I feel like im bugging you. If so – just don’t answer (I know what that means)
On the Reisnger article – my reference was really the one paragraph I sent. Let me review it below.
o If we are speaking about covenants and comparing the New Covenant to the Old Covenant then we have 100% discontinuity.
o The New Covenant totally and forever replaces the Old Covenant.
o A radically new and totally different covenant has replaced the old and obsolete covenant.
o However, if we are talking about God's one eternal, unchanging, sovereign purpose of grace in all ages, then we have 100% continuity.
o Nothing but confusion can occur when we interject into the discussion the unbiblical phrases "covenant of works with Adam" and "covenant of grace with Adam."
o It is the use of these purely theological phrases, as if they were texts of Scripture, that has created the confusion.
o In reality, the covenant theologian really means "one way of salvation" when he talks about a "covenant of grace."
o We agree that there is only way of salvation and it is "by grace through faith."
o We agree that God has one eternal purpose of grace and that is to save his one elect people, but
o nowhere does Scripture call that a "covenant of grace." The Bible calls that "the gospel."
Study Hebrews 8:7-13 The old covenant is gone, and we are now under the new one in which God's people are marked by a changed heart.
You could sum up the argument from Hebrews this way: God's people under the old covenant were marked by circumcision. Circumcision is the sign of the old covenant. God's people under the new covenant are marked by circumcision of the heart. Circumcision of the heart is the sign of the new covenant. Baptism doesn't replace circumcision; circumcision of the heart does. Baptism is an outward indication of the inward change (the circumcision of the heart) that marks God's people.
Under the old covenant, then, it was physical birth that formed the people of God, and circumcision shortly after that physical birth was the identifying sign. Under the new covenant, it's spiritual rebirth that forms God's people, and baptism shortly after that spiritual rebirth is the identifying sign.
- CB Sowers |
|
| I would suggest that you and Rebecca get together. see link
http://everydaymusings.blogspot.com/2004/04/short-defense-of-believers-baptism-why.html
- CB SOWERS |
|
| CB, circumcision of the heart has ALWAYS been the sign of the covenant, old or new (i.e. Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:25,26; Ezek. 44:7-9). If the old covenant is gone why did God say it would be eternal in Genesis 17? Did He change His mind? Have you read my previous posts on paedobaptism? I know right now its hard to access previous articles (I'm working to make that easier) but if you go down to the bottom of the page there's a "Previous 5" link. I've addressed why the covenant is continuous in Parts 1-7. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| It is an interesting study for me howerver I cant get past the difference in God changing the heart (permanently) and Man trying to change his own heart. I recently sent another e-mail to a friend of mine with some bullet points. Here it is.
q Did God ever permanently circumcise the heart in the OT? When did God circumcise the heart in the OT? Can a leopard change its spots? Can u give me some examples?
q Wasn’t Israel and the people of God a stiff-necked people who never really changed? Because they couldn’t on their own just as we can’t on our own. The Old Covenant had no life changing saving power – because it was up to man’s power to obey.
q What were the benefits promised to those who lived under that Old Covenant? The Old Covenant did not guarantee the salvation of those who lived under it, as the New Covenant does;
q Grace is the only reason any OT (or NT) saint is saved.
q But without the New Covenant that is referred to in Hebrews and elsewhere – where helpless.
q To me that is a completely different Covenant! Doesn’t that make sense?
q Is your heart permanently circumcised now?
q Does the term BORN AGAIN apply to any Old Testament believers? Life changing saving power! The New Covenant.
Baptism replaces Circumcision – Old Covenant – New Covenant continuation? How much Catholicism is involved here?
I think I am going to park in Hebrews for a while and deal with the 13th verse of chapter 8 and all its ramifications.
Hebrews 8:13 “When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear”.
- CB |
|
| "The Old Covenant had no life changing saving power – because it was up to man’s power to obey." Hmmm, in Romans it was clearly stated that Abraham was saved by faith, not by his power to obey. Paul then clearly makes the connection that we are saved by faith in the same way. Furthermore, all the examples Matthew gives of the "circumcision of the heart" are found in the Old Testament. Really take the chance to read his previous articles on the continuity of the covenant. - Russ |
|
| Thanks Russ - I have read through the articles and have been studying myself and understand that so many others have also. I have some concerns to say the least. Below is an e-mail I sent to a friend who I am involved in a Spirited-Debate - which I think is healthy. There are some many questions that just arent answered - please take the time to read...... Thanks
Some Covenant Theology (Infant baptism) concerns and questions continued……
So much explicit scripture that teaches “explicitly” different.
I have learned a new term The principle of "good and necessary inference"
(I was using “inferences althoughs, buts and nevertheless’s”)
Just some thoughts and comments as I have been pining over scripture and reading up on CT and IB.
1. What about the Lord’s Supper?
a. Why wouldn’t children qualify? (Study that one in Exodus 12) – Or do we allow Covenant children to participate?)
b. Why is New Testament regulation sufficient to define the subjects of the Lord's Supper but not infant baptism?
2. If Christians–Jewish or Gentile–are the "seed" of Abraham, should we both claim physical Canaan as our rightful territory and "everlasting" possession as well?
3. If circumcision is a "forever" sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, then why do the New Covenant "seed" of Abraham not continue circumcision as a religious act?
4. Should Christians baptize not only infants but also all males bought or born into their homes?
a. 318 male servants of the household of Abraham who were circumcised by virtue of their being in Abraham's household?
5. How does the aspect of people in the covenant household, not land, apply in the New Covenant application of the Abrahamic Covenant?
6. How does the Scripture apply the Old Testament promises, which are given to Abraham and his "seed" to the New Covenant fulfillment in the Christian and the church?
7. Agree? Participation in the New Covenant, which is "not like" the Old Covenant, is defined as experiencing the reality of heart-religion in each and every member (Jeremiah 31:33,34).
All New Covenant members actually have the Law written on their hearts ("I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts"), receive the forgiveness of sins ("I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more"), and know the Lord ("For they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord").
a. This definition says nothing of participation in the New Covenant blessings by physical descent alone.
b. Rather, the participants whom Jeremiah describes are the true "Israel" (Galatians 6:16).
c. They are "the children of the promise," a faithful remnant according to God's "election of grace" (Romans 9:6-8) in which every true member knows the Lord.
d. This New Covenant in which God writes His Law on the heart of each one in the covenant is also defined in Ezekiel 36:24-28 as the time when God puts His Spirit within and gives a new heart that will be careful to observe His ordinances.
8. Agree? Children of believers are not "in" the New Covenant or church or kingdom or are "God's people" until they show, by outward confession, evidence of regeneration.
9. Agree? You aren’t in the New Covenant until you show the evidence of regeneration by repentance and faith.
10. Agree? This is the uniform command and example of the New Testament, and it precedes New Covenant baptism.
11. Agree? To say that all physical infants of believers are "in" the New Covenant as the infants of Abraham were "in" the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants violates the doctrine of particular redemption. Hebrews 9 reminds us that God's covenant requires mediation through blood.
12. Can an unregenerate infant be called "in" the church by Christ's effectual mediation and never receive salvation? The covenant of grace requires the blood of an effectual Mediator right?
13. Who is the "seed" of Christ to whom belong the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant?
Isn’t it those who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29) and those alone, revealed by their faith. The only ones who have a claim to the inheritance of God are the children of God by the Spirit's regeneration (Romans 8:9,14-17; John 1:12-14).
14. Agree? The Abrahamic Covenant was entered by circumcision; the New Covenant is entered by faith in Christ. Only Abraham's New Covenant "seed" of faith should receive the New Covenant sign of baptism.
15. Question: Does Romans 2:28,29 teach circumcision was always meant to represent the inward work of the Spirit on the heart?
16. What is "the circumcision of Christ?" Did Paul define the circumcision of Christians in Colossians 2:9-12 as primarily union with Christ by faith, secondarily symbolized in their water baptism, as in Romans 6:3,4?
17. If circumcision is the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant, what then is its New Covenant counterpart? Could it be the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit exhibited in faith?
a. Could this be why Paul prohibited physical circumcision because they had received its reality in the new heart (Galatians 3:3).
b. Paul tells the Galatians that they do not need physical circumcision to enter into the covenant relationship with God because they have already entered that covenant relationship by the circumcision of Christ, a new heart by union with His death and resurrection.
c. Therefore, as circumcision (the shadow or type) was the sign of entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant and the seal of Abraham's saving faith, so regeneration (the form or antitype) is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant and the seal of the believer's faith (Ephesians 1:13,14; John 3:5,6).
d. Baptism then, is the indirect fulfillment of physical circumcision only through its association with the direct fulfillment, spiritual circumcision.
e. This is why we see only confessors' baptism in the New Testament record.
f. It was easy to know who entered the Abrahamic Covenant; they were born into the household and were outwardly circumcised. But how can one tell if someone has entered the New Covenant and has experienced spiritual circumcision? Only by his repentance and faith, signified by the outward sign of fulfilled circumcision and cleansing, water baptism.
Acts 2:37-42 is clear exegetical proof that the only children baptized were those who received Peter's word of repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 2:38,39,41). They outwardly showed inward circumcision and then were baptized. This is how Christ ordained to build His church (Matthew 16:16-18; 28:19).
So much more. It is truly amazing what is in the Word of God!
Gotta go – past my bedtime.
- CB (humble addition) |
|
| CB, if you wish, please email me at matt at notconformedthoughts dot com for possibly guest blogging and presenting the believer baptism position. I believe you are confusing your covenants and misinterpreting some verses but I would have no problem with you writing a post or two to present your side of the argument. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Matt - I know you have probably read JM's article entitled A SCRIPTURAL CRITIQUE OF
INFANT BAPTISM
(http://www.ondoctrine.com/2mac0002.htm)where I beleive he makes a pretty strong case with these bullet points.
[1.] Point number one, and this ought to end the argument: infant baptism is not in Scripture.
[2.] The second reason is really the other side of the issue. I don't believe in infant baptism because infant baptism is not Christian baptism.
[3.] Third point, why I reject infant baptism: it is not a replacement sign for the Abrahamic sign of circumcision.
[4.] Well, let me give you a fourth reason. I reject infant baptism because infant baptism is not consistent with the nature of the church.
[5.] One last point and I'll let you go. Infant baptism is not consistent with the gospel.
I shudder to think that I could do a better job of presenting that side of the argument. However I might try - though - understanding that my background (SBaptist - reformed) lends itself to my viewpoint as your background (Presb) lends itself to your viewpoint - it is tough to be convinced otherwise (on both parts) However - I stand ready to be CONVINCED BY SCRIPTURE not be inference. I will talk soon. CB - Chuck Sowers |
|
| The statement, " so under the new covenant baptism is most commonly for infants, but adult converts are also baptised..." is historically (And of course, Biblically) inaccurate.
It is an incorrect conclusion to include infant baptism in the household. ALL accounts of baptism involve consenting believers (no age specified). Historically, infant baptism can be traced to a beginning around the third century, as can other forms of baptism beside full immersion.
Augustine HAD to write a defense of infant baptism, because it was a 'new' practice for the church!
To equate infant baptism with circumcision is a strange logic - women were EXCLUDED from the command to circumcise. Yet, girls are baptized!
Circumcision, according to what God said about the matter, was to confirm the covenant he had made with ABRAHAM, Gentiles were excluded form that command - unless they wanted to become part of the nation Israel.
Nowhere in the New Testament do we see a 'replacement' theory, where baptism takes the place of circumcision. Nowhere do we see a gender shift, either.
Infant baptism is a 'new' invention, and was demonstrably not practiced by the early (1st, 2nd century) church.
The need for infant baptism is a shift in thinking about the origin of and guillt for sin. Baptism is for remission of sin. Baptism is a "cry from a clear conscience." Baptism brings us into a newness of life. Baptism is a shared buriel with Christ. Unless one believes, none of these make any sense...
From a 'plain' reading of the New Testament, it is extremely obvious: Those who heard AND believed, were baptised. To be baptised without believing makes no sense from a Biblical perspective.
CB - |
|
| Acutally the replacement is clearly shown in Colossians 2:11-12, every theologian from Augustine to Calvin to Luther to the Puritans maintain that that is exactly what that passage means. As far as the gender shift, what do you think Paul is talking about in Galatians 3? Clearly he is establishing the new boundaries of the covenant! Whereas the Hebrews were the chosen people of God in the Old Testament, God greatly expands the boundaries of the called in the New Testament. Those boundaries in every way are more inclusive yet you injsist that in this one area God suddenly and inexplicably became more exclusive! - Russ |
|
| Did Martin Luther have it wrong on Infant baptism? Was Catholicism holding on to him?
DID YOU KNOW?
Martin Luther seems to have never shaken the grave clothes of infant baptism (Opinion of course) He even wrote a small book entitled The Small Baptismal Book, aptly named. He wrote it in 1526, and at an infant baptism, this is the prayer that he designed to be prayed…You bring your baby to be baptized and this is the prayer:
Oh Lord Almighty,
"""""I invoke Thee concerning this child,
thy servant who asks for the gift of thy baptism
and desires thy grace through the spiritual new birth"""""
All of a sudden, this child is a servant of God who desires grace and new birth, even though this is a totally unconscious infant in the sense of knowing anything at all about anything.
Receive him, """""O Lord,
and thus extend, now, the good to him who knocks,
that he may obtain the eternal blessing of this heavenly bath,
and receive the promise kingdom of thy gift,
through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen."""""
And then, in Luther’s ceremony, the infant is asked, """"""Doest thou renounce the devil and all his works and nature?" The parents answer, "Yes." "Doest thou believe in God the Father, in Jesus Christ, His Son, in the Holy Spirit, and the one Christian Church?" These were asked of the infant—the parents say, "Yes."""""" The child is then baptized, and then the concluding prayer:
"""""The Almighty God hath begotten thee anew,
through water and the Holy Spirit,
and has forgiven thee all thy sins. Amen."""""
ALERT! That sounds to me like Infant salvation, through water? Something doesnt match up here. ---------------------------------------------------The Major Question
Is infant baptism scriptural?
------------------------------------------------
The answer is “NO,” but some might debate [you think?].
1.There are many places in the Bible that say that an entire “household” believed and was baptized. The key is that the Bible says that the families believed and then were baptized.
2.Colossians 2:11 distinguishes between the two types of circumcision,“In him, you were also circumcised, with the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ...” The next verse describes that once a believer is regenerate, or spiritually circumcised, they will be baptized. This does not support being baptized as an infant by any means. In fact, it says that baptism comes after belief (Look at both Vs 12 and 13).
------------------------------------------------
PS - not EVERY Theologian and/or Puritan agrees (or agrees) on that passage interpretation. The reformation pulled itself away from Catholicism but some things were tougher to shed than others as evidenced by Luther himself. CB
- Chuck Sowers |
|
| I do have a question?
If baptized as an infant and you become a believer (regenerated, born again) as an adult (or even a young child) should you be re-baptized as a believer? CB - |
|
| Simple answer: no. - Russ |
|
| Russ - that is a short answer. How bout these examples.................. Any validity?
Acts 18:8 Crsipus - a circumcised Jew - Believed and then was baptized.
Acts 9:18 Paul - a circumcised Jew - Believed and then was baptized.
Acts 2:38-41 Peter - preaching to Jews (and I am sure many circumcised) Verse 41 - "Those who believed" were baptized.
Jesus - a circumcized Jew - was baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:13-17 - Pauls mentioning of baptizing Stephen - a circumcised Jew - after he believed.
How many circumcized Jews believed and were baptized on the day that over 3000 (believed) were saved? - CB |
|
| PS - All of the previous examples were adults or old enough for God to erupt into thier lives (IE Saul) - Point being if (IF)circumcision is replaced by Infant Baptism in the New Covenant - then it is just reasonable (a 'good and necessary consequence' from Scripture”) to expect a person who becomes a believer to be Re-Baptized - as was the case in the New Testament - right? - CB |
|
| CB, as God ordained a new sign for the covenant then Jews who converted to Christianity would naturally partake in that new sign upon their conversion. Case in point: Christ was circumcised as a babe and then baptized as an adult. - Russ |
|
| Basically Chuck I agree with Russ. When the new sign of the covenant was instituted by Christ the Jewish Christians would naturally obey this command and get baptized. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I know we disagree here and must state that I believe that circumcision and baptism do not have the same role to play in the covenant people of God because the way God constituted his people in the Old Testament and the way he is constituting the Church today are fundamentally different.
See Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 4:22-28 ,Luke 22:20, 1st Corinthians 11:25. I believe that the scripture teaches that the Church is not a replay of Israel but it is an advance on Israel. To administer the sign of the covenant as though this advance has not happened is (I humbly present)is error. The critical issues are these. Have you been washed by the blood of the Lamb? Are your sins forgiven? Have you died with Christ and risen by faith to walk in newness of life? Does the Spirit of Christ dwell in you? Is the law being written on your heart? If so - then I believe that you should be baptised in obedience and to identify yourself with Christ.
Credo is my stand - unless convinced otherwise by scripture and that just hasnt happened. - |
|
| Basically - Water baptism, then, is the outward sign of the inward circumcision of the heart rather than the outward counterpart of the outward circumcision of the flesh.CB - |
|
| Isn't Baptism, as we see it practiced in the New Testament clearly not a continuation of the old covenant sign to infants but a New Covenant sign to confessing believers? Doesnt scripture make that clear? - CB |
|
| CB, you said: "Water baptism, then, is the outward sign of the inward circumcision of the heart." To which I would say exactly. And according to Scriptures that is exactly what circumcision use to represent in the OT. If baptism now means the exact same thing circumcision used to represent then it only stands to reason that baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of the covenant. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Matthew - I have a question. I understand Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness and that is HOW he is (was) saved. Circumcision in the OT was a sign - a sign of what? Faith? I'm still trying to find that connection. Are their examples of someone's heart being (permanently) REGENERATED in the Old Testament? I don't want to go off in left field here - BUT the New Covenant (a better covenant) CHANGES a person's heart permanently (IE me in 1983)- Believers Baptism is a sign of that. If we Baptize an infant - as a replacement of circumcsion - it doesnt represent the same thing - because it isn't the same thing. 1st John 5:13 is in the New Testament - with no corresponding verse in the Old (I am sure u will challenge that one). New Men (REGENERATED) only happens when God errupts into their heart. It is a permanent change (In contrast to OT). I recently came to the conclusion that the reformation was not 100% complete (and may still not be). There were some issues that the reformers (because of thier roots) struggled with. I think (of course my opinion and others)that Infant Baptism falls into that catergory. Good - Godly men disagree and that is OK (on non-essentials) and it definitly drives you (and me)to study - and for that I am grateful. Appreciate your stance and study. PS - U wouldnt happen to be going to Shepherds conference at Grace Church in March would ya? OR the Ligonier conference in Orlando this year? - CB |
|
| My reference to 1st John 5:13 was incorrect. I meant 2nd Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
"In Christ" is the point - regeneration. - |
|
| No conferences for me this year. Starting the police academy soon and that along with my training phase at the PD afterwards will take up most of the year. If you go to the Ligonier conference you might be interested in seeing if you can pick up a Ligonier-produced tape of a debate that John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul did a few years ago on infant baptism. My wife and I listened to it several times through and found it enlightening and helpful. Sometimes its good to hear the position explained rather than reading it. Both parties did an excellent job of presenting their case, but in the end we obviously thought R.C. won the day. When we bought it a few years ago they only had it on tape, not CD. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| The tape is still available - I did order it and have listened to it several times and (suprise) believe that JM had a much stronger arguement. I continue to be amazed (in my study) of some of the positions of the early reformers (with thier Catholic roots) Luther for example, who considered infant baptism as necessary for salvation and that it somehow produced forgiveness of sin. That mindset is still in place in the Lutheran church today - centuries later. So - it is clear to me that good godly men can be wrong. It all comes back to the teaching of the Canon of scripture. Specifically (but not limited to) the New Covenant teaching in the New Testament. What does the Word of God say! Not what it might say, or what it might mean OR EVEN what it doesn't say. The reason I believe that the position JM takes (and in the debate)and I as well is correct - is that it relys on WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. RC (your position)has to rely on what it might say or mean and/or what it doesn't say. Inference verses Written. I respectivley side with written. - Chuck Sowers |
|
| Chuck, was wondering if you had any thoughts on John MacArthur's recent message proclaiming premillenialism is the only plausible eschatological view for Calvinists. - Amillenialist |
|
| Wow - was all I could say. I was sitting on the 2nd row. I cant beleive he opened the conference with such a contoversial subject. It seemed to be more said about it that week in the blogeshere than at the conference. Lots of people were suprised. I being a premillennialist didnt have issues - but it is obvious that "covenant theology" lends itself in the opposite direction. Many presbyterians were there(Lingon Duncan being one). I am still studying our original meeting theme (off and on) and have read 3-4 books (2 by Doug Wilson) and am still convinced of my original position [believer vs Infant baptism)but it is clearer to me more than ever before the opposing sides position.Anyway it was a very encouraging conference. So where do you see Jews in the end times? Is Israel and the church one in the same? - Chuck Sowers |
|
| Thats cool that you got to go see Mcarthur in SoCal. I listen to him online and really wasn't a dispensationalist until I started reading his material after I first moved to FL. I too believe in believers baptism. In my eyes, people who believe in padobaptism have to put a lot of spin on it to make their view Biblically sound. - Mean Gene |
|
| Chuck, I probably lean towards the amillenial view, though I haven't done enough research on the matter to hold a clearly defined position yet. I did find it bold on MacArthur's part to deliver a message like that though he's never been one to back down from a controversial issue. If I ever get the chance to research end times topics more thoroughly I would like to do an expanded series on it, ala paedobaptism, but we'll have to wait and see. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| And Mean Gene, I would hardly describe the paedobaptist view as putting a spin on anything. One might disagree with it but you could at least recognize it as an honest difference in opinion. And while I definitely appreciate John MacArthur's ministry and teachings I'm sure it's no surprise that I disagree with him on a number of theological issues. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Couple of comments.
1. Seems that folks believe that the sacrament of baptism does something. It is a symbol. It symbolizes the baptism into Christ (Roms 6) which isn't done with water. Paedo/credo discussion does much to distract from what (or who) does have power and is of utmost importance, ie Christ. That's what sacraments are about...pointing to Christ and the first command to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. Are we into relationship or ritual? Relationship.
2. Therefore, baptism is powerless to set a child apart as a child of the covenant.
3. Abraham's circ was based on the *promise* that if your children believe, God will hold up his end of the bargain and save them. Once again, sacraments of circ or baptism have no power as symbols of the real power of Christ.
3. Proponents on both sides of this argument often tend toward a priori arguments. A fresh look is needed and since scripture neither commands nor forbids infant baptism, I suggest scripture should be applied to the present and though historical info may show how they practiced in the past, it doesn't tell us what their reasoning was and in our case it is superficial to apply it as an argument.
4. I come back to the symbol. What is the sacrament of water baptism a symbol of? Christ's death and resurrection (Roms 6) applied to the believer. There is no outward sign of belief by an infant or awareness by an infant of any or either sacrament(s). Sacraments being symbolic should be performed on those who are aware, eligible and able to appreciate the experience.
My vote: credobaptism. The only argument I see that is left for paedobaptists is the hope that his child will be saved. We all hope for that and the sacrament of baptism has no impact on God's sovereign election regardless of any act of ours. Thank goodness. One may baptize his infant, but realize unless one allows rebaptism, the recipient of infant baptism is denied the complete experience of a sacrament -- a decision not to made lightly. Also, paedobaptists deny young believers access to the LORD's Supper until completion of confirmation/communicant classes. There is no such reqt in scripture. Based on Matt 18, I believe Jesus objects to that practice. - cdl |
|
| btw, Acts 8: an entire town in Samaria was baptised by Philip, ie men and women who believed(no mention of infants) and Peter and John visit to verify and validate still no infants baptised but laying on of hands to convey the gift of the Holy Spirit - cdl |
|
| and since history has been mentioned; THe Didache is earlier than Sproul's Iraneus document. The Didache gives very specific instructions about baptism. Immersion is preferred in "running water" but other modes are acceptable as a matter of convenience. However, it says nothing about infant baptism. Since it is so detailed, this ommission indicates that it wasn't done. - cdl |
|
| The Didache is an interesting document. First no one knows who wrote it. Second, many of its teachings contradict what Scripture says on many points. Wayne Grudem, an ardent defender of believer's baptism says, "it contradicts or adds to the commands of the New Testament at many points" in his Systematic Theology. I've written about the Didache in length at http://www.notconformedthoughts.com/displayone.cfm?docid=1574. There is probably a lot we can learn about early church life from the Didache but it should hardly be a source for our theology.
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Almost all early church documents point to infant baptism being practiced though. Even John MacArthur ceded that point when debating it with R.C. Sproul. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Matt, you confirm that historical docs aren't much use, but Hebrews authorship is unknown, too.
Mac is wrong or out of context. I've read the docs and there isn't any clarity there until much later. Those guys (Sproul and Mac) aren't smarter than us. We should not allow theologians such as R.C. to take simple, straightforward scripture and twist it to a doctrine that isn't there and then declare it is an essential of christian faith based on innuendo and inference. IF we do, then the door is open to whatever.
Paul, otoh, didn't care. He didn't clearly say not to baptise the dead for example. He focused on the baptism of Jesus by His blood. Praise God.
Credobap does no harm to the covenant.
My recommendation, don't stay at the level of elemental things such as baptisms ref'd in Hebrews 6. I've attended reform paedobap churches and across the board they remain in doctrinal discussions but fellowship stagnates there. - cdl |
|
| I am not aware of any credible scholar saying that paedobaptism is an essential element of faith and, if they did, I would wholeheartedly disagree. That being said it is important for us to know who/how God wants us to baptize so we can follow Him in obedience...I'm sorry that your experiences in paedobaptist/reformed churches were so lacking in warm, caring fellowship, but I assure you there are some churches like that in all denominations, no matter what theology/credo they follow...To accuse Sproul of twisting the text to create the doctrine of paedobaptism you would have to accuse Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Martin Lloyd Jones, Francis Schaeffer, and all the Puritans of doing the same. I'm just not ready to go there. To have an honest disagreement with someone is fine but to accuse them of twisting Biblical texts is a different matter. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| ok, ok, but I can't think of a term that describes teaching something that isn't there
I like those guys you listed, but they aren't smarter than you or me either; several just didn't reform far enough; not sure why Schaeffer or Jones believe it, but it opens the door to doctrine based on "you just don't understand the deeper meaning in scripture, covenant..." akin to gnostism and hidden or secret knowledge -- beware
to paraphrase PCA, "if it's in the Westminster Confession of Faith, it's an essential" - cdl |
|
| btw, as far as the Hall of Fame of paedobaptistry/orthodox/reform, I'll take Spurgeon over those guys (and there's a Hall of Fame for all issues, ie another weak argument) - cdl |
|
| Look, I wrote eight rather lengthy posts defending paedobaptism and almost all of them dealt with Scriptural texts. The only reason I brought up all the names was because you accused Sproul of twisting the text and inventing a doctrine. I agree, that spouting off a list of names who support a particular doctrine is a weak defense. I just wanted to point out that if you really wanted to accuse Sproul of that you would have to accuse the rest of them as well. That being said, I could have easily added John Murray, B.B. Warfield, and Charles Hodge. But Spurgeon is a classic, no denying that! - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| good; we're on the scripture
how about Acts 8? - cdl |
|
| comment while waiting on answer to Acts 8 question: you don't like twist or spin (Mean Gene) terms. I can't see paedobap in scripture so it looks like spin and I'm still at a loss for a better term. You are darned right that I will use strong language when I see something out of sync with scripture no matter the great teacher. The great Presbyterians you mention perhaps grew up with reform orthodoxy and weren't baptised as adults? I've been infant baptised, sprinkled as an adult and immersed as an adult and the immersion was superior. I was sprinkled because I forgot about my infant baptism when asked during the new member process which highlights my assertion that infant baptism is meaningless to the one baptized. Why waste a perfectly good sacrament on those unable to appreciate it? And why hold the eligible back from communion until schooled as is done in reform circles? It wasn't til I started to look at the pro paedo bap arguments and realized how weak they are that I had to reassess. But having grown up with it, I had always accepted the household baptism argument. Every argument I've encountered falls apart everytime I read the whole passage that's referenced from the covenant promise, to "suffer the children to come unto me" and household baptisms. Paedobap arguments seem to be based on a priori thinking. If you accept infant baptism, then the arguments seem to support but a fresh look points to credobaptism. The historical and household arguments sound like this, "We baptize infants therefore infants were probably baptized in the early church. Historical documents 'point' to it (ha!) and whole households were baptized so they must have included infants (eventhough we aren't sure there were infants and even if they were, Cornelius, Acts 8 and the jailer clarify that the baptized folks were believers, which normally excludes most infants). And one wonders so what does infant baptism do that's so impt? Answer: it includes children in the church and keeps the continuity of the old and new covenants. Those two issues are in fact unaffected either way by paedo or credo baptism. So why is it an issue? Acts 8 says only adults were baptized to clarify further. So people like Mean Gene and me conclude that scripture is being spun or twisted but we don't know why. So your list of great theologians indicates that great men wouldn't spin/twist scripture. My response: no they wouldn't but they must be wrong on this one cuz no one's 100% right about everything and the reason we always have to go back to scripture. Spurgeon is only one great theologian on the other side. I could list more. So what's the harm in infant baptism? Lots but I'll save that for later but one need look no further than Roman Catholicism. - cdl |
|
| Addressing one comment at a time: "I've been infant baptised, sprinkled as an adult and immersed as an adult and the immersion was superior. I was sprinkled because I forgot about my infant baptism when asked during the new member process which highlights my assertion that infant baptism is meaningless to the one baptized. Why waste a perfectly good sacrament on those unable to appreciate it?" -- You could say the same thing about circumcision, but God commanded for infants to be circumcised in Genesis 17. If circumcision replaced baptism, as I addressed in Parts 6 and 7 of this series, then we should baptize infants now unless we had been explicitly told not to in Scripture. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| CDL also said, "And why hold the eligible back from communion until schooled as is done in reform circles? " -- I'm going to refrain from answering this question for two reasons: 1) I don't feel qualified enough to answer it; and 2) I want to take time to study it properly and do another series on communion. I figure maybe I could just go through all the sacraments since baptism sparked such a strong response among readers. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I mentioned the Acts 8 reference to baptism above, in this post, under the Objection #1 heading. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Paul doesn't forbid baptizing the dead either eventhough he shows that it was in practice. Nothing shows that infants were being baptized so why would he forbid it? And, you are arguing that infants should be baptized which means you are saying that scripture commands it. How can the argument that infant baptism isn't forbidden get construed to mean it is commanded? (oops I hope construed is an ok word; good thing I didn't say misconstrued) That's why Acts 8 is impt. Household baptism is used to infer that infants were baptised eventhough it's clarified that it was the believers in the household that were baptized. Acts 8 says that Philip baptized an entire town and it was the men and women. Not a command but clarification and I don't understand how paedobaptizers ignore it. Paul puts circ to bed in Galatians 5,6 and Colossians 2. Those sections are perfect opportunities to introduce infant baptism but scripture is silent. Lord's Supper on the other hand is very clear in NT. Why is scripture not more specific about the only other sacrament, baptism, if infant baptism were intended? Makes no sense. I stand on much more solid ground than you do Matt. And, you gain nothing with infant baptism whereas many in history including St Augustine say that infant baptism saves as do Catholics and others to this day. I will stand on what does the Bible clearly say and not stray from it. That is enough for me. You get the last word cuz it's your blog. Thanks for offering this forum. - cdl |
|
| Btw I'm looking forward to your study of the Lord's Supper, the only one of the two sacraments that is attached to the covenant in scripture. Thanks again. - cdl |
|
| one more btw on Lord's Supper, all in OT celebrated passover. Shouldn't non-believers be admitted to the Lord's table then? - cdl |
|
| and since the last word hasn't been posted yet:
it's not the great theologians that we need to scrutinize; it's their arguments that have to pass critical review. It's their arguments that I don't think hold enough water to baptize an ant or an inf-ant. - cdl |
|
| and using the twist or spin terms certainly isn't as bad as the Calvin quote at the top of this page which one wonders is worse the quoted or the quoter? - cdl |
|
| the webmaster's use of debunk is non to cool either meaning to expose the sham or falseness of but I wouldn't want to imply hypocrisy or false teaching since it would be used as a weak argument against credobaptism. - cdl |
|
| Again, I would like to pass on all Lord's Supper related questions until I've done further study. To answer now would be mostly opinion with very little Scripture to back it up. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| The Calvin quote was used for humor. Sorry, if that didn't come across. Remember, though, that he lived in a different time and had to flee France because his life was in danger because of his theological views. Not trying to justify his actions or writings, but in similar circumstances I might not have come across so nice. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| From dictionary.com: twist -to distort the meaning or form of; pervert...spin - to cause to have a particular bias; influence in a certain direction...Okay, so I might have been too hard on the term "spin" but "twist" I still don't like. Using your definition of "debunk", though, I stand behind. I was trying to "expose the falseness of" the credobaptist view. I just want it understood that there are godly people on both sides of this debate and while it is important, it is not an "essential." I don't want people to think though that there are devious motivations behind these beliefs. It is, in most cases, an honest disagreement on the interpretation of Biblical texts. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| debunk without the sham implications is okay I guess and so is twist (distort the meaning or form) for ex "Make disciples...baptizing them [and their babies] in the name..." - cdl |
|
| Thanks for your interest and questions though. Please stay tuned and I'll try to start a series on communion within the next couple of months. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Editors Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D. and Dr. Warren Baker, D.R.E. explain it all in the footnotes to The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible. See 1 Pt 3:20-21, which also refers to Mk 16:16. I can't do their two-page footnote justice here, but they show that understanding the verb tenses in the original Greek used by the writer clarifies things. "[Mk 16:16 "has been baptised" is an aorist participle in the passive voice] refers to an act performed on the one who had already believed and which was exercised by someone else other than himself....That baptism is consequent to salvation is clear by the order of the two words not only in Mark, but all throughout the Scriptures [Acts 2:38 and 10:48]. In Matt 28:19, teaching precedes baptism. In Acts 22:16, baptism was enjoined upon ascertaining living faith in Christ..."
and they go on. In case you intend to undermine their doctrine by questioning their backgrounds, check them out. Both are associated with a publisher and ministry AMG International "Advancing the Ministries of the Gospel." Maybe there is some dirt out there that I don't know.
- cdl |
|
| Again I believe I answered these questions under Objection #1 above. Nobody is denying that in these examples faith preceded baptism. I just do not believe that that must always be the case. In OT Israel when a proselyte was accepted into the Jewish community they were circumcised. In these cases faith preceded them being circumcised. However, to Jewish babies who were circumcised as infants according to Genesis 17, circumcision preceded faith. Therefore, if baptism is the new sign of the covenant, then it would only make sense that now there would be baptisms that preceded faith and, also, baptisms that were preceded by faith. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| In other words, when a baby is born into a covenant family, they should receive the sign of the covenant, baptism, as an infant. However, when a non-Christian converted and becomes a believer, they should then be baptized. In Acts, the Great Commission is being carried out for the first time by the disciples and they see tremendous growth as more and more people become Christians. The focus of Acts, then, is on evangelism of the early church and new believers. It only makes sense, then, that there would be many accounts of baptisms which were preceded by faith in Acts. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| CDL, I believe you're missing the crux of the debate. To me,the question of paedobaptism hinges on whether baptism is the sign of the covenant. If it is not, then there would absolutely be no need or Scriptural command to baptize babies. However, since I believe baptism is the sign of the covenant, then I feel Christians must follow in obedience to God by baptizing their children at an early age. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I'm not missing it at all. 1. Circ, not baptism, is the sign of the covenant (GEN 17). 2. There is no command by God to baptize prior to a confession of faith. - cdl |
|
| So you believe circumcision is still the sign of the covenant? - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Because Acts 15 and the second and sixth chapter of Galatians makes it clear we no longer need to be circumcised. Yet, in Genesis 17, God tells Abraham the covenant between them is eternal. It seems then we would still be under this covenant but that circumcision is no longer the sign. The mystery is cleared up in Colossians 2:11,12 when Paul describes baptism as the new sign of covenant. I've discussed this all at length in Parts 6 and 7 though. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Exactly, we no longer need circumcision, and the covenant is eternal, Forest...even without water baptism of any sort. Col 2 is an awesome passage. But no way that Paul describes baptism as the new sign of the covenant and to say so, sorry, is a distortion. The word covenant is not even found in that entire book. It shows that circumcision for those in B.C. era points to Christ putting the flesh to death on the cross. Baptism does indeed take over from there for we in the A.D. era to point backward to Christ's death, burial and resurrection. However, Christ put to death the flesh of all, including babes (God so loved the world (cosmos); John 3:16) as symbolized by circ, but only believers (the elect) participate through faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection. The covenant as I've said is God's promise that those who BELIEVE will be children of Abraham. The closest the words covenant and baptism ever get to each other is between Gal 3:17 and 3:25 but then 3:27 says, "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." Practicing paedobaptism therefore must be based on the belief that baptism saves infants because the baptized have clothed themselves with Christ. But, how does even a one year old "clothe himself"? That of course would be very roman and false, but that's where your doctrine ends up. Col 2:12 "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through FAITH in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." These cannot be applied to an infant!!! Seems so clear to me but starting with the covenant leads to confusion and pretty soon you aren't looking at Christ and what He has done. It doesn't say, "come to me all who are brainy and can understand it and the gnostics will be provided to explain it to the simple minded" I'll take the KISS principle, Ocum's Razor and Einstein's simplicity over that anyday ("if you can't explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it [or it's false]). Paedobaptism adds no meaning. And credobaptism takes away nothing from Biblical teaching. - cdl |
|
| Spurgeon:
We are "born again," a new and incorruptible seed is placed within us which "liveth and abideth for ever." The name of Christ is named upon us: we are no longer called sinners and unjust, but we become the children of God by faith which is in Christ Jesus.
Note further that the nature of this consecration was set forth to Abraham by the rite of circumcision. It would not be at all fitting or decorous for us to enter into any detail as to that mysterious rite, but it will suffice to say that the rite of circumcision signified the taking away of the filthiness of the flesh. We have the apostle Paul's own interpretation of circumcision in the verses which we read just now in his epistle to the Colossians. Circumcision indicated to the seed of Abraham that there was a defilement of the flesh in man which must for ever be taken away, or man would remain impure, and out of covenant with God. Now, beloved, there must be, in order to our sanctification to Christ, a giving up, a painful relinquishing of things as dear to us as right eyes and right hands. There must be a denying of the flesh with its affections and lusts. We must mortify our members. There must be self-denial if we are to enter upon the service of God. The Holy Spirit must pass sentence of death and cutting away upon the passions and tendencies of corrupt humanity. Much must perish which nature would cherish, but die it must, because grace abhors it.
Notice, with regard to circumcision, that it was peremptorily ordained that it should be practised on every male of the race of Abraham, and if it were neglected, death followed. So the giving up of sin, the giving up of the body of the filth of the flesh is necessary to every believer. Without holiness no man shall see the Lord. Even the babe in Christ is as much to see death written upon the body of the filth of the flesh as a man who, like Abraham, has reached advanced years and come to maturity in spiritual things. There is not distinction here between the one and the other. "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord;" and where a supposed grace does not take away from us a love of sin, it is not the grace of God at all, but the presumptuous conceit of our own vain natures.
It is often said that the ordinance of baptism is analagous to the ordinance of circumcision. I will not controvert that point, although the statement may be questioned. But supposing it to be, let me urge upon every believer here to see to it that in his own soul he realises the spiritual meaning both of circumcision and baptism, and then consider the outward rites; for the thing signified is vastly more important than the sign. Baptism sets forth far more than circumcision. Circumcision is putting away of the filth of the flesh, but baptism is the burial of the flesh altogether. Baptism does not say, "Here is something to be taken away," but everything is dead, and must be buried with Christ in his tomb, and the man must rise anew with Christ. Baptism teaches us that by death we pass into the new life. As Noah's ark, passing through the death of the old world, emerged into a new world, even so, by a like figure, baptism sets forth our salvation by the resurrection of Christ: a baptism of which Peter says, it is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." In baptism, the man avows to himself and others that he comes by death into newness of life, according to the words of the Holy Spirit, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The most valuable point is the spiritual meaning, and on that we experience what it is to be dead to the world, to be dead and buried with Christ, and then to be risen with him. Still, brethren, Abraham was not allowed to say, "If I get the spiritual meaning, I can do without the outward rite." He might have objected to that rite on a thousand grounds a great deal more strong than any which the hesitating have urged against baptism, but he first accepted the rite, as well as the thing which it intended, and straightway was circumcised; and so I exhort you, men and brethren, to be obedient to the precept upon baptism, as well as attentive to the truth which it signifies. If you be indeed buried with Christ, and risen with him, despise not the outward and instructive sign by which this is set forth. "Well," saith one, "a difficulty suggests itself as to your views," for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, "that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptise all our children." Now, observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture. In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised; you draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptised, and I do not cavil at the conclusion; but I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? Paul answers in Romans ix. 8, "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham's seed. Whether eight days old in grace, or more or less, every one of Abraham's seed has a right to baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by his grace, but as yet they are "heirs of wrath, even as others." At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham's believing seed, but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the believer; and the believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to avow that fact, by his public baptism in water, according to the Saviour's own precept and example. "Thus," said Christ, "it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," as he went down to the river Jordan. At the Jordan was he sprinkled? Why go down to a river to be sprinkled? Why went he down into the water to be sprinkled? "Us." Did he mean babes? Was he a babe? Was not he, when he said "us," speaking of the faithful who are in him? "And thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness," that is, all his saints. But how does baptism fulfil all righteousness? Typically thus:—It is the picture of the whole work of Christ. There is his immersion in suffering; his death and burial; his coming up out of the water represents his resurrection; his coming up the banks of Jordan represents his ascension. It is a typical representation of how he fulfilled all righteousness, and how the saints fulfilled it in him. But, brethren, I did not intend to go so far into the outward sign, because my soul's deepest desire is this, that like as Abraham by the outward sign was taught that there was a putting away of the filth of flesh, which must be, or death must follow, so are we taught by baptism that there is an actual death to the world, and a resurrection with Christ, which must be to every believer, however old or however young, or he hath not part or lot in the matter of consecration to God, or, indeed, in salvation itself. - cdl |
|
| so we don't have to replace circ with baptism because OT and NT circ of the flesh is replaced with circ of the heart - cdl |
|
| that last entry isn't all that relevant. Back to Col 2:11-12. Christ does the circumcising and no time is assigned as he wipes it away with the rest of the requirements of the law and obviates the Gen 17 consequence of death for the uncircumcised. Faith in God who raised Jesus is the requirement (which involves "confessing with your mouth;" can you translate baby talk?). But baptism must happen after believing (see previous post re: aorist participle, etc); the conclusion is glorious as in everything else Christ satisfies the requirements for us. If you want you may consider an infant circumcised without human hands. Maybe only if he's elect, but I won't quibble about that, because the elect will eventually believe, repent, confess be baptized (by the LORD) and perhaps be baptized in water, too. - cdl |
|
| I posted this in part 7 cuz I couldn't get part 8 to accept this so you might want to delete this from part 7 now.
And in conclusion (I hope) it would be hard to be obedient to an unwritten command based on the assertion that "God didn't say you shouldn't baptize infants." Btw, NT connects baptism to Noah and Moses but not Abraham. Interesting, huh? THis has been a good discussion for me. It's really helped me put the last nail in the paedobaptism position in my own mind, that is. Believe what you want to. You have a couple good points based around Gen 17, but scripture doesn't make the connection. You do. NT clarifies that you are wrong. If you were right that infant baptism is so important (a command even), the NT would provide the confirmation, but it doesn't. Not to worry in the upper room, the LORD says, "Take, drink. This is the blood of My new covenant." - cdl |
|
| upon further review, ACTS 8 was never answered just because you mentioned it in obj 1. ACTS 8 says Philip baptized men and women not everybody in town. Then James and John went there to check it out. They didn't say "oops you forgot to baptize the kids." they said, "oops they didn't get the Holy Spirit part. Let's lay hands on them so that they do." - cdl |
|
| Matt, based on discussion here, no matter (1) what verses you lift out while disregarding the rest of the text, or (2) words you insert into a verse without other scripture to justify the insertion, or (3) concepts you incorrectly associate such as circ and baptism without a clear connection in scripture, and since we cannot connect circ with infant baptism via (4) history, (5) reputations of great and/or respected theologians, by (6) overreaching with a term or passage such as "household baptisms" or (7) Colossians 2:11-12, or by (8) basing the eternal covenant on a human action, and since (9) the NT shows that baptism requires faith (an act not normally attributed to the limited mental capacity and verbal skills of the vast majority of infants), it all boils down to (10)Galatians. I see why you get stung by certain word usage. Paul does it, too. Chapter 1 "...there are some who trouble you and want to pervert [twist, spin, distort] the gospel of Christ..If [any]...preach any other gospel...let him be accursed. [Circumsion (or a surrogate such as infant baptism which is incapable of being faith based) like other works of the law [is] under the curse even if done by a parent on behalf of an infant.]" Chap 3 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us...through faith." Chap 6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision [nor infant baptism] avails anything, but a new creation." I do some inserting above, too, but not in a way that contradicts scripture. Even sacramental baptism avails nothing because the new creation is based on Christ's baptism of the believer (in faith) and not on a symbolic act. But, of course, believers baptism is clearly commanded while infant baptism is only inferred by "those who seemed to be something." Gal 2:6. I suggest that you read this entire book (Galatians) and other scripture in similar fashion as the Berean Christians rather than defaulting to a stance based upon the works of the so called great theologians. If we base doctrine upon extrapolations of scripture rather than the Word itself, we open the door to unbiblical dogma and risk the danger of being led away rather than closer to the Christ. - cdl |
|
| "Not trying to justify [Calvin's] actions or writings, but in similar circumstances I might not have come across so nice. - Matthew Cochrane" can't wait to see Officer Cochrane and his tazer on youtube - cdl |
|
| So, Matt, let me get this right, what you are saying, since in your opinion can be used to globally replace in Gen 17:14 and includes based on Colossians 2: 11-12, therefore the unbaptised infant will be cut off from his people, ie his family, and his family's church or any church? Gen 17:14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." - cdl |
|
| oops html doesn't like angle brackets so I'll use regular brackets. So, Matt, let me get this right, what you are saying, since [baptised] in your opinion can be used to globally replace [circumcised] in Gen 17:14 and includes [infant baptized] based on Colossians 2: 11-12, therefore the unbaptised infant will be cut off from his people, ie his family, and his family's church or any church? Gen 17:14 "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." - cdl |
|
| Colossians 2:11-12 the only passage that associates circumcision and baptism is more easily read by reversing the two verses by reading vs 12 and then vs 11. This does not change the meaning. It just makes it easier to read. This passage says that the baptism done by Christ's action (not the water baptism which is the symbolic action) by its very nature of removing the flesh by burial includes removing the flesh of the heart (circumcision of the heart). The physical removal of the foreskin being symbolic in nature is no longer consequential. Col 2:13-14 says that "Christ...canceled the written code...nailing it to the cross." If the written code is only Mosaic Law, see John 7:22. Jesus referring to removal of the foreskin says, "Moses...gave unto you circumcision." Jesus doesn't refer to Abraham in relation to circumcision. Paul does that in Romans to show that Abraham's faith is impt not the status of his foreskin. See Lev 12:3 for removal of foreskin, but elsewhere Moses refers to circumcision of the heart the main point of it all. Back to Colossians. Christ canceled circumcision when he canceled the written code which I've shown includes foreskin removal. Baptism by Christ (believers not infants are baptized by Christ) accomplishes circumcision. Nothing, once again, says that something like circumcision needs to be performed in place of it such as baptism. Sorry for repeating, but elsewhere in numerous places including Galatians, Paul emphasizes the end of circumcision without replacing it with a like act to perform on infants. The new creation is the focus and not a ritual such as infant baptism or removal of a foreskin on the 8th day. So the 1st century reader would have heard, circumcision is not required. The focus is baptism into Christ. An infant cannot be baptised into Christ. Similar to baptism into Moses (Hebrews reference?), one perhaps may baptize an infant into his parents beliefs, local church and/or denomination I suppose. If that is what you are doing, I guess that is okay since Paul doesn't forbid it, but forbidding of rebaptism, which you condone, would be wrong because the NT is quite clear that water baptism is associated with baptism into Christ which is by faith and therefore believer's baptism. Since an infant baptism into a denomination can't possibly be into Christ, see Acts 19 for an instance of rebaptism. Also, I think it is confusing to have more than one type of baptism in a church as we do now with infant and believers baptism co-existing in some churches or infant and rebaptism/believers baptism. So I think it should be only believers which sometimes requires rebaptism. This is consistent with "there is one baptism," ie the baptism of Christ. Moses was nearly put to death for failing to circumcise his son. No one in the NT is cursed or condemned or threatened for not baptizing an infant. If it was God's command/desire, it would have been made clear at least a couple times. Colossians doesn't make it clear. The Apostles creed doesn't mention it. THe Nicene creed mentions it as one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. They may have improperly applied it to infants but we (including you Matt) connect one baptism and forgiveness to believers baptism only. The radical reformers (anabaptists) did away with infant baptism. The non-radical reformers (Calvin, et al) retained it and did not separate church and state but correctly discontinued many other pagan and incorrect practices. So we don't have to obey the Gen 17 command to circumcise our children and there is no need to replace circumcision with another ritual. We have added to the reforms by instituting separation of church and state and amending the Westminster Confession of Faith (CoF)accordingly. On baptism of infants, the CoF says, "6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time." Boy, is that confusing. Jesus blessed children by laying hands on them. The elemental teachings of Christ in Hebrews 6 includes laying on of hands. We can only pray that the CoF will be amended again in order to clarify that water baptism is intended for an limited to believers. - cdl |
|
| Another passage that shows connection of circ to Moses. To baptize infants if it "replaces" is to bring back Moses and Mosaic Law, the abolishment of which is what led to Paul's martyrdom. Circ isn't replaced; it is abolished. Acts 21:18 And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. Act 21:20 And when they heard [it], they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise [their] children, neither to walk after the customs.
- cdl |
|
| Well, CDL, that apparently is where we differ. I do not believe that the law has been abolished. "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17,18). I would also recommend Romans 6 and 7 for more on the continuity of the law. BTW, I covered all of the verses you mentioned above in previous posts. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Anyone else care to weigh in on this discussion?
- cdl |
|
| no takers; I ain't got all day. antinomianism - no moral law. If you want to keep the law, as the NT says, you are guilty of it all. But, Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. And, Rom 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter. See: http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_a-b.htm#_1_7 for definition. Jesus fulfilled the law, just as it says in the Colossians passage I referred you to. He canceled the written code because we can't and we can't get to heaven by good works either. But now you've thrown out enough red herrings to keep you from responding to my points such as Acts 8. As I said in another section, you have no counterpoints. I'm not just throwing verses out, such as you. I'm talking about verses. There is a difference. Joshua 5 is pretty cool, btw. God does a reboot. No circumisions or 40 years. They cross the Jordan, get circumcised and can celebrate passover again. He could have insisted on circumcision anytime before that. Foreskins don't matter. It's all about the heart. And babies don't get their hearts circumcised. Believers do. There isn't a definite statement that connects circ to infant baptism. You can't build a doctrine on conjecture (unless you are trying to distort the gospel). ANd, btw, legalism is not a gospel. Paul said I wish they would mutilate themselves. To paedobaptizers he might have said I wish they would drown themselves. - cdl |
|
| Horton: "R.C. Sproul observed that to the degree that people think they are good enough to pass divine inspection, and are oblivious to the holiness of God, to that extent they will not see Christ as necessary." Maybe what you meant to say rather than the continuity of the law was the continuity of the holiness of God. I will admit that the law is important in agreement with Paul in that it points out to us that we are incapable of fulfilling it and it therefore points us to Christ who has indeed abolished it. - cdl |
|
| Since none have answered the Acts 8 question, I went elsewhere for an answer -- asst prof at Westminster Seminary says: "There's no conspiracy to deal with Acts 8. I would read it in the light of Acts 2:39. As I understand biblical practice from Abraham through the Apostolic age, the administration of the covenant of grace ordinarily involved households, which usually involved children or at least did not exclude them. FWIW, because the sign of initiation into the covenant community is not the same as covenant renewal I don't have a great problem with the idea that slaves etc were baptized as part of households just as infants. In other words, I understand that instruction followed baptism and preceded admission to the Supper. In either case, the baptist scenario doesn't work." So he lifts and misinterprets Acts 2:39. He implies some special knowledge. Makes an assumption that household includes infants even though those events are clarified to involve those who believed. He makes it sound like someone would be excluded from a community if not infant baptized. He acknowledges that believers in such a system would be excluded from the Lord's Table until instructed. All this despite Acts 8 says "they baptized men and women." He's blind to what scripture says. I refuse to put myself in such an unsupportable position but more power to those that will. - cdl |
|
| I hesitate before entering this conversation again, but here it goes..."He makes it sound like someone would be excluded from a community if not infant baptized." But that is exactly what would happen as I've addressed in the posts. Infants, whether you like it or not, were included in the covenant in the OT. For you to say that they are now not included anymore would mean that an entire group of people included in the old covenant would now be excluded in the new. This makes no sense as in every other possible way the new covenant is more inclusive. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| CDL, As for Acts 8, as I have said in the past numerous times (in comments and the original posts)- the emphasis in Acts, especially in the passages you've mentioned, is evangelism. When a new believer comes to Christ, I and every other traditional paedobaptist, believe that they should be baptized. New believers should be baptized (I'm saying it again for clarity). The passage does not address whether infants were baptized or not. The use of the word "household" though certainly implies that infants were possibly baptized, though neither you nor I nor anybody else can really say for certain. Even John Piper, as strong a credobaptist as anybody, cedes this point. Again you're missing the crux of the argument. Even if babies were not baptized in Acts (though you certainly could never prove that position) that still would not be reason enough to solely support a credobaptist view. Acts is a historical narrative of the early church and it is risky to take theological truths from such a book without backing it up instruction from an epistle or accompanying instruction in other parts of Scripture. This is what you seem to be doing. And you're trying to vainly support an interpretation of the texts in Acts that even other credobaptists don't hold to. If you want a better explanation of these passages try Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof though. They explain it much more in depth. I know you don't like it when other people tell you to read stuff but I simply do not have the time to explain it in that much depth. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Circumcision, passover, baptism and Lord's supper. All 4 are made pretty clear in scripture. How is it that to understand baptism one has to read stuff that takes too much time to explain? Surely baptism is impt enough for the Holy Spirit to include a simple clarifying statement in Galatians or Colossians to confirm the position you support. The lack of such is more damaging to your position than mine. - cdl |
|
| I did explain it. In my posts and in my comments - seemingly over and over again. However, in case you wanted something more in depth I recommended some good resources for you to read more. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| And you accuse me of red herrings??? You just coupled the Lord's Supper and the Passover with circumcision and baptism even though the former two have nothing to do with the conversation. Sheesh. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Despite the lack of substance and surplus attitude of superiority here, I'll clarify a little more. "Circumcision and baptism..have nothing to do" with each other either. The old covenant (see Jeremiah's new covenant and Hebrews 8) is obsolete so it can't be used for a basis. The new covenant is based on faith and Christ's blood. The logical extension of your insistence that babies be baptized to be included in the covenant, means that if they aren't, they need to be excluded from church related activities. Credobaptists don't exclude anybody. Infants are accepted into the church family as is (based on their parents faith). You may baptize clueless infants if you want, but by doing so, your doctrine requires you to also exclude them upon believing and understanding from believers baptism. Furthermore, paedobaptists exclude young believers from the Lord's Table and they exclude credobaptists from positions in the session and the diaconate. In summary, and by your own admission, Acts doesn't matter and therefore history (though there's nothing there either) doesn't matter. Though I hate to sound like you, you've based it all on a misunderstanding of Gen 17 and to maintain it you ignore the numerous clarifications found in the New Testament. Jesus, according to John the Baptist baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Infants can't be so their baptism remains undefined biblically. - cdl |
|
| Holding off on baptisms until a person beliefs doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand what can baptizing a baby possibly hurt? Generally, it risks:
I. Detracting. II. Distracting. III. Misleading. IV. Setting bad precedents.
Specifically,
1. Already baptized believers are denied the experience and memory of believers baptism reducing its significance and value in spiritual warfare (the circumcised can see for themselves that they are; the infant baptized have to take your word for it)
2. It sets the stage for incorrect policy/doctrine. It makes you think you need someone such as the church to explain it (cuz it's not in scripture or at least not clearly there)
3. It isn't sola scriptura and causing reform theology to contradict itself.
4. Infant baptism comes from the covenant which comes from circumcision blah blah. In other words it distracts from Christ. Our church services should point to Christ not a labyrinth. Besides we are living in the new covenant (Jeremiah, Heb 8…)
5. Most parents baptizing infants throughout history thought their child was therefore saved such as Catholicism teaches. Let’s not confuse by mimicking their errors while continuing that which is scriptural such as communion.
6. Young believers in paedobaptist churches are denied access to the Lord's Table until completion of communicants class again a distraction.
7. Though a charming ceremony, it doesn't gain anything or prove anything so why bother? Circumcision united the Jews with Abraham and each other. Infant baptism doesn't parallel that cuz the infant's not a believer. If it really meant something you'd have to deny the non baptized children access to church, Sunday school...They'd have to be cut off such as the uncircumcised were in the OT (except in Joshua 5).
8. It’s confusing and inconsistent cuz it's based on picking and choosing which part of old covenant applies during this new covenant. Col 2 says that Christ canceled the written code and Jesus says Moses gave them circumcision (therefore canceled).
9. It's based on a priori interpretation of NT verses setting a bad precedent on how not to read the Bible and distracts from the message originally intended by the writers of those verses
10 Based on the statement in Westminster CoF that infant baptism was "instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ" (it was?), members in good standing in paedobaptist churches who disagree with baptizing a baby are excluded from positions of leadership. It would be more honest to exclude credobaptists from joining altogether. - cdl |
|
| But after all is said, in the words of John Milton, "No man, no synod, no session of men, though called the church, can judge definitively the sense of scripture to another man's conscience, which is well known to be a general maxim of the Protestant religion, it follows plainly that he who holds in religion that belief or those opinions which to his conscience and utmost understanding appear with most evidence of probability in the scripture, though to others he seem erroneous, can no more be justly censured for a heretic than his censurers, who do but the same thing themselves, while they censure him for so doing." - cdl |
|
| "Holding off on baptisms until a person beliefs doesn't hurt anything. On the other hand what can baptizing a baby possibly hurt?" - Unless of course by not baptizing infants we're disobeying God. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| 11. Implies that God leaves us guessing regarding what disobedience is. - cdl |
|
| Hebrews 8:6,7,13; 9:10 "But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to [the OT priests] as the covenant of which he i mediator is superior to the old one,and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete. They are only a matter of...external regulations applying until the time of the new order." Revelation improves throughout the Bible and shows that earlier symbols were mere earthly shadows of heavenly realiities. The LORD's Supper has the advantage of passover symbolism (btw, infants were passed over during it's first occasion in Egypt) but The Supper now greatly enhances the image of intimacy in Christ and His fellowship (and excludes infants). Baptism according to Col includes the circumcision symbology but is a better symbol and Paul does away with circumcision which was 99.9% for infants without imposing baptism on infants. He doesn't exclude infants, but in every way he and other NT has put the old away. Paedobaptists use their doctrine to keep the focus on the old covenant. What a pity when we have the opportunity to focus on the new (and symbolism of the old for teaching purposes. - cdl |
|
| 12. Implies that God arbitrarily commands us to do meaningless ritualistic things. - cdl |
|
| This post doesn't make much sense to me. "Acutally the replacement is clearly shown in Colossians 2:11-12, every theologian from Augustine to Calvin to Luther to the Puritans maintain that that is exactly what that passage means. As far as the gender shift, what do you think Paul is talking about in Galatians 3? Clearly he is establishing the new boundaries of the covenant! Whereas the Hebrews were the chosen people of God in the Old Testament, God greatly expands the boundaries of the called in the New Testament. Those boundaries in every way are more inclusive yet you injsist that in this one area God suddenly and inexplicably became more exclusive! - Russ" 1. Replacement isn't clearly shown. It's only "clearly pro paedobaptism" if you are biased that way. Read it a few times for what it means. 2. "Every theologian..." But what did they say and why did they say what they said? That's the question. Besides, there were credobaptists approx peers of Augustine and later. Calvin executed a few of them during his lifetime. 3. Gal 3:28c-29 "For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise" Paul's explaining Gen 17's promise which paedobaptists try to use as justification for baptizing infants. Gal 3:17 the Law (i.e., circumcision is from Moses -- Jesus) doesn't invalidate the promise. vs 22 "The scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe...." vs 23 "we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed..." vs 25 "we are no longer under a tutor." vs 26 "you are all sons of God through faith" vs 27 "all who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." Inclusive, exclusive is all inferred by you and doesn't mean much imho. Whatever it is God is saying you have to believe first to have a valid baptism. We don't need tutorials such as circumcision any more. NT clearly does away with circumcision without explicitly replacing it with anything but then explicitly institutes baptizing believers. Baptizing infants doesn't tutor/teach anything anyway. If you claim that it teaches that the baptized infant is included under the covenant, that would be confusing for one since the promise of the covenant is for believers. For another it means that unbaptized children should be denied access to church activities (don't know anyone that does that). The whole point of Christ's death/resurrection is that we are raised also by faith. Credobaptism maintains that focus without dilution or confusion and churches that practice it tend to keep that point at the fore. Focusing on infant baptism is to revert to less clarity such as OT Israel had. But, unlike Israel, have a choice. I choose credobaptism. - cdl |
|
| another thing about dining couches; they were a Roman custom and for the well to do; and they weren't pieces of upholstered furniture such as we have today. They were large, heavy solid stone "benches" with cushions or mattresses on top. Probably not in use by many Jews but if they were immersing or washing the bench or cushion, it would have been to make a big show of how dedicated a person was. Immersing a mattress would be a pretty good show. "He's so committed to the law that he even immerses his mattress." But still not much to bolster the position that baptize doesn't mean immerse even for a box spring baptist. - cdl |
|
| even sproul says in his commentary in Geneva Bible on Mk 7: that "His cross will finally bring the ceremonial law to an end." - cdl |
|
| "Calvin executed a few of them during his lifetime." I'm only aware of Servetus. Were there others? Of course, the reason Servetus was executed had nothing to do with his view on baptism - there were much larger beliefs at stake. When you say things like this though you are taking these events out of historical context - which I suspect you know. Of course Calvin's part in his execution was wrong, but he did not order the executuion (Calvin was a church official not a government official). Calvin was by no means a perfect man and like the rest of us was largely a product of the time and culture he lived in. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| "Replacement isn't clearly shown. It's only "clearly pro paedobaptism" if you are biased that way. Read it a few times for what it means." - This isn't an argument. This is just like if I said the text is only credobaptist if one is biased that way. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Calvin held civic power in Geneva regardless of title. See wikipedia. Servetus because he was non trinitarian and credobaptist.
apparent injustices committed by Calvin:
March 1537: Anabaptists were banished mainly for their rejection of of infant baptism.
February 1545: "Freckles" Dunant died under torture without admitting to the crime of allegedly having spread a plague. His body was later dragged to the middle of town and burned.
1545: Two women were executed by burning at the stake for allegedly spreading a plague by sorcery. The Council urged the executioner to "be more diligent in cutting off the hands of malefactors." Some accused persons who were arrested for allegedly being sorcerers committed suicide in their cells to avoid torture. Afterwards the rest of them were handcuffed but one woman then threw herself through a window.
May 16, 1545: The last execution concerning the plague outbreak brought the total dead to 7 men and 24 women. A letter from Calvin attests to 15 of these women being burned at the stake.
April 1546: Ami Perrin put on trial for refusing to testify against several friends who were guilty of having danced. She was incarcerated for refusal to testify.
November 22, 1546: Calvin drew up a list of names inappropriate for baptism (i.e. inappropriate for naming children) and insisted that only names from the Bible be used.
Thursday: June 23, 1547: Several women tried for having danced, this time including Ami Perrin.
1568: An alleged sorcerer admitted his guilt under the torture of having his feet burned. He later recanted his admission but was banished forever from Geneva. - cdl |
|
| I didn't say it is an argument. I said to read it. Just as you should read your blog. Russ said it shows replacement. I say it doesn't. I didn't say it proves credobaptism. Plenty of other scripture proves credobaptism as well as disproves paedobaptism. Calvin, an expert on scripture, certainly may be held to some standard. Paul, Peter, etc never did anything like Calvin did. You ignore anthropological evidence from The Didache for less grievous errors. Granted, Calvin has much good writing but not regarding prerequisites and modes of baptism. I like the way you nibble at the edges though since you have no basis to support your doctrine. - cdl |
|
| I guess facilitating the death of one anti paedobaptist is ok. - cdl |
|
| So when I said, "Of course Calvin's part in his execution was wrong" - you heard "I guess facilitating the death of one anti paedobaptist is ok." How many ways do you want me to say this? Just like every other person besides Jesus who ever walked this earth Calvin was imperfect and sinned. His part in the Servetus episode was wrong. Calvin had many followers and as a result wielded great influence in Geneva but he was not the one who ordered the execution. I have not read Wikipedia's entry on Calvin but have read a few biographies and plan on reading more. He was a fascinating man who we can learn a lot from despite his obvious faults. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| ok I guess we're even on that score (misreading); what's a good bio on Calvin? -- library has nothing - cdl |
|
| Spurgeon btw seems to be squeaky clean - cdl |
|
| http://www.theopedia.com/New_Covenant_Theology
interesting link; I can identify with these theologians since I can no longer sync up with all of Calvin esp Covenant Theology and definitely not dispensationalism; not really into all the millenial stuff since I figure God'll sort it out; I agree with the "Law of Christ" idea but NCTs may be over analyzing. - cdl |
|
| Hmmm...I'll have to check out the new covenant theology more when I get a chance. I'm definitely not a dispensationalist guy (shocker) and think I line up pretty well with the traditional/orthodox covenant theology. My church is actually starting a Wednesday night fall Bible study on covenant theology from which I hope to learn a great deal. Good bios on Calvin? Robert Reymond's "John Calvin: His Life and Influence" is a great place to start if you're looking for something cheap and accessible on his life, but it doesn't interact all that much with his writings. Alister McGrath's "Life of John Calvin" is supposed to be excellent and much more thorough though it is more costly - in time and money. Haven't read that one yet but I've heard great things about it. Piper's "Legacy of Sovereign Joy" in his Swan series contains a bio of Calvin. Actually that's what I would probably go with first because it contains more than just Calvin's bio and will give you a lot of good material on Calvin. I think you can access that online too at Desiring God's website. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Spurgeon is classic. Absolutely love his writings and his sermons. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Matt, here's one of my more serious questions with wise cracks aside for a while. I'm thinking about this inclusive/exclusive thing. I see it back in part 7 but who originated that argument? I've heard it in PCA circles elsewhere. Quote from Part 7, "If infants were to be included in the economy of the church in the Old Testament (remember God explicitly commanded infants only eight days old to receive circumcision) then why would they not be included in the Christian church today unless there was a specific command to not do so. Of course, there is no such command. Furthermore, while there are clearly some differences that God has instituted in His covenant since the time of Abraham (changing the sign of the covenant from circumcision to baptism is just one of them), in every way these changes have made the covenant more inclusive. In fact, Christ commanded His disciples to “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” No such command was ever given to the Hebrews before the coming of Christ. To be sure, other people did come under God’s covenant during this time but there was nothing that resembled the emphasis placed on missions and evangelism that has characterized the church since Christ gave His “Great Commission.” Yet Baptists would have us believe that, in this one area, the new covenant is inexplicably more exclusive. This flies in the face of everything God has established in His covenant with His church." I don't think there was a church per se in the OT, but I will recognize that membership in the church universal includes all of history. All or most believers in OT were circumcised but not all circumcised were believers. Also, before Christ died the gospel accounts introduce us to gentile believers. I don't think we can rule out uncircumcised but believing Gentiles some or all of the Ninevites after Jonah preached there could be included. I can't speak for all credobaptists but this line of reasoning touches on what bothers me about paedobaptism. The paedobaptist I think is saying we have to include other than believers based on their circumcision, but include them in what? The church? No, church is made up of believers. Inclusive/exclusive sounds like political correctness. We PBs are better than you CBs cuz we're more inclusive. But, I know...you are saying that God is increasing in inclusivity not exclusiveness. But, it's still all about believing, abiding, obeying...I still go back to the Bible and can't find such reasoning and can't therefore use it as an argument in support of paedobaptism. It appears as one of those convoluted arguments. There isn't, nor need there be, any real repsonse from Baptists except, "So? Just because the gospel is more accessible to non-Jews, which is really good news, doesn't mean that babies need baptizing." One could also argue by asking, "Why is NT decreasing in clarity? OT clearly shows infant circumcision. NT should likewise clearly show infant baptism since revelation increases." I'm curious where that argument originates. Let me know if you have any additional info on it. Thanks. - cdl |
|
| Pretty good Piper sermon on this subject: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1999/1088_How_Do_Circumcision_and_Baptism_Correspond/ - cdl |
|
| I've known couples living together outside of marriage or never attend church who nonetheless had their baby baptized. I have never known of a pagan-living couple that had their baby dedicated. - A Berean |
|
| CDL, I'm not ignoring your question but its going to take me a while to get back on you about that. Deep question that requires a little research and thought. I don't want to shortchange it by answering off the cuff. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| OK MC. Thanks. - cdl |
|
| As far as New Covenant Theology I find it very interesting but in the end remain unconvinced. The links in the Theopedia entry to John Piper's take and Sam Waldron's criticisms were both enlightening too. Waldron and Piper are two of the theologians I really respect today. - MC |
|
| I just don't see how we can throw out the entire Mosaic Law. - MC |
|
| I think it's interesting that Piper doesn't fall into one of the three. I'm ok with his definition of Covenant Theology. I can't quite define where I am on the Law. There must be some law since in the new covenant it is written in our hearts. I think the key point is to be in a right relationship with Jesus. How does one live in total abandonment to Christ. Licentious living would be distracting from Christ but legalistic would too. I'm leary of systems cuz they ultimately get us focusing on systems of behavior and not on Christ. "Our faith is reckoned as righteousness." The two greatest commandments are helpful and sermon on the mount examples of adultery and murder show we can't satisfy the law and trying to would mean we'd all be eyeless and handless. But I guess I'll leave it to the theologians to worry about it. - cdl |
|
| Food for thought: circumcision of the foreskin is replaced by circumcision of the heart and ears not baptism. Peter after healing the crippled beggar with John in Acts 3 speaks to the onlookers and concludes in vs 23 "Anyone who does not listen to [Jesus] will be completely cut off from among his people." That echoes the Gen 17 "will be cut off." Stephen before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:51 says, "You stiff necked people, with uncircumcised heart and ears!" Hearts and ears are circumcised after (or during [Col 2:11-12])the baptism that is symbolized by water baptism. Peter at Cornelius's house in Acts 10:47, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit." He notes later in chapter 11 Jesus said, "John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Acts 11:14 Peter recounts the story of Cornelius who was told by an angel, "You and all your household will be saved." Infants aren't saved and don't receive the Holy Spirit. Believers do. Since circumcised hearts and ears replaces circumcised foreskins, believing is required prior to baptism in water. Paul concludes the book of Acts with Ps 119:70 "this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears." Then Paul says in Romans 11:8, while quoting Dt 29:4 and Is 29:10, "they could not hear" and he goes on in Rom 11:11, "salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious." God's revelation comes full circle. He shows Israel that salvation doesn't require circumcised foreskins but circumcised hearts and ears such as we gentiles experience. He made that point in the OT as well. Even if they don't get the point, we should. TO say that baptism replaces circumcision and that God commands baptism of infants undoes this example of unbelievable love that God has for his chosen people Israel and how we Gentiles are so fortunate to be part of his redemptive story of love. God has not called us to go back to an old testament model such as shown in Gen 17. This is the new covenant. The ultimate covenant. Acts 15:5 during the Council at Jerusalem, "Believers...of the Pharisees...said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." Peter makes it clear in the following verses that hearing, hearts and the Holy Spirit are the key, "it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved just as they are." It isn't necessary to do anything that would put GOd's people back under the Law of Moses or as Peter calls it "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear" Acts 15:10. Where does infant baptism come from? Perhaps similar Pharisee believers unable to impose circumcision on adult believers convinced the post Apostolic church to baptize their infants instead to reinstitute a testimony to the Law of Moses. - cdl |
|
| Col 2:11 NT shows that circumcision is meant to be (OT or NT) the putting off of the sinful nature...by Christ. Sinful nature is not removed during infant baptism. - cdl |
|
| interesting parallel (not a proof) btw that several NT references point out that Moses' law was brought by angels. Cornelius is told by an angel that "You and all your household will be saved," but it isn't by the law. Peter is the one who reveals to Cornelius that "Everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name." Hebrews points out that Jesus is superior to angels, as we all know. Also of interest, Hebrews shows that the Jews were baptized into Moses (20 yr olds and under didn't count since they were allowed to live after the spies false report). Peter in his epistles mentions that Noah and 7 others (all adults) were baptized in the ark. THere are no biblical references to infant baptism. - cdl |
|
| And, the Israelites who entered Canaan were circumcised then at much older ages. Some close to 60 years old. Showing again that circumcision of the heart is the key. Circumcision of the foreskin shows the continuity to Christ from His chosen people. Te circumcised of heart are within and alongside circumcised of foreskin some both circumcisions and some only of foreskin. Now the "seed" of faith is passed from heart to heart. Infants are not involved. - cdl |
|
| That's about it I guess. To summarize, I'm a credobaptist because Greek grammar shows believing comes before baptizing. We are in the New Covenant. Seal is purview of Holy Spirit not baptism. Baptism is not a sign unless you experience it (1 John 5). Infant baptism crept in perhaps from Pharisee believers or innocently enough but not for biblical reasons. I've yet to hear a plausible explanation of what infant baptism actually accomplishes or what value it adds and what the consequence of not doing it is (not even from great theologians/seminarians). Jesus canceled the mosaic code which includes circumcision. NT sets aside the shadowy OT tutorial. That leaves faith and therefore believers baptism. Uncircumcised believers are a sign to Jews that they are missing the point (infant baptism reverses that trend). Credobaptism does not make God more exclusive. Church has always excluded non-believers. The Bible does make this more clear. I have not heard a definition of a circumcised or baptized infant/non believer. What class of citizen is he/she in the kingdom? I have met several who were baptized as infants in PCA church that do not live regenerate lives. To be fair, I have met those who were believer baptized that were similarly unregenerate oriented. I was infant baptized, confirmed, sprinkled as a believer and immersed as a believer and I've studied Berkhof and Reform Theology and joined 1-Lutheran, 4-PCA, and 2-Baptist churches. Find me a paedobaptist with that curriculum vitae. I could go on. Bottom line: raise your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. - cdl |
|
| My thoughts on circumcision: A priest, a rabbi and a minister decide to see who's best at his job. So they each go into the woods, find a bear and attempt to convert it.
Later they get together.
The priest begins. "When I found the bear, I read to him from the Catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week is his First Communion."
"I found a bear by the stream," says the minister, "and preached God's holy word. The bear was so mesmerized that he let me baptize him."
They both look down at the rabbi, who is wrapped in a body cast. "Looking back," he says, "maybe I shouldn't have started with the circumcision."
- Lulu |
|
| Good one Lulu. Hard to find appropriate humor on this subject. One day in the hospital, two little boys were lying on stretchers next to each other outside of the operating room. The first boy leans over and asks, "What are you in for?"
"I'm here to get my tonsils out and I'm nervous," the second boy says.
The first kid says, "You've got nothing to worry about! I had that done when I was four. They put you to sleep and when you wake up they give you lots of ice cream and Jell-O. It's a breeze!"
What are you here for?" the second kid asks.
"A circumcision." The first kid replys woefully.
The second kid says "Wow! I had that done when I was born and I couldn't walk for a year!" - cdl |
|
| I'll apologize in advance that I'm about to ramble a little. Please bear with me. It's all good (imho). CB makes the point about women excluded from circumcision. Matt writes elsewhere that like circumcision, "baptism signifies an individual’s entrance into the God’s eternal covenant with his people" Another fatal flaw in the paedobaptist argument. How did women enter God's eternal covenant in the OT? Just like everybody else -- through faith. "The seed" may give some leads. Gen 3:15 "her seed" (Eve's, ie a non-Jew's) is Christ. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke show the channel of the seed that leads to Christ. The channel (not to sound like The DaVinci Code) is crucial. Judah and his sons were the first in the line to marry outside of Israel and two of Judah's sons paid the price. Judah himself becoming father of Tamar's son. All males in the messianic line were Jews, but not all women. Rahab and Ruth are in there too. The 3 women mentioned were special, though and probably carried extra good DNA. Just as Abraham, Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah and Rachel all had close cousin bloodlines in Abraham's family, ie purest of DNA for God's purposing his Son the divine God-man. Of course, Mary contributes mitochondria and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (if I've got my genetics right). Careful reading of Gen 17 shows that circumcision's role as a sign of the covenant is symbolic of Abraham's faith such as Paul shows in Romans and so does Habakuk. That's the initiatory right that circumcision symbolizes -- believing. OT believers later circumcised their hearts (male and female) to receive covenant promises. Infant baptism does not preserve the messianic line because we already have the Messiah. So what remains is believing/circumcision of the heart which was and still is the "initiatory rite" though not a good word due to ritualistic connotations. Water baptism is an outward sign of an inward change which only happens to believers. Nothing happens at infant baptism and if anything it symbolizes that counter to scripture one's parents believe that the Law is still valid. - cdl |
|
| so the more I think about the inclusive/exclusive thing at the risk of repetitivity, non believers have always been excluded from membership in the kingdom. Jews and only Jews were commanded to circumcise their infants (to maintain the messianic line's integrity and documentation). There is other symbolism in circumcision mainly recognition of Abraham's example of faith and the reminder that one must circumcise one's heart and ears to gain access to God and His presence. That type of circumcison is and always has been open to all who accept it and the same with baptism. - cdl |
|
| not changing my mind but the issue I raised about communicants class prior to communion being required of those who were baptized as infants isn't inconsistent with your position. Matt 28 says make disciples, baptizing them...Your position is that timing is irrelevant. Baptism can precede faith is your interpretation. Faith must precede communion of course. But when does discipleship happen? I assume in orhtodox churches that it can't happen until a minimum age which is when communicants class is held upon completion of which a triad of requirements are complete: baptism, faith and discipleship, and the communicant is ready for communion. So I'll take that off of my list of objections sort of. - cdl |
|
| Another point to make about Gen 17. Cirumcising and eternity. For one is there going to be circumcision in heaven? Obviously it ends sometime and no replacement is implied. But today, Jews continue to uphold this reqt because they still practice it. Acts 16, Timothy, half Jew, half Greek was circumcised without "comprising the principles of Gentile freedom" (R.C. Sproul -- New Geneva Study Bible text note) so Messianic Jews apparently should or may be circumcised and in Galatians Paul is adamant only in the case of Gentiles regarding not adding circumcision to faith and the Jerusalem Council's decree in Acts 15. All heck would have broken loose if Paul had told Jewish Christians to cease circumcising but he wasn't averse to controversy so he didn't say that because....it is still required of Abraham's [physical] descendants. The Eunuch in Acts 16 said yes I believe in answer to Philip's question showing that his heart was circumcised. Therefore no physical circumcision required the point being belief or faith is all that matters now. Water baptism symbolizes the spiritual baptism that takes place upon believing as an encouragement to the believer and his fellow believers by making the spiritual, unseeable more real. No requirement to replace cirumcision. - cdl |
|
| I meant Acts 8 for the Eunuch. For those that don't see Philip's question in vs 37 and the Eunuch's response, that's because some translations don't include it. It was in Erasmus's Textus Receptus one of the many Byzantine manuscripts but not one of the manuscripts also found in Byzantium that were used as a basis for the Majority Text . It's not in the Alexandrian Texts either but Sproul chose NKJV for his version of the Geneva Bible not me. "It is found in Western Texts and the Latin tradition." NKJV note. - cdl |
|
| And here's another one. Paedobaptist say that because of circumcision, they would have recognized that baptism replaced circumcision and because circumcision was performed on infants then baptism would naturally have been performed on infants so there is no statement not to baptize infants because it is supposed to be done and there is no statement to do it because it was understood that it would be done. BUT...gentiles would be clueless regarding all that. They were told to be baptized. They had not been circumcising adult or infant and had no background in it. They would have to be told exactly what to do so the lack of an explicit command to baptize infants is significant and they weren't told not to because they wouldn't need to be told not to do something that they weren't doing. - cdl |
|
| Saying that infant baptism is God's command is like this passage: "Matthew 15:2-3 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Since there is no such command, you are telling believer to baptize their children based on your tradition.
- cdl |
|
| verse in Gal 6 neither circ or non circ is anything all that counts is a new creation; if circumcision is replaced by baptism as you assert MC, then bap or non bap is not anything either...and since is something, more evidence that paedobaptist position is illogical and that baptism is an ordinance and not a sacrament meaning it is symbolic of that which it symbolizes but it doesn't "do" anything - cdl |
|
| also in one of the gospels "Jesus and His disciples were baptizing more DISCIPLES than John was" no infants there unless once again infants are disciples - cdl |
|
| annndddd....to say that means something else is not only flawed but dangerous hermeneutics - cdl |
|
| Everyone was an infant CDL, their age didn't matter. - Alex G. |
|
| still true of astronauts fo sure - cdl |
|
| since there isn't much from the paedobaptists and nothing plausible anyway and they can't break out of the brainwashed state they are in, I guess I'll declare myself the winner, but I'm ok with infant baptism as long as you allow rebaptism as desired on an individual basis; I recommend you all get immersed as believers and report back - cdl |
|
| CDL, you are so off that it actually sounds like you're being that far out on purpose just to make fun of baptists. No, seriously. That's how comical what you're saying really is. You say, "I'm ok with infant baptism as long as you allow rebaptism as desired on an individual basis." If you're really okay with infant baptism then you must see some truth in baptism being the sign of the covenant. If you see baptism as the sign of the covenant, why are you okay with rebaptism after a person was already baptised as an infant? How many times can a person enter into the same covenant with God? Why? - Stephen |
|
| Stephen, I'm glad you have a sense of humor. YOu are making a few invalid assumptions but I'm willing to throw you a bone. I wouldn't baptize my own infant but if you want to, eventhough I disagree, go ahead. The child should be allowed to get his own baptism later upon believing imho. Your assumption that I see some truth in baptism and sign of the covenant isn't quite correct. || Rom 4:11 And he 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.|| THat covenant was with Abraham and Jews should continue to be circumcised and they do. || Hbr 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises || I'm under a new covenant. I'm not sure I'd use the sign of the covenant terminology wrt (Navy for with regard to) baptism. I posted somewhere that covenant and baptism aren't mentioned together in the NT. Gal 3 has the two words in the same chapter but obviously not associated one to the other. In a perfect world, one water baptism to match the one baptism symbolized by water baptism would be ideal. But it's not and we can't agree on immersion of believers as the one baptism. I won't stand in your way eventhough your belief is based on preference and wishful thinking that it influences the salvation of one's infant(s) rather than upon a straightforward, common sense understanding of scripture without preconcieved notions or a priori arguments. I have noticed that the arguments I have provided aren't responded to in a straightforward manner either such as your post. It's nibbling at the edges or baseless claims such as "God commands us to baptize infants." Baptism in NT symbolizes many things, my favorite is death, burial and resurrection with Christ but nothing in the NT equates it to a sign of the covenant. Sorry to be blunt soldier, but I think you are in that brainwashed state I mentioned. Didn't you say you were immersed as a believer in a previous post? Do you now reject it? Why? Not to neglect your questions, GOd makes a covenant with us and he provides His Son to fulfill the requirements of that covenant on our behalf and writes His law on our hearts and out of thankfulness I surrender my life to Him because He loved me first and chose me. There's no command to limit baptism to once but it is implied that once should be enough. There is a rebaptism in Acts 19 or thereabouts, in fact. Christ came to baptize in fire/Holy Spirit. That can only apply to a believer, so you can baptize non believers all you want but to me it's clear that you aren't supposed to. How can an infant enter into a covenant btw? Now that would be humorous. Minors can't legally make contracts. God didn't hold those under age of 20 responsible for those who believed the report re: Canaan by the first set of spies sent out by Moses. And how can a parent enter into a contract for his child. Only Christ is the propitiation, mediator, high priest....Assuming the water is potable, at least it's good hygiene, but it is a dangerous precedent to baptize an infant. - cdl |
|
| I swore to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic seven times...and I did. - cdl |
|
| lol. Yeah, I was baptized as an infant in the Presbyterian Church. Then my parents decided to join a Baptist church, and sometime in the seventh grade I was immersed as a "believer" because I had just gotten "saved." Saved from what? When we speak about getting saved, what is it we are said to be saved from? Allow me to suggest that we are saved from Hell, from God’s wrath. Now the Bible says in Ephesians 1 and 2 and Romans 9 and some other places that we were chosen to be saved before we were even born. If this is true, I didn’t suddenly become saved one day in the seventh grade. If this is true, I was always saved, even as an infant. And if I was saved as an infant, why is it wrong for my parents to make a decision on my behalf to baptize me as a symbol of my covenantal relationship with God? You said, “I posted somewhere that covenant and baptism aren't mentioned together in the NT. Gal 3 has the two words in the same chapter but obviously not associated one to the other.” Have you ever read the New Testament in its entirety? If not then how do you know that covenant and baptism are never mentioned together? If you have, then clearly you are familiar with Colossians 2:11-12 where circumcision (the sign of the OT covenant) and Baptism are not only mentioned in the very same sentence, Paul actually equates baptism with the circumcision of the heart. You say that baptism and covenant are mentioned in the same chapter in Galatians and then wonder why only males were circumcised and both males and females should be baptized. But in Galatians 3:26 it says we are all sons of God. In the bible “child” always implies a relationship with someone, where “son” always implies a status. Do a study on the uses of both of these words and you will find out I am right. 3:26 says we are all sons of God. 27 talks about how those who have been baptized have clothed themselves with Christ. In context to baptism and “sons” as status verse 28 says there is no longer male nor female. And 29 talks explicitly about their covenantal relationship with God. imho this passage makes it very clear to me that even females are now sons of God, and therefore eligible to receive the sign of the covenant. What is the sign of the covenant? Cross reference this with Colossians 2:11-12 and you see that baptism is now the circumcision of the heart. And since there is no longer any male nor female in Christ, since we are all sons, and all heirs according to the promise(3:29), we may all be baptized. These Jews had always always always always given the sign of the covenant to their infants. If they were to suddenly stop giving the sign of the covenant to their infants, Paul would have to explicitly state so. Where is there such a command to stop giving the sign of the covenant to infants? I’ve read the New Testament from cover to cover. It isn’t there. So IMOHO I’m not in a brain-washed state now. No, I was brain washed when I allowed the credos to rebaptize me (by immersion no less) thus repudiating my baptism as an infant. - Stephen |
|
| read it again. where is covenant in Colossians 2:11-12? I wondered about males and females? I thought someone else posted that. Acts 8 and John are explicit. Philip baptized an entire Samarian town of men and women (no infants); Jesus baptized more DISCIPLES than John. Straightforward. Respond to that not by referring to verses that don't say what you say they do and convoluted arguments. - cdl |
|
| Btw, I think the infants of disciples are believers or at least assumed to be is a good argument, but it has quite a few holes when you think it through but the biggest is that though they might be believers, they can't be disciples. Disciple involves teaching, learning, discipline in spiritual matters. My son had to be taught to breast feed so I know they learn but I don't have the faith to accept spiritual learning by infants. And Jesus and his disciples baptized disciples. That also apears to be the mistake your parents made. You probably weren't a disciple yet at either baptism. - cdl |
|
| btw, Stephen the non heathen, my daughter's profile matches yours. Infant baptized in a PCA church. Immersed at age 10 at SBC Church. She feels the exact opposite of you. - cdl |
|
| cdl, everyone knows that disciples were baptised. But where in the Bible does it say that only disciples can be baptized? If the answer is nowhere, and it is, then your arguments for disciples being the only ones fit for baptism don't really work. Also, I never said "covenant" was in colossians 2. I said "circumcision" was and that it's the sign of the covenant. But thanks for playing anyway. P. S. of course your brain washed daughter feels good about her baptism. - Stephen |
|
| Well something to think about. Re "it's the sign of the covenant." So what? I said covenant and baptism aren't co-located and I was right. Re: daughter sometimes I wish she was. Re disciples I already pointed out that gentiles would have needed clarification about infant baptism if it was intended, but we'll never resolve this one cuz the Word neither says don't and it doesn't say only.
- cdl |
|
| btw, it doesn't say don't baptize the dead either - cdl |
|
| and there aren't any infant baptisms in the bible either. I still win. - cdl |
|
| and Col refers to circ of the heart. Circ of the foreskin is the sign of the covenant. Get in step Sarge. - cdl |
|
| but here's a serious question for you, what benefit did you gain by being baptized as an infant? - cdl |
|
| CDL, let me take a stab at that last question by asking another question: What benefit was there for infants who were circumcised in the OT? - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| I asked you first. You can answer that one too if you want. - cdl |
|
| This is a long quote, but it effectively answers the question, CDL. From Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology Vol. 3, pg. 554-55: "Children, therefore, were included in the covenant of grace as revealed under the old dispensation, and consequently were members of the Church as it was then constituted. In the sight of God parents and children are one. The former are the authorized representatives of the latter; they act for them; they contract obligations in their name. In all cases, therefore, where parents enter into covenant with God, they bring their children with them. The covenant made with Adam included all his posterity; the promise made to Abraham was to him and to his seed after him; and when the Mosaic covenant was solemnly inaugurated, it was said, "Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day." (Deut. xxix. 10–12.) It is vain to say that children cannot make contracts or take an oath. Their parents can act for them; and not only bring them under obligation, but secure for them the benefits of the covenants into which they thus vicariously enter. If a man joined the commonwealth of Israel he secured for his children the benefits of the theocracy, unless they willingly renounced them. And so when a believer adopts the covenant of grace, he brings his children within that covenant, in the sense that God promises to give them, in his own good time, all the benefits of redemption, provided they do not willingly renounce their baptismal engagements.
This is really the turning point in the controversy concerning infant church-membership. If the Church is one under both dispensations; if infants were members of the Church under the theocracy, then they are members of the Church now, unless the contrary can be proved."
Hodge, Charles: Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. 3:555 - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Not bad for the most part. no New Testament passages is a problem imho. "when a believer adopts the covenant of grace he brings his children..." same benefits whether baptized as an infant or not; "provided they don't willingly renounce" -- a convenient catch all. Imagine a person told by his parents, you are a christian regardless of what he believes but don't go renouncing it. How does that establish and nurture his relationship with the Lord? too complicated. l, cd: www.notconformedthoughts.com. world wide web, USA, 2007. - cdl |
|
| If you don't believe it, then you're renouncing it. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| That's actually a brief quote and there's a plethora of NT quotes in his lengthy commentary on infant baptism. If you ever get a chance try to read his whole bit in his Systematic Theology - it's quite good...The referencing was quite funny too - it was a nice touch. When you copy and paste from Logos it automatically does that for you, in case you were wondering why I did it. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| cdl, did you really just reference yourself? That right there should automatically disqualify you from winning this debate lol. still haven't heard your answer to What benefit was there for infants who were circumcised in the OT? It might have something to do with the fact that those who weren't circumcised were to be exiled and considered apostate. The sin for not passing the sign of the covenant onto the children of God's chosen people was very severe and almost fatal in the case of moses' son. I think it's safe to say that God takes the issue very seriously. What benefit did they have? They got to keep their life. - Stephen |
|
| man your giving me whiplash; the question is what benefit did you gain by being baptized as an infant? - cdl |
|
| I think it was Moses who's life was threatened because he didn't obediently circ his son; probably had something to do with Zippora (inventer of the lighter and YKK) - cdl |
|
| According to the original heberew, it could mean moses or his son. Either way . . . i mean . . . come on. - Stephen Cochrane |
|
| BTW . . . "CDL, let me take a stab at that last question by asking another question: What benefit was there for infants who were circumcised in the OT? - Matthew Cochrane - Stephen |
|
| just chkg to see if you're awake ...so now your letting MC carry your water for you? He had an enlightening input to the dialogue BUT "I asked you [Stephen the Deceivin'] first." - cdl |
|
| btw, were God to kill the son, Hodge would be wrong about parents making contracts and being responsible for infants - cdl |
|
| just as I suspected no one can come with any benefits gained by an infant upon baptism - cdl |
|
| CDL, the reason why I asked you what the benefits were for infants to be circumcised under the old administration of the covenant is because I believe the benefits are the same for the infants baptized under the new administration. So by answering that question I effectively answered yours. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| MC, I suppose it's techically an answer but you are mistaken when you think it is effective, helpful or thoughtful. Stephen says they got to keep their lives. So infants who aren't baptized lose their lives. That's pretty wacky. My son didn't lose his life. He didn't lose his physical life and he had no spiritual life to lose. I've also considered Stephen's retort that NT doesn't say disciples only are baptized. BUt that is what a straightforward reading would say to the unbiased reader. "Go and make disciples...baptizing them." "Jesus baptized more disciples..." Who was baptized? Disciples. Stephen, I think you are confused over implied and inferred. "Only disciples" is clearly implied by the writer. Infant baptism is inferred by the reader that believes in it. Standing upon inferrence alone is standing on shaky ground. - cdl |
|
| CDL, define benefits. Spiritual blessings? Physical benefits? Its a pretty vague term. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| any benefits whatsoever - cdl |
|
| Short answer: Well, then I would say that it would be the same benefits that one would receive anytime they obey God's commands. - MC |
|
| and how does an infant obey a command? - cdl |
|
| Uh, tell me you're not serious with that question...It's the parents who are to obey God's command by having their children baptized just like in the OT it was the parents who were to obey by having their children circumscised. Its a matter of obedience for the parents, not the children. - MC |
|
| so what's the benefit for the infant upon baptism? - cdl |
|
| Being given the sign of God's covenant - I would say that's kinda important. But this line of questioning is like asking what the benefits are of obeying the Golden Rule or following the Ten COmmandments. ALmost like its not worth obeying God unless there's some kind of "benefit" for the one obeying. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| MC we seem to agree that the infant is not the one being obedient so there's no point in continuing to go there. What is a sign? - cdl |
|
| I'm not sure what sort of benefit the gift of the sign would be. What benefit is something you can't see or remember? The infant is unaware of it. I'll offer some info on signs in the Bible. THere are six Hebrew words in the OT translated as sign in KJV and two greek words in the NT. I assume Rom 4:11 and Gen 17 are the basis of the claim that infant baptism imparts the SOC (sign of the covenant). over 25 times in the OT, sign refers to something provided to enhance faith in an experience which is felt, seen, tasted.... There aren't any abstractions or signs that point to signs. Abraham's circumcision was a sign of his covenant with God. He experienced it (zoinks). Infants were circumcised as well and later could see the results and so could their wives and given the right circumstance so could the gentiles. The uncircumcised could be seen in any newborn male until day 8. It's true meaning was related by MOses and the prophets such as Jeremiah who said that those who are circumcised in the flesh only (and not in the heart) will be cut off. A Jew might be reminded once or twice a day, "yes I'm circumcised in the flesh but what about my heart?" and bore the consequence of not minding. Infant baptism on the other hand leaves no mark, no evidence, is not experienced by the one you say is given the sign. So, the sign is not a sign. You can't tell by looking if a person was baptized as an infant. THe difference can't be discerned. As I have posted, you can do it if you want but you shouldn't withhold believers baptism at a later date if desired by the one who was baptized as an infant. The experience of baptism is an essential element of it and a benefit that shouldn't be denied. 1 John 5 describes it as one of the witnesses in addition to communion. Also related perhaps is the claim not yet mentioned here that infant baptism is a seal as some misinterpret Rom 4:11. But that aspect of circumcision was as the seal of Abraham's faith. Infants do not possess the ability to believe. So the question remains. What benefit is there for the infant upon baptism? I see a benefit in circumcision in its day. I see a benefit at The Lord's Table. I see a benefit in believers baptism. I see a claim that the parents benefit from baptizing an infant. I call it a claim because the claim is to baptize an infant in obedience, but I don't see a command to do so. It might also satisfy their superstition or unscriptural wishful thoughts. ANd, I don't see the benefit to the infant at baptism. And certainly if it's scriptural there must be one or more benefits and they should be clear in scripture rather than hidden in some secret gnosis that you don't even seem to be able to readily uncover (since it isn't really there). And of course, the sign of the covenant refers to circumcision of the foreskin. The Bible doesn't say that baptism is the sign of the covenant, new or old and there is no reason to keep a sign of the old covenant anyway because it is gone. So the real crux is that a sign of something that has been replaced (old covenant) with something better (new covenant) would be a detriment rather than a benefit because it would point to the wrong thing -- a useful teaching tool (no pun intended) but an obsolete concept. Abraham's circumcision is quite specific and well defined as in The Lord's Supper in the NT, but infant baptism is undefined. Another benefit you might have mentioned is the inclusion of the infant in the believing community but he/she is not a believer so that's not a benefit. ANd no one excludes kids who haven't been baptized anyway. ANy benefit you might propose, if truly a benefit, is probably there by virtue of having believing parents not by improper administration of an ordinance. - cdl |
|
| correction: Abraham's circumcision is quite specific and well defined as IS The Lord's Supper; apologies. - cdl |
|
| for Stephen, "If they were to suddenly stop giving the sign of the covenant to their infants, Paul would have to explicitly state so." Scanning Hebrews (written to Jewish Christians) has some interesting points on that. Hebrews 6 "leaving elemental teachings...of the doctrine of baptisms..." the author then talks about the falling away or falling back into Judaism's works of the law orientation. Then he talks of OT concepts applied now and ultimately the new covenant, Christ's perfect death and the just living by faith. Then in the Hall of Fame of Faith (chap 11) he talks about faithful Abraham, his journeying, living in tents, conceiving Isaac. But, he never mentions his circumcision. Then in chap 12, he says to lay aside sin which easily ensnares and look unto Jesus. Pursue peace with all such as the Gentiles. Things like circumcision are being shaken. Don't be carried away with strange doctrines. The author was gracious and didn't mention circumcision but tie this outline in with Paul's anti Judaizers comments particularly in Galatians and one can imagine a strong indictment against Jewish troublemaking (by Paul) and loving exhortation to get them on track (by the Hebrews author). The author speaks in generalities allowing us to connect the dots. And I'll leave it to you to connect your own set of dots. - cdl |
|
| CDL, let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager my favorite restaurant to go to was Denny’s. My friends and I used to stay up late and Denny’s was open 24/7 so that kind of became our hang out. Well, on one particular occasion I went to Denny’s one time with some friends of mine and there was this guy there who thought he knew as much about theology as I do. And he actually challenged me. So being slightly shocked that someone had so audaciously sized me up I told him to hold on a second so I could get my Bible from the car and prove that what I was saying was true and that what he was saying was obviously wrong. And believe me, he was wrong. So I started to excuse myself from the table when he said to me, “Why do you need to get your Bible? You should have your verses memorized like I do.” And when he said that, the whole table got quiet because they knew that this man wasn’t challenging me to an honest debate, he was challenging me to a pissing contest (you know the whole “let’s not debate an issue, let’s just see who knows the most”). So this guys wants a pissing contest. The table we’re sitting at gets quiet because my friends know how much I hate pissing contests. So I say to him, “I don’t believe in memorizing Bible verses. That’s stupid.” This guy’s eyes opened real wide when I told him that so he asked me why not. I told him that there are two reasons why I don’t believe in memorizing Bible verses. First, by trying to memorize Bible verses people think they’re quoting God’s word verbatim, but they don’t quote it perfectly word for word. The Devil himself deliberately misquoted scripture when he was in the desert tempting Jesus to sin. Democrat presidential candidates misquote scripture in debates. And each time there seems to be something very fundamentally wrong with misquoting scripture. So why take that risk of trying to memorize it when it would always be very possible to misquote something (on accident even). Why not just always have a Bible handy and read it when there is a passage you want to share with someone else. Also, reading it straight from the Bible will prove to your opponent that you’re not just making something up. And the second reason why I don’t like to memorize scripture is because memorizing individual verses does not allow you to see the verse in context. Individual verses are never true all by themselves. Only in context are they true. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a debate with someone that quoted a verse to back up what they say, and then after I show them the verse they quote in context to the other verses in that chapter they change their mind. So taking verses out of context is a very scary thing and a very serious matter. Context should always determine how we interpret a particular verse or passage. And that is the moral to my story. Yes, CDL, I told this whole story just to say that one thing – that everything must be taken in context. Now I am going to ask you to put the moral of that story in the back of your head. Is it in the back of your head? Good! Dude, you can't possibly expect me to respond to what you wrote inside this comment box. To do so would be absolutely ludicrous. You start off in the most difficult book to understand in the entire Bible – Hebrews. Hebrews took me nearly a year of an extremely in-depth Bible study to even begin understanding it. And even now it takes all my concentration to grasp even one part of it because I realize that in order to understand any of it you have to understand all the rest of it. For instance, in order to understand chapter 2, you have to understand chapters 1 and 3. In order to understand chapter 3, one must understand 1, 2, and 4. In order to understand chapter 1, one must understand chapters 1, 2, and 3 and so on. The whole book is like that. In order to understand chapter 4, one must understand chapters 1-3 and 5 and you get the picture. But you start your argument in chapter 6 by saying, “`leaving elemental teachings...of the doctrine of baptisms...’ the author then talks about the falling away or falling back into Judaism's works of the law orientation. Then he talks of OT concepts applied now and ultimately the new covenant, Christ's perfect death and the just living by faith.” And while you’re right in that, chapter 6 deals with falling away and OT concepts applied now and ultimately the new covenant, there is no way I can have any idea that your interpretations of those verses are correct. I have no idea what presuppositions you’re assuming. I have no idea if you and I even agree on that passage (we probably don’t, there’s a reason why the interpretation of that passage has been debated for centuries). But, and this is a pretty big “BUT,” even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and even if I assume that you and I are on the same page and that we will agree on what that passage means, then you jump from chapter 6 to chapter 11 and two sentences after that you jump to chapter 12. So if no one responds to you from here on out understand it’s not because we don’t have answers to what you’re saying, it’s because no one has the time or energy in any practical manner to explain to you how you’re wrong about chapter 12. Because in order to explain to you how you’re taking these verses out of context, we’d have to write an entire commentary on the entire book up to chapter 11. Other people have done it, but it won’t be me and it won’t be here on this blog inside this little comment space. You can tell from this comment I’m posting here and now, that I’m not afraid to type, but to type a comment of that magnitude would take me days and it’s not practical to begin with. I personally don’t believe that the author does speak in generalities. I think he is very precise, and for the record, the book of Hebrews is to me one of the strongest supports for paedo-baptism. The only one speaking in generalities here is you. I can tell you’re smart, but the problem is that your comments are almost always based off of erroneous presuppositions and false doctrines. Therefore, in order for me or anyone to disprove what you’re saying we’d have to start at the beginning by tearing down those false presuppositions. But who has the time to do that? Like, for example, up above you made this comment: “Since there is no such command, you are telling believer to baptize their children based on your tradition.” I would love to respond to that. But I never will. And because I never will, it will always look as if I, Stephen the Presbyterian, don’t have an answer to that remark. But all the time, I really do have answers. I have answers to everything you’ve said here, but who can do away with pre-conceived notions and erroneous presuppositions in a single comment? Arguing a point from the book of Hebrews is bad hermeneutics on so many levels. When arguing a point, one should never skip to the more difficult passage until all the simpler passages on that particular doctrine have been exhausted. A good hermeneutics professor will teach you to start with the more simple and easier to understand passages, and by unerstanding those it will help you better understand the more difficult passages. And granted, you didn’t start off your arguments in the book of Hebrews, but it was impossible to exhaust your arguments from the simpler passages because of the presuppositions you start with. Please take what I’m saying in the nicest possible way. None of this is said maliciously or anything like that. I just can’t have you walking away from this debate thinking that you won. I wanna say that Matthew won this debate a long time ago, since most of your real arguments can be explained in at least one of the posts he made about Baptism. But I know it’s at least a tie – a stale-mate if you will. - Stephen |
|
| No worries; I don't expect my comments on Hebrews to pass a critical review but my previous comments are unassailable and as I said it was a scan and that's okay too; thanks for the time; I'm satisfied if the only one who believes me is me; but just for info, though you might not intend it, orthodox reform types do tend to come across smug as if only they could possibly comprehend such loftiness and it would be so not worth the effort to explain it to the lowly nincompoops that won't understand anyway. But no one needs to win really. That is why we have our respective denominations. My irritant I have to admit is I've yet to hear an argument that holds any water (in my opinion). Believe me I have looked at this in an unbiased fashion and given every paedo argument a chance until when the last pastor to explain it all and I realized it's all bunk (in my opinion). I like you am amazed that the other side doesn't see it the same way. I think you'd be surprised that my presuppositions are really only asking, what does this passage say and occasionally, what does it say nearby. I read Matthew's series in case you wonder and nothing answers the points I've made. But it seems so to you because you believe it. God bless you, bro. - cdl |
|
| CDL, LOL! “My irritant I have to admit is I've yet to hear an argument that holds any water.” I get it. Baptism. Water. haha. Anyway man, don’t take my smug personality seriously. I talk myself up to sound cocky all the time but it’s just a gimmick. It’s my way of making fun of other people who really are cocky. So no, I don’t actually think it’s audacious for someone to challenge me in a theological debate. And no, I don’t think I’m as hot as I make other people think I think I am. I try to exaggerate it as much as possible so that the joke is obvious by first saying something like, “in order to explain to you how you’re taking these verses out of context, we’d have to write an entire commentary on the entire book,” and then a few seconds later coming out to say, “to type a comment of that magnitude would take me days.” That’s funny to me because obviously it would take me a lot longer than “days” to write an entire commentary on the book of Hebrews. So try not to take my haughtiness seriously, I really don’t think that highly of myself. But there is some truth in what I said. I mean, come on. - Stephen |
|
| sounds like Debating for Those with a Napoleon Complex 101. it would be interesting to meet at a neutral site like a Denny's on I95 somewhere or with non restricted tasers at 10 ft. - cdl |
|
| to avoid confusion that means commercially available tasers - cdl |
|
| Btw, Stephen, 'Context should always determine how we interpret a particular verse or passage.' That's been pretty much my whole point all along so we are in violent agreement on that. '“Since there is no such command, you are telling believers to baptize their children based on your tradition.” But all the time, I really do have answers...but in a single comment?' ANd another point of mine has been as in this case, just show me the command. If its that hard to show it then don't claim it. It's not that hard of a concept but because you make it hard, your credibility suffers for it. Telling people to obey an inferred command is risky business and the basis of every cult out there, ie special, extra biblical knowledge or revelation. I checked the Zondervan NIV Study Bible intro to Hebrews btw, and my comments are about right, "The letter was addressed primarily to Jewish converts who were familiar with the OT and who were being tempted to revert to Judaism or to Judaize the gospel (cf Gal 2:14)." I couldn't have done the scan that I did if I hadn't already studied this awesome, awesome book. - cdl |
|
| lol I'm sure you have studied it. Never doubted it. You say, "just show me the command. If its that hard to show it then don't claim it. It's not that hard of a concept but because you make it hard, your credibility suffers for it. Telling people to obey an inferred command is risky business and the basis of every cult out there, ie special, extra biblical knowledge or revelation." You're taking a half-truth and making it a truth. And any time you take a half-truth and make it into a truth it becomes a falsehood. You're right that telling people to obey an inferred command is risky business. And you're right that people who make a simple concept hard lose some credibility. And you're right that there is no such specific command to baptize infants. But again, you're wrong because you start off with a false presupposition. Just because there is no command for infant baptism in scripture does not mean that it is a hard concept. On the contrary, it is precisely because infant baptism is absent from the Bible that us paedos believe in it. If there were something in the Bible condemning infant baptism then you would have a case. But since there is nothing condemning the practice, we believe in continuing to give the sign of the covenant to infants. If God didn't want us to give the sign of the covenant to infants, there would be something in the Bible condemning infant baptism. But since the Bible is so strangely silent in that arena, we should do as our heritage has always done and was commanded to do. And don't try to sell me that baptism isn't the sign of the new covenant. Even the top Baptist scholars agree with us on that, particulrly Piper and MacArthur and any Baptist pastor I have ever seen who was worth anything. You should ask your pastor if he believes that baptism is the sign of the new covenant with God. Get back to me if you do. - Stephen |
|
| Let me dispel one thing. I don't care what the top theologians reportedly say. In this case I do agree with them (and I may have read it but don't remember -- getting old y'know) I don't have a problem with believers baptism being a sign because it meets the criteria of a sign as I explained to Matthew. My point was that infant baptism is not a SOC...sorry that I wasn't clear. C'mon yourself. If you are going to falsely accuse me of half truthing then don't do so yourself. Ahhh, this posting stuff is better than the smell of coffee and bacon in the morning. - cdl |
|
| This probably won't be a big surprise but I'll step up to the plate on it since y'all don't seem to be able to articulate much on covenant eventhough your world appears to revolve around it. Covenant is an awesome concept. It shows God's mind on things and it points to the depth of his love. He's hung in there with Israel and continues to ref the remnant in Romans. Christ is the one that fulfills that covenant for us. He calls us to obedience but knows we can't be so to God's standard ie perfection and we should continue to shoot for it. We gentiles only get in on this because God is showing the Jews, the apple of His eye so to speak that it's not about less tip skin, it's about a transformed heart. He is saying to them, "Jews, even the gentiles get it. When are you going to?" (see Romans). That in a nutshell is what covenant is about. But some of us have to major on the minors and make a big deal about something replacing circumcision. Get rid of it! It's a distraction from Christ. Hebrews agrees with me. And, baptism is based on the command of Christ (see Westminster COF). All this covenant stuff irt baptism is the real source of global warming, ie much hot air. So of course, the Bible doesn't say to not baptize infants. It has nothing to do with anything. Circumcision had its day, but it was a shadow of the new covenant. I am reform but I'm not covenant theology oriented you have probably surmised. Always glad to help . Btw, paraphrasing you: we believe it cuz it's not in the Bible. Whew! Now I understand better why you don't want to comment and embarass yourself. - cdl |
|
| further clarifying, since God is showing Jews through us what is important, it is a grave error for us to go back down the wrong road the Jews mistakenly took in judaizing christianity. We owe God based on the freedom He has given us point others to that freedom not to the law or works. Everybody else is already doing that and it's not what we are called to do. - cdl |
|
| two vs one isn't a fair fight btw Stephen and Matthew; you need more people - cdl |
|
| I try to think of it more like two thousand years of church history versus some anabaptists and a few southern baptists. - Stephen |
|
| "I am reform but I'm not covenant theology oriented you have probably surmised" This, CDL, is where your false presuppositions begin and end. Your foundation is flawed and therefore so are your conclusions. If you want to convince me of your point of view, then convince me that the Bible is not laid out in covenants, but dispensations instead. - Stephen |
|
| sorry Stephen you'll have to better than that - cdl |
|
| Good definition from wiki that shows circumcision and things like it, ie paedobaptism is only one aspect of Judaizing. "Judaizers is a pejorative term used, particularly after the third century, to describe Jewish Christian groups like the Ebionites and Nazarenes who believed that Greek followers of Jesus needed to go through circumcision - ****a shorthand term to describe the oral tradition of conversion of a Gentile into Jew in order to be able to keep the Jewish Law****." - cdl |
|
| the gnostic side of this is seen in Stephen's most recent post. He can only say one, like me, is using flawed thinking, but he can't explain his own beliefs or in other words his is a negative approach to the discourse. Or, it may be some kind of secret. - cdl |
|
| CDL, I don't have to explain my case because I'm on the defense. MC originally made this post to explain why he believes in infant baptism. if you disagree with it you should be able to articulate why. Since you are not on the defense, and since you insist on posting on why you believe you are right, then it is your job to explain yourself. we already have. If you're going to explain how paedos are judaizers, you're going to need a lot more than I see here. And, I still don't think we have much more to say until we establish, one way or the other, if the bible is laid out in covenants or if it is laid out in dispensations. - Stephen |
|
| I could care less - cdl |
|
| but these guys could http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B00000I030/sr=8-4/qid=1192224248/ref=dp_image_0/104-3351526-1316706?ie=UTF8&n=5174&s=music&qid=1192224248&sr=8-4
- cdl |
|
| So CDL, as usual, you have no answer to covenant theology, as clearly laid out in Genesis 17, which explicitly includes infants, other than calling covenant theologians nerds and saying you don't care. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| As for the benefits of receiving the sign of the covenant, which I thought would be obvious to all Christians: Once an infant is recognized as a member of the covenant community by receiving its sign, the infant is then entitled to the teaching, care, fellowship, correction, and discipline of the church. All of these will help the infant in sanctification (not sanctification that follows salvation necessarily, but the same sanctification Paul speaks of in I Cor. when an unbeliever is married to a believer). - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| A. I'd be flattering you if I implied you are as smart as nerds....B. all the same benefits the uncirc'd have, except if I am not a believer I don't want to nor should I be disciplined by the church (sounds like the SS). C. sure infants are in Gen 17 but the connection to the NT to include infants is all wet. - cdl |
|
| that unbelieving spouse isn't circumcised btw - cdl |
|
| if it's obvious to all Christians, it is it that there isn't a church out there that says, "we can't teach your child because he isn't baptized" - cdl |
|
| or maybe not all wet; more like wet behind the ears - cdl |
|
| "that unbelieving spouse isn't circumcised btw " - CDL, you're about as sharp as a dull spoon sometimes. - Swine |
|
| "if it's obvious to all Christians, it is it that there isn't a church out there that says, 'we can't teach your child because he isn't baptized'" - I hope you realize though that the teaching responsibilities toward a member of a church are different than to nonmembers though. - MC |
|
| I know swine hundt; this stuff should be clear to even me not just you oh so smarties; MC, I don't see any membership issues in the NT - cdl |
|
| we can quit while you are ahead, MC. - cdl |
|
| I Cor 7:14 is one of the better credobaptist verses I've seen. Thanks. - cdl |
|
| CDL, please explain what 1 Cor. 7:14 has to do with credobaptism - Stephen |
|
| These verses are intended to answer whether believers should divorce their unbelieving spouse, but there are other nuggets in here. It shows for one that, counter to MC's claim, children do not need baptism to get benefits of church activities on their behalf. In other words, Mr and Miss Greek (non believers) get married; One of the Greeks becomes a christian. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified (eventhough not baptized). Mrs Greek has kids and they are sanctified (or made holy) (upon birth or sooner it appears since one spouse is also when the other spouse believed). Fyi, sanctified and holy are from same greek root. Being sanctified, is based on parent(s)' or spouse's faith not on baptism. But sanctified does not mean saved or elect or a foregone conclusion because Paul says, "who knows?" Still no benefit to infant when baptized. Shows that the covenant you want so badly to apply to children works fine without circumcision or replacing it with baptism or any other ritual for that matter even in a new covenant setting. Shows that the claim that there's a command to baptize is a sham since parent(s) faith is all that matters. - cdl |
|
| all that's left is a one legged (Gen 17) doctrine and nothing in the NT for props and plenty in Gal and Col to knock it down - cdl |
|
| and of course, the Gen 17 argument is debatable - cdl |
|
| but this verse pretty much answers it all. Paul shows in an amazing way that circumcision really is completely gone and believing by adults or near adults (that which is symbolized by water baptism) really covers the eternal covenant idea even for kids and spouses (maybe even servants) - cdl |
|
| ...and siblings and parents for believing children in non believing families - cdl |
|
| Paul amplifies I Cor 7:14 in Philippians 3. "We are the circumcision." What is the sign of the covenant in the NT? Circumcision and we Christians are the circumcision. Just like OT. Circumcision was the sign of Abraham's covenant with God. And since Abraham and his descendants were commanded to be circumcised and circumcise their male children and servants, and since we are the circumcised without hands our children are virtually circumcised or made holy as it says in Corinthians. Water baptism is a new thing in the progression of revelation because Christ baptized us in the Holy Spirit (which only happens to believers). It does not replace anything. It is a high calling to live up to being the sign of the covenant in our lives to those who are observing our walk. A high calling and honor and motivator. This perspective does not cast away the OT teaching but it isn't based on a ritual such as infant baptism which isn't commanded, has no benefits and is ambiguous. When Paul uses the term circumcision, btw, it is representative of the whole law. We must learn to walk in grace and worship (live) in spirt and truth. relevant passages: Gen 17, Col 2:11-12, I Cor 7:14, Gal 3:26- Gal 4; Rom 7, 8, 9-11, Phil 3:1-10 - cdl |
|
| since nobody has posted since I did the above a couple weeks ago, I'll assume silence is assent. - cdl |
|
| CDl, I'd be interested in knowing what you believe the purpose of baptism is (summed up). And do you believe it is the same for everyone? That is, is everyone baptized for the same reason? - Stephen |
|
| I think you should respond to my post before we scoot down another alleyway, but I have a straightforward answer for your question. - cdl |
|
| I didn't pull the question out of my butt. I ask you these questions so that I can better respond to your post. But first I need to know what you meant when you said, "Water baptism is a new thing in the progression of revelation because Christ baptized us in the Holy Spirit (which only happens to believers). It does not replace anything." CDL, if baptism doesn't replace anything, and if circumcision of the heart is the sign of the new covenant, then what is baptism? Why are people baptized? And once you tell me what the purpose of baptism is in your own words, am curious to know if you believe everyone in the past, present and future was/is baptized for the same reason. I'm taking the scenic route to responding to your post. But I will answer it before I admit assent. - Stephen |
|
| I should point out that these posts have led me on a journey so that I understand things differently now than when I started posting. So there may be some inconsistencies with prior posts I have made. I had to resolve two gut feelings. One that you guys had a good point on covenant. But second that NT does not show a shred of evidence or a fingerprint of infant baptism. Gen 17's "eternal covenant" including circumcision remained an enigma for me. Now to your questions, but not in order. Hebrews 6 talks about baptisms and I'm not sure how many there are, but I do know there is at least one water baptism which was practiced by John the Baptist, by Jesus and/or His disciples, and in Acts by the apostles and others. Water baptism is symbolic of the other baptism. That other could be referred to as spiritual baptism, or baptism by fire, or baptism in the Holy Spirit, or the baptism of Christ. Christ and John the Baptist used the by fire and by the Holy Spirit terms. There is only one that "really counts" since in Acts 16 a rebaptism was required to get it right and in Acts 8 laying on of hands was needed to complete the Holy Spirit part of it. Paul said "one Lord, one baptism..." I believe that refers to the spiritual baptism, but doesn't strictly limit the number of water baptisms due to Acts 16 and Hebrews 6. But since water baptism symbolizes the spiritual which only happens once, one water baptism would better reflect that. Also, not sure what you are driving at on the "for the same reason" question. It should be, but in practice obviously isn't. What is it? Spiritual baptism is justification and identification through faith and by God in Christ, ie in His death, burial and resurrection. Water baptism does not convey grace so it's not a sacrament (a term not found in The Bible). It is symbolic of the spiritual baptism which has taken place in a person's life and one needs to believe and be aware and experience that symbolism which is helpful in encouraging the body and the Christian who can look back upon it as a witness of God in his life as shown in 1 John 5. Baptism is commanded and exemplified in the NT. Col 2 shows also that spiritual baptism includes circumcision of all flesh including the heart which is what satisfies the Gen 17 requirement and maintains continuity with the OT. I need to point out that the OT sign of the covenant (circ of the foreskin) pointed to Abraham's faith. Our faith is what Paul means in Phil 3 that "we are the circumcision." We point to our own faith through our lives because we experienced spiritual baptism regardless of how we practice water baptism. But I think we should practice water baptism in a way that is most symbolic of spiritual baptism and avoid confusion and error and disunity. But unity is always there because of the one (spiritual) baptism. Phil 3 and I Cor 7 resolved the enigma for me. The child is holy (not baptized) just as the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (not baptized) because we are circumcised (Phil 3 and Col 2) and so are our kids in agreement with GEn 17. - cdl |
|
| Where does John the Baptist baptizing Jesus fit into your view of baptism? Why was Jesus baptized? - Stephen |
|
| EXCELLENT question Stephen! Can't wait to see CDL's response to this one... =o) - KareBear |
|
| Jesus was baptized because he told John to baptize him. He certainly didn't need the repentance associated with John's baptism. But the symbolism parallels our own. He was to go through death, burial and resurrection just as we do when we identify with Him. - cdl |
|
| CDL, how old was Jesus when he was baptized? How come he didn't begin his ministry until after he was baptized? Who was John the Baptist that he could baptize Jesus? And what the heck does the baptism of Jesus have to do with his authority to teach and preach in the temple as mentioned in John 21:23-24? - Stephen |
|
| What connects all these questions? What do they all have in common? *CLUE* check out Numbers 8. And btw, that's Matthew 21:23-24 not John . . . sorry. - Stephen |
|
| just spit it out if you have something to say Stephen - cdl |
|
| Those are honest questions I think. But here’s my point. There are different kinds of baptisms and baptisms for different reasons. John’s baptism of the people was a “baptism of repentance for remission of sins.” Since Jesus was without sin, a baptism of repentance for remission of sins would have been hollow mockery. If His baptism is to be considered as an example to his followers, then why are not his circumcision and keeping of the feasts considered as examples for us to follow too. See, if He was only trying to lead by example, to receive the same kind of baptism as the people would have made Him guilty of acting out a lie. This is why John the Baptist refused to baptize Jesus (Matthew 3:14) until Jesus explained to him that He was being baptized, not as evidence of faith or repentance for remission of sins, but “to fulfill all righteousness. According to Deuteronomy 6:25, the definition of righteousness means obedience to the law. In the time of Christ, there was no law other than that of the Old Testament. If the Old Testament law is the only law that Jesus could have been referring to, then it is not far fetched to say that the reason why Jesus was baptized was to fulfill the Old Testament Law. In Galatians 4:4 Paul states that Christ was made under the law. In Luke 2:21 Jesus was circumcised in obedience to Leviticus 12:3. Jesus was presented in the temple in Luke 2:22-23 which says it was “according to the law of Moses.” A little later in verse 42 Jesus went up to Jerusalem to observe the Passover which was in obedience to Exodus 34:23 and he also observed the Jewish feasts in John 7:10, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:8 which were all commandments in the law of Moses. Now, the part of the law that Jesus was obeying when He was baptized is found in Numbers 8:6-7. “Take the Levites from among the other Israelites and make them ceremonial clean. Sprinkle the water of cleansing on them.” The Levites were priests. Jesus was (and is) our High Priest forever (Hebrews 3:1, 4:14, 5:5, and 9:11). Just like the Levites, Christ’s baptism was the ceremonial act of His ordination to the priesthood. It was the physical rite that set him apart as priest and a minister of spiritual and holy things. However, before a man could become a priest, three things were required. First, he must be thirty years of age (Numbers 4:3, 4:47). Secondly, he must be called by God, as was Aaron, the first High Priest (Exodus 28:1). And thirdly, he must be sprinkled with water (Numbers 8:6-7) by one already a priest. Let’s see if Jesus meets these requirements. Was Jesus thirty years old when he was baptized? Yes (Luke 3:23). Was Jesus called? Yes (Hebrews 5:4-10). Was Jesus sprinkled with water by one who was already a priest? Yes, I believe MCs post on the mode of baptism is sufficient enough to conclude Jesus was sprinkled and John the Baptist was certainly a priest who (probably as an essene) inherited the office from his father (see Exodus 29:9, Numbers 25:13, Luke 1:5,13). As evidence of the fact that Christ was made a priest by John’s baptism, we note that when Jesus cleansed the temple (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15) He was exercising His authority as a priest. And when the Jews came to Him asking who gave Him the authority to do such a thing, Jesus cited them to John’s baptism, which He had received and asked: “Was it from Heaven or of men?” Clearly, in the mind of Jesus there was a direct connection between his priestly authority and His baptism by John. He indicates that if John’s baptism was from Heaven, and He truly believed it was, then He had truly been ordained a priest and thus possessed authority to cleanse the temple. - Stephen |
|
| From this we can see there were different forms of baptism (Note: we also learned Christ was sprinkled with water, not dunked inside it). Christ’s baptism didn’t parallel mine in the slightest. Our baptism parallels with circumcision. When men converted to Judaism they were circumcised. When men convert to Christianity they are baptized. When Jews had sons they made sure to circumcise them. When we have sons we should have them baptized. A Jewish boy who was circumcised at birth could have grown up and become a pagan. A boy who was baptized at birth may grow up and become a pagan. Circumcision of the heart was everything to the Jewish faith. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is everything to the Christian faith. Both are outward steps of obedience that symbolize a living testament. Therefore, physical circumcision was a symbol of spiritual circumcision. Water baptism is a symbol of Spiritual Baptism. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul is obviously talking here about spiritual circumcision and spiritual baptism, and says in effect, “You Christians were circumcised when you were baptized.” Thus we understand Paul to say that just as we see an analogy between the Old Testament Sabbath Day and the New Testament’s Lord’s day, just as we see an analogy between the Old Testament Passover and the New Testament sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, so we should see an analogy between the Old Testament rite of circumcision and the New Testament sacrament of baptism. Truth is, both circumcision and baptism are tokens of salvation by faith through grace. Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was every bit as much a sign of salvation by faith as baptism. Abraham was saved first, and circumcised afterwards. He took the sign for himself as a sign of his faith and salvation, And he might have argued with God’s command to put it on his children. He might have said something like, “infants can’t believe so they have no right to the sign of righteousness by faith.” But he didn’t. And if he had, the answer would have been that the sign has a broader meaning than just a symbol of righteousness by faith, that the sign embraces all the blessings of the whole covenant, and since children were included in that covenant they had a right to the sign. You’re using the same argument against infant baptism that Abraham could have used with God, that infants can’t believe and therefore have no right to the sign; and the answer is the same. Good thing Abraham was not a dispensationalist. The sign was never intended to be limited to merely a sign of salvation by faith. It’s intended to identify the whole visible church of God which includes believers and their covenant children. Any argument that can be used against infant baptism could clearly have been used against infant circumcision, and yet God clearly commanded infant circumcision. You point out that scripture never once commands infant baptism. I can also point out that nowhere in scripture does it say only believers are to be baptized. - Stephen |
|
| thanks for taking time to put down that info Stephen. There are some minor points that might not be settled. Jesus didn't site John the Baptist, he said, "I'll answer your question, if you answer this question." It's debatable that he was making the point you are. It is also very subtle and tough to base a doctrine upon. I disagree that because an argument can be used both against circ and infant baptism it is therefore wrong because circ was commanded. But infant baptism still wasn't commanded. Christ's priesthood and ties to OT law also ties to being the perfect sacrifice and our mediator. It all points to His character. But what concerns me is that I showed you I Cor 7:14 and Phil 3 and you've gone down this convoluted rabbit hole instead of a direct response. - cdl |
|
| You're gonna tell me that he didn't cite John the Baptist? Of course he did. You’re right, in that, he said “I’ll answer your question if you answer min.” But the reason why he asked them that question is because the answer to that question would have been the answer to their own question. They knew the answer to his question, but they didn’t want to say it because they knew he was right and that he had the authority to do what he was doing. I don’t think it’s quite as debatable as you do, but that certainly isn’t the only thing I rested my doctrine of Christ’s baptism on. I think I backed it up with a lot of stuff before I looked at Jesus’ question to his opponents. Heck, if you want to, look at it this way. Me making the argument that Jesus told his opponents his authority came from his baptism is the back up for the back up argument. Because I went through a lot of stuff first, and then to back that stuff up I gave this argument. It’s something to think about, though. “I disagree that because an argument can be used both against circ and infant baptism it is therefore wrong because circ was commanded. But infant baptism still wasn't commanded.” Think of it this way. God laid out the rules with Abraham. If God were to ever change the rules He would certainly tell us. No such place is ever found in scripture. God never changes the rules. These Jews had always, always, always, always given the sign of the covenant to their infants. If they were to suddenly stop giving the sign of the covenant to their infants, God would have had to given the command not to. He would have let the people know that the rules were changed. But there is no such command, no such change in the rules. - Stephen |
|
| and I showed you in I Cor 7 that the unbelieving spouse and the child of a believer both of whom are unbaptized are sanctified/holy. The covenant thing is satisified. There is no rule change in that regard. The infants are included. But we don't baptize them because guys like you make it about the law and it becomes a vicarious act of the flesh. - cdl |
|
| I know you want to, but all that OT stuff is so that Christ may fulfill the law so that we don't have to. He canceled it. - cdl |
|
| Christ didn't cancel the law. He replaced it with a new one. The reason why the unbeliving spouse is sanctified is because the covenant included everyone in the whole family of the believer, including unbelieving infants. This verse doesn't do any damage to infant baptism. It goes right along with what I've been saying. - Stephen |
|
| Scripture says its canceled in Col 2; you and MC must not agree then; he says infant baptism is required to be included in the covenant; so if it's not required such as I Cor 7 says, there is no need for it. - cdl |
|
| but no need to answer, as I've suspected all along your position is undefendable; you believe in it only because you believe in it - cdl |
|
| Are you saying that we asa Christians have no laws we should obey? - Stephen |
|
| This isn’t a very popular doctrine today but it is worth getting into anyway. There are a lot of people that speak of their freedom in Christ. Almost always it is someone who is doing something they shouldn’t be doing, and know they shouldn’t be doing it but are doing it nonetheless (or not do something which they know they ought to do). But it’s okay to commit these sins because when a Christian implores them to repent of something they’re doing wrong they just play their “Freedom in Christ” card. “Who are you to judge? Jesus came to fulfill the law. I’m free from it.” I hear it so regularly now. We live in what we call a free country. But even in the realms of this free nation, there are certain laws with which we must adhere to. The fact that this is a free country does not mean we can do whatever we please. For there are still serious consequences for people who disobey the law. When people get the idea they can do whatever they want, they are no longer speaking of freedom, but of a nonsensical form of social anarchism. And anarchy is chaos. And God is not a God of chaos but a God of order. And to have order there must be laws. Ever since the great fall, we have rendered ourselves unfit to live on this earth without laws. And exactly what law did Christ fulfill when he came to earth? What laws did he “cancel” and “replace” with new ones? Let’s look at our choices here. Some people look at the Bible and only distinguish between the Old Testament and the New Testament. And they think Jesus did away with a lot of the Old Testament laws so we need only concern ourselves with the New Testament. Right? But think about it! What is the definition of the word “testament” anyway? What does that word mean? We use it all the time when speaking about the Bible. The Hebrew word for covenant, and the Greek word for covenant both are translated into Latin as “testamentum.” Thus, in English we get testament. It’s completely synonymous with our English word covenant. So, is throwing out the old law, just because it was under a different covenant, going to help us solve this problem of knowing what law Christ came to fulfill? Or, should we try to figure out exactly what Christ meant when he said that? The Old Testament is still the word of God, and all of it is useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting. Yet, at the same time, I don’t want to be misunderstood and have it thought of me that I am somehow saying we need to embrace every word of every law written in the Old Testament. “From now on no more red meats, worship on Saturdays only, and blozzy blozzy blozzy.” This would lead to a kind of Theocracy, and we don’t want that, do we? What I am saying, however, is that we need to distinguish. There are three different kinds of law in the Old Testament – the civil law, the religious law, and the moral law. Guess which one Christ came to do away with? Let’s see here. Christ didn’t come to earth to establish a new nation. So he didn’t come to fulfill the civil law. The reason why we don’t follow the civil law of the land of Israel as put forth in the Old Testament is simply because we are not Israelites. We are Americans! Also, the nation of Israel disappeared; ceased to exist, which is more to the point. As Americans, we have our own set of civil laws with which we must abide. See, the civil law was already done away with before Jesus showed up because the land of Israel had already been done away with. So, I say to you Jesus did not come to do away with that law. But again, that law is no longer in effect with us since we have our own civil law, and not just us but every nation on this planet has their own set of civil laws. Okay, let’s move on to the moral law of the Bible. The moral law is kind of self explanatory. In that, the moral law is universal. It applies to all people, in all places, at all times. Usually the ten commandments is thrown around as part of the universal moral law. But rest assured, there are other universal laws such as written in Psalm 82:4, Proverbs 24:11, and any other law that does not fit under the civil or religious law. Allow me to suggest that Christ did not come to fulfill or cancel or replace the civil or moral laws from the Old Testament. Yes, Christ came to change the religious laws. The reason why we don’t follow the laws of Old Testament Judaism is because we’re not Jews. Also, the religion of the Jews ceased to exist (in a sense) when the temple curtain was torn in two. We’re Christians! That was the law Christ came to fulfill when he came down to earth and established a new religion. But if you recall, he didn’t ever once do away with any one law - he raised the standards. Before Christ, you were guilty of adultery if you were caught having a relationship with any woman that wasn’t your wife. When Christ came he said you were guilty of adultery if you so much as looked at another woman lustfully. I’m not just saying this for my health. We live in a world where everyone wants their freedom. Everyone wants to live how they want to live and God forbid anyone tells them how God wants them to live. Remember that the more people go toward their fleshly desires of liberal freedom and chaos, further away they get from a God of law and order. The danger in this kind of freedom theology is also that the second someone has used “freedom in Christ” to justify some sin they have committed – after that, only the sky is the limit. Before one starts to speak of their freedom in Christ, one ought to be much more concerned with their responsibility in Christ. But that’s another issue altogether. My point is that the old religious laws of Judaism were cancelled, but were replaced with new “Christian” laws. - Stephen |
|
| yep there are lots of problems with your systematic theology; good luck with that - cdl |
|
| well if you can offer no counter argument then I must assume my logic was so good that you have nothing valid to refute it with rendering us paedos as the winners. - Stephen |
|
| You would think that with almost 250 comments this post would be number one on the list of top ten hits of all time. - Stephen |
|
| CDL, if 1Corinthians indicates that the covenant reaches out to include unbelieving spouses why do you have such a hard time accepting that it may extend to unbelieving infants? - Stephen |
|
| Stephen I think you forgot to take your medication this morning - cdl |
|
| That really wasn't a good argument. It's okay though. I know many people who resort to ad-hominem abusive argumentation when they run out of legitimate arguments. So it's not just you. - Stephen |
|
| "You would think that with almost 250 comments this post would be number one on the list of top ten hits of all time." FYI, despite the disparity in comments, it's not even close to Part 7 of this same series. As it stands now, the top three posts for individual hits are: Paedobaptism Part 7 = 8840 hits; Mentorship Program = 3517 hits; and Paedobaptism Part 8 = 2809 hits. Just in case you were wondering. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
| Stephen confuses many things including hits with posts - cdl |
|
| and this one is off the charts, "if 1Corinthians indicates that the covenant reaches out to include unbelieving spouses why do you have such a hard time accepting that it may extend to unbelieving infants?" - cdl |
|
| and about as rational: An extremely modest man was in the hospital for a series of tests, which had left his bodily systems extremely upset. Upon making several false alarm trips to the bathroom, he decided the latest episode was another and stayed put.
He suddenly soiled his bed and was embarrassed beyond his ability to remain rational. In a complete loss of composure he jumped out of bed, gathered up the bed sheets, and threw them out the hospital window.
A drunk was walking by the hospital when the sheets landed on him. He started yelling, cursing, and swinging his arms violently trying to get the unknown things off, and ended up with the soiled sheets in a tangled
pile at his feet. As the drunk stood there staring down at the sheets, a
hospital security guard who watched the whole incident walked up and asked,
"What the heck is going on?"
The drunk, still staring down, replied:
"I think I just beat the crap out of a ghost." - cdl |
|
| CDL 1. A hospital security guard would never ask that question. 2. Still haven't heard you argue my point. You just said it was off the charts and not raional. It's better than making it a personal attack against me like you did above. But it still falls short of rebuttalment 3. Let me help you get you started with a real argument. Explain to me how Paul saying "we are the circumcision" in Philippians is an argument against infant baptism. I will need to know where you are going with that if I am to shoot that argument down as well. - Stephen |
|
| that is where we differ; I've considered every argument's worth and validity; finding none I then countered it. - cdl |
|
| me thinks you protesteth too much; but I countered your arguments, that is, until your obtuseness, and absurdity rendered the ROI insignificant; the good news is I understand this doctrine better and I've rectified what I previously saw as a conflict; it is after all good when brothers dwell together in unity - cdl |
|
| and iron sharpens dull spoons - cdl |
|
| "If one of the relatives had become holy, nothing of the duties or lawful comforts of the married state could defile them, and render them displeasing to God, though the other were a heathen. He is sanctified for the wife's sake. She is sanctified for the husband's sake. Both are one flesh. He is to be reputed clean who is one flesh with her that is holy, and vice versâ: Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy (v. 14), that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa. vi. 13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle's vision, Acts x. 28. This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem—within the holy enclosure. Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed." - Matthew Henry |
|
| In MCs post about the mode of baptism he mentioned 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 as a very valid argument for the many uses of the word “baptizo.” It is interesting to me how the verse can also show people the word "baptizo" can be used in reference to infants. Look at the passage again: "“I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.” The part of this passage I wish to examine is that phrase “baptized into Moses.” All the Israelites passed through the Red Sea. Therefore, they were all baptized into Moses. It didn’t matter what age they were, they were baptized into Moses. Infants are included in this, are they not? - Stephen |
|
| yeah and the infants in vs 7 then indulged in pagan revelry and vs 8 sexual immorality; so much for jessica's law - cdl |
|
| so since that concept of infant revelry is absurd, the concept of baptized in the mist and the sea implies the act of following the cloud and the faith to walk through a sea held back back by God takes decision making to be identified with Moses; NT ref to baptism in the OT is made by Peter as well with Noah and the ark too where Peter says we are saved by baptism; obviously refers to spiritual baptism which doesn't realistically happen unless you can confess with your mouth and believe in your heart; "water symbolizes baptism which saves you"; it makes little sense to me to baptize an infant as symbolism of something that the infant can't symbolize, ie belief, faith, trust in Christ and death, burial and resurrection when the infant can't be resurrected until he believes - cdl |
|
| CDL, look at the passage. "They were ALL baptized into Moses." This leaves no exception. It means infants must have been baptized into Moses. Look at it again. "Do not be idolaters, as SOME of them were . . . We should not commit sexual immorality, as SOME of them did . . . We should not test the Lord, as SOME of them did . . . And do not grumble, as SOME of them did.” It says they were “ALL” baptized, but it says only “SOME” of them were active participants in these sins. Your argument fails. It leaves room to believe that everyone including the infants was baptized and that the adults were idolaters, fornicators, grumblers, and testers of the Lord. Moses here is a type of Christ. This is proved by verse 6, which speaks of these things as “types” for us to follow. The question still remains, “Why did Paul use that word here?” The fathers had their baptism in the sea. God was saving them. That is a type for us. These types are for our benefit. Therefore, the baptism of the fathers in verses 1-4 has reference to our baptism in Christ. Notice the parallel of baptism into Moses with baptism into Christ. Surely, Paul has the latter in mind in speaking about the former. In short, this passage is extremely strong in favor of infant baptism. - Stephen |
|
| “7:14 made holy. A striking affirmation of the special character of the home in which at least one parent is a believer. In Old Testament language, the whole family is regarded as being in covenant with God. Even the spouse who refuses to believe comes under the influence of God’s work – much more so the children who are not old enough to profess their faith. Accordingly, Reformed theology has viewed this verse as providing part of the rationale for the baptism of children.” - R. C. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible |
|
| I'm molting out of so not surprised! iago in Aladin; pretty much what I said; the whole family is in covenant but WAIT that means they don't need to be baptized until they believe! and if you do it sooner then the whole symbolic thing is lost - cdl |
|
| not that strong re the ALL issue: still seems implied that he's talking about the adults; "they all ate the same food," ie manna infants don't eat solid food; - cdl |
|
| but this seems strange to me; NT ref to baptism is obviously symbolic; not all that transferable esp in the way you are trying to use it - cdl |
|
| and the term spiritual food and spiritual water is more symbolic of what believers do once again ruling out most if not all infants; this passage by the way is one that an arminian would probably use to contest the fifth point of calvinism; I'd have to study it a good bit more to show why that might be wrong; and to top it all off Paul is wrong on the 23000. It was 24000 in septuagint and hebrew bibles. Not a great passage to base infant baptism upon. - cdl |
|
| I take this passage to mean like a similar one in Hebrews, the pentatuch experience in the wilderness paralleled the behaviors of the Corinthian church, in the OT they were committed at one time to Moses (which implies the law) and they fell away and were destroyed. He exhorted them that they should not do the same under Christ and christian freedom. Other passages clarify that they would not lose their salvation but as a hypothetical it's a useful thing to consider when examining one's own life and behavior before God. THe 23000 discrepancy highlights the fact that he was at an abstract level of symbolism. It's not the right place to examine the meaning of all. There is probably some really good reason why he said 23 instead of 24 but I haven't found it yet. - cdl |
|
| it now seems that the only argument you have left is the one about how they would have naturally replaced circumcision with baptism of infants; that sounds like "I want to baptize my baby. What can I base it on?" Rather than something more sound such as, "The Bible says xxx, therefore yyy." - cdl |
|
| in fact, it's really two assumptions within an assumption. Paedobaptists assume that the early church assumed that some act should be done to infants since infants were circumcised in the OT and they assumed it was baptism. I Cor 7 shows that one parent's faith is sufficient. The child was included without baptism or anything in addition to the faith of one parent (this also counters the "tendency toward more inclusivity in the NT" defense; it is correct that NT is more inclusive but it doesn't require infant baptism to be that way). - cdl |
|
| “Apparently believers in Corinth who found themselves in the anomalous situation of being united in wedlock with unbelieving partners were afraid that their Christian standing and character would be prejudiced by this mixed marital relationship. The apostle was writing to encourage them against this fear. The encouragement he provides is that the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother. In order to reinforce the argument drawn from this principle he appeals to what had been apparently recognized among the Corinthians, namely, that the children of even one believing parent were not unclean but rather holy. That is the force of the statement, “Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” It is quite striking that the apostle does not feel called upon to vindicate or establish this truth; it was taken for granted and therefore without argument pleaded as the premise already conceded by the Corinthians. This shows that the sanctification of the children of parents, only one of whom was a believer, was a recognized principle in the apostolic tradition. It is this principle, clearly enunciated in 1 Corinthians 7:14, that underlies the ordinance of infant baptism. It does not, of course, offer stringent proof of infant baptism. But it does show that the children of a believer are not in the same category, in respect of “sanctification”, as the children who have no Christian parentage. There is a status or condition that can be characterized as “holiness”, which belongs to children in virtue of a parental relationship. In view of the context we cannot maintain that this “holiness” is that of regeneration. But it can be nothing less than the “holiness” of connection and privilege. It is a “holiness” that evinces the operation of the covenant and representative principle and proves that the Christian faith of even one parent involves the embrace of the offspring in a relationship that is by divine warrant described as “holy.” This is wholly consonant with the basis upon which the ordinance of infant baptism rests, just as it is counter to the moving principle of the antipaedobaptist contention.” - John Murray |
|
| The sacrament of baptism is established by Christ and is the sign and seal of union with Him. That is to say that baptism is the sign and seal of membership into that body of which Christ is the Head. The body of which Christ is the Head is the church (Ephesians 5:23-30). Therefore baptism is the sign and seal of membership into the church. Why shouldn’t infants be included? Is not signing and sealing their infants into the membership of the church the same thing Baptists are doing when they perform the derisory infant dedication? - Stephen |
|
| “not that strong re the ALL issue: still seems implied that he's talking about the adults; "they all ate the same food," ie manna infants don't eat solid food” CDL, the solid food and water that the mother eats turns into the food that nurses the baby in infancy. - Stephen |
|
| “it now seems that the only argument you have left is the one about how they would have naturally replaced circumcision with baptism of infants; that sounds like "I want to baptize my baby. What can I base it on?" CDL, why would I want to baptize my baby. Good grief. You make it seem like I woke up one day with strange and uncomfortable urges – urges that I have to bend over backwards to justify. Guess again. - Stephen |
|
| Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. - Jesus |
|
| Jolly good point, my Lord! - Stephen |
|
| Stephen, Stephen, Stephen...Jesus laid hands on the children when he said that. He didn't baptize them. Read romans again. The sign and seal is not referring to baptism. ANd Murray conveniently ignores the fact that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified too which shows that there is no baptism involved. You are being silly on the solid food thing. WHy do you want to baptize your baby? I don't know. - cdl |
|
| 1. Laying on of hands was something you did to people in the covenant is it not? 2. "Read romans again. The sign and seal is not referring to baptism." Really? Then what? 3. Murray made a good point. No, he made a great point. He ignored the part of the unbelieving husband because that was outside the scope of his book. The part about the unbelieving husband does not in any way interfere with the inclusion of the infant to the covenant. 4.You're being silly. 5. I asked the question because you're acting like the only reason why I defend infant baptism is because I want it or crave for it. Like it has nothing to do with my intellectual and moral convictions but only because I want it. - Stephen |
|
| It's actually offensive to see scripture misused in such a manner. - cdl |
|
| Which one are you referring to? - Stephen |
|
| If you're referring to when Jesus said, "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God" then you are missing the point. The part of that verse that I want you to focus on is when Jesus said, "to such belongs the kingdom of God." What Jesus is saying here is that the kingdom of God belongs to little children and that they are members of it. - Stephen |
|
| you're a smart guy Stephen; you'll figure it out - cdl |
|
| "Observe here, 1. Those who are themselves blessed in Christ should desire to have their children also blessed in him, and should hereby testify the true honour they have for Christ, by their making use of him, and the true love they have for their children, by their concern about their souls. They brought to him infants, very young, not able to go, sucking children, as some think. None are too little, too young, to bring to Christ, who knows how to show kindness to them that are not capable of doing service to him. 2. One gracious touch of Christ's will make our children happy. They brought infants to him, that he might touch them in token of the application of his grace and Spirit to them, for that always makes way for his blessing, which likewise they expected: see Isa. xliv. 3. I will first pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and then my blessing upon thine offspring. 3. It is no strange thing for those who make their application to Jesus Christ, for themselves or for their children, to meet with discouragement, even from those who should countenance and encourage them: When the disciples saw it, they thought, if this were admitted, it would bring endless trouble upon their Master, and therefore they rebuked them, and frowned upon them. The spouse complained of the watchmen, Cant. iii. 3; v. 7. 4. Many whom the disciples rebuke the Master invites: Jesus called them unto him, when, upon the disciples' check, they were retiring. They did not appeal from the disciples to the Master, but the Master took cognizance of their despised cause. 5. It is the mind of Christ that little children should be brought to him, and presented as living sacrifices to his honour: "Suffer little children to come to me, and forbid them not; let nothing be done to hinder them, for they shall be as welcome as any." The promise is to us, and to our seed; and therefore he that has the dispensing of promised blessings will bid them welcome to him with us. 6. The children of those who belong to the kingdom of God do likewise belong to that kingdom, as the children of freemen are freemen. If the parents be members of the visible church, the children are so too; for, if the root be holy, the branches are so. 7. So welcome are children to Christ that those grown people are most welcome to him who have in them most of the disposition of children." - Matthew Henry |
|
| Henry is spot on and in these quotes he stops short of baptizing infants - cdl |
|
| Of course he was spot on! He was a firm believer in infant baptism! - Stephen |
|
| that's the spot on him - cdl |
|
| That's one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. - Stephen |
|
| If your argument (infant baptism is not commanded and therefore should not be practiced) holds any validity then I guess women should not partake of communion. Recognizing Sunday as the Christian Sabbath and day of rest should not be practiced. Also forget about celebrating Christmas and Easter – those are definitely not commanded. Oh and we will need to get rid of all musical instruments in our church service since I don’t see any command to use that we should use them. And we must immediately get all churches to evacuate their property because nowhere in scripture does it command churches to own land. Am I missing anything? - Stephen |
|
| Consider the text of the Westminster Confession on this point: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (1.6). - Stephen |
|
| el burro save mas que tu - cdl |
|
| so infant baptism is necessary for "man's salvation, faith and life" now - cdl |
|
| Try something "necessary for His own glory." - Stephen |
|
| clear basis in NT for communion, Lord's day. Sabbath shows that it's not the day that's impt. It's for believers. Those can be deduced but infant baptism is inferred by it's supporters. Col 2:11-12 shows that baptism is different from circumcision. And note how those things changed. Nothing in NT connects baptism to circumcision. If it did, it's more conceivable that baptism changed the tradition to one that's intended for believers. Non believers and very young children were not excluded at the passover meal in OT but they don't have communion today and you don't even let believing children have communion. Christmas and Easter were roman catholic events meant to coopt pagan traditions (similar to infant baptism perhaps) and call me scrooge or a krank, but I'm not keen on Christmas in light of what it's become anyway, but I digress. I don't have to celebrate either. There are plenty of musical instruments in psalms and Paul references psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, but you don't have to use instruments if you don't want to. There isn't a footprint of evidence that NT believers were paedobaptists. THere's more implied there on baptizing the dead but you don't do that. - cdl |
|
| Try something "necessary for His own glory." Ok, let's try that. It ain't. - cdl |
|
| you are guilty of the same thing that Christ condemned in the jews, ie multiplying commands from tradition - cdl |
|
| and, the biggest problem is that there is so much in the OT and NT that emphasizes faith and freedom from the law and non reliance on the flesh and you want to subvert it and emphasize a non faith action such as infant baptism done in the flesh and supposedly based on the law - cdl |
|
| that is what you are missing - cdl |
|
| Yes, the Bible talks about freedom from the law. But it also emphasizes that we have a responsibility in Christ. That is what you are missing. - Stephen |
|
| You are so set on pulling away from traditions thatyou're throwing the baby out with the baptismal water. - Stephen |
|
| and on church property; NT christians went to temple which is basis for church bldgs but you may easily find churches that meet in homes and schools - cdl |
|
| it doesn't emphasize a responsibility to baptize infants; that is what you are adding; no, I'm keeping the baby away from the baptismal water because I'm not interested in tradition only - cdl |
|
| and one would think that what you call a sacrament would be based on so much more - cdl |
|
| and if there may be such shallow basis for our doctrines then we should be more inclusive of mormons, moonies, jehovah's witness, gnostics, christian scientists, rostifarians (now that would be fun) and drink poison and handle snakes and of course we'd all have to speak in tongues - cdl |
|
| “Col 2:11-12 shows that baptism is different from circumcision.” No, Colossians 2:11-12 connects circumcision and baptism. They are both one time acts that show the removal of the unclean from the body. “Nothing in NT connects baptism to circumcision.” Colossians 2:11-12 does for starters. “Non believers and very young children were not excluded at the passover meal in OT but they don't have communion today and you don't even let believing children have communion.” Duh! To include infants in the Lord’s Supper would be the height of ignorance. If you can’t see the obvious differences between baptism and the Lord’s supper then you need another discussion altogether. “Christmas and Easter were roman catholic events meant to coopt pagan traditions (similar to infant baptism perhaps) and call me scrooge or a krank, but I'm not keen on Christmas in light of what it's become anyway, but I digress. I don't have to celebrate either. There are plenty of musical instruments in psalms and Paul references psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, but you don't have to use instruments if you don't want to.” Look, my point was that if there has to be an explicit command in scripture in order for you to not consider it “wrong” then it must be wrong in your eyes for us to celebrate these holidays or for us to use instruments in worship since there is not a command to do either one. “THere's more implied there on baptizing the dead but you don't do that.” Actually it’s “baptizing for the dead” not “baptizing the dead.” - Stephen |
|
| shoot "it's not even important what you believe as long as you believe in something" - cdl |
|
| It's backwards, right? You're pretending that today is opposite day, aren't you? - Stephen |
|
| Col 2 is talking about spiritual baptism and since Peter says that water symbolizes baptism, faith is required first. mormons baptize for the dead - cdl |
|
| and why would it be ignorant to let non believers have communion? You base your argument on NT. Do the same with baptism. - cdl |
|
| opposite of you but positioned with truth - cdl |
|
| there has to be an explicit command for there to be an explicit command - cdl |
|
| if circ leads to baptism and passover leads to communion, then Paul wouldn't be able to say in Col 2 to disregard dietary law and festivals. Those are idle notions which are disconnected from Christ such as a ritual based on circumcision, ie infant baptism. Read the whole chapter. And in the case of Rom 4 just read it. Circumcision is the sign as a seal of righteousness Abraham had by faith. No baptism there. - cdl |
|
| you are basically admitting you don't have any real basis for your position - cdl |
|
| Grr. Baptism signifies what lies at the basis of a state of salvation and union with Christ. It represents cleansing from sin and cleansing from the guilt of sin. On the other hand, the Lord’s Supper presupposes that which is sealed by baptism. It represents something that is consequent upon the state of salvation. The fruits and blessings of what baptism represents are permanent and ever-increasing, even though the grace that is represented is unrepeatable. This is why Baptism is only administered once. In contrast, the Lord’s Supper is to be received frequently. It represents what is daily repeated in the life of the believer. See the differences? Also don’t forget how convenient it is that the act of baptism can actually physically be done with infants and infants cannot physically receive bread or wine. Just a coincidence? I think not. - Stephen |
|
| but I can see how you can, by subverting some verses and ignoring the rest, read what you read into Col. - cdl |
|
| YES! water "baptism signifies what lies at the basis of a state of salvation and union with Christ" but infant baptism does not signify that. baptism *is* only once, believer's baptism. It is the only water baptism that is desirable; see Acts 19 for that. John's baptism was cleansing/repentance. Jesus' is death, burial, resurrection. Infants can't even do the repentance version. btw, I didn't say infant communion I said non believers and very young children my short, little, subversive Stephen. - cdl |
|
| that's the problem with using analogies such as ones you introduced; there is an aspect of ambiguity as with all your arguments - cdl |
|
| you are a smart guy Stephen, a bit stubborn, but you'll figure it out - cdl |
|
| "You are being silly on the solid food thing." Yesterday my two month old baby was awake all day long. She never took a nap. Not even a little one. The reason why - two days ago my wife drank caffeinated coffee! Babies don't eat the same food their mothers do? Try telling that to my exhausted wife. - Stephen |
|
| No thanks. I like the way my head being attached to my neck just the way it is. - cdl |
|
| Found this on drudge: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2983849.ece - Stephen |
|
| you must have pulled that one out of your anise - cdl |
|
I know that this is an old post, but I have just stumbled upon it. Matthew, I really appreciate you sharing your studies. (And James is adorable btw) My husband and I are in a similar position that you were at the time of the post. We were both raised Southern Baptist and most of my family is now serving as SB ministers. In college we attended a PCA church because our theology was more aligned with the PCA (reformed theology) than most SB Churches. I am actually on staff at that church now. Being raised Baptist neither one of us ever questioned our disbelief in infant baptism. When I began to consider the reformed view on the issue of baptism, I really thought from the beginning that there was no way I would ever be convinced that infant baptism was Biblical; however, from my research thus far I am now leaning on the pedobaptist side of the fence. It is amazing how arrogantly we can believe our doctrine is correct with out really having had seen the other perspective. We are now thinking about children and are therefore really talking, reading scripture, researching, and especially praying about our stance on infant baptism. We both want to thoroughly research each side of the issue to be well informed. My husband especially would love some things to read on the subject (he's a big reader). You mentioned some of the theologians that you and your wife read, and I was wondering if you could compile a list of some of those specific books, articles, ect. We would really appreciate it. - BV |
|
BV - Gladly!
First, and foremost, I just want to encourage both you and your husband to research the issue as well as you can - don't be afraid to wrestle with it. This really was a tough decision for Karen and I to make as it entailed us leaving our church (which we really enjoyed) and finding a new church home. That being said, God has been good. We have been blessed at our new church home and are both glad God has led us there.
One of the greatest resources we found was a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur recorded by Ligonier Ministries. They are both two of the church's finest theologians around today, and to hear MacArthur and Sproul argue the issues was a real help. One of the other benefits of this resource is that it gives a perspective from both sides of the issue allowing you to get more bang for your buck. There's also a segment featuring the two scholar/pastors answering questions from the audience. I highly recommend this resource. You can purchase this debate here from Ligonier's website.
Karen and I found some systematic theologies to be really helpful. On the paedobaptist side of the argument, Charles Hodge's, Louis Berkhof's, and Robert Reymond's Systematics were all invaluable for helping us understand the deeper aspects of the argument. Hodge's was by the far the most cumbersome and difficult of the three to work through, yet also the most thorough. Calvin's Institutes also has a few chapters dedicated to the subject of infant baptism.
A good argument for the traditional credobaptist point of view can be found in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. Furthermore, he wrote his piece on baptism as a direct response to Berkhof's piece, so those two make good companion pieces.
If your resources are tight, be aware that a lot of these works can be found online and accessed for free (especially the older works like Calvin, Hodge and Berkhof). However, if you can afford them, these Systematic Theologies make for invaluable resources for sound research on a wide variety of topics. They are some of the best investments you will ever make.
I hope this helps BV. I am hoping that you and yor husband will find your relationship with God and each other strengthened during this time. Plase let me know what conclusions you and your husband come to as your journey continues. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Another great resource Karen and I enjoyed was a debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur on the matter recorded by Ligonier Ministries. Sproul and MacArthur are two of my favorite Reformed theologians of today and hearing them explain their respective positions was really helpful. It is also good because it presents both sides of the issue, so you get more bang for your buck. The final segment had MacArthur and Sproul answer questions from the audience on the issue too, which was also kind of neat. You purchase this resource from Ligonier's website here.
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
BV, I commend you for taking the time and energy to research and really wrestle with the issue of infant baptism with your husband. Being brought up in the Southern Baptist church (as Matt said), I found that I knew what I "believed" but I didn't even really know why I believed it. I know when Matt and I were really studying the issue to figure out what we believed about it, it was hard work, but really gave us a peace in the end when we came to our final conclusion. Reading your comment really took me back to the time when we were wrestling with the decision ourselves.
As Matt said, please let us know what conclusions you come to as well. I hope you will find the resources Matt referred you to... especially the debate between R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur--that was really good and very helpful since it had both sides! I'm glad you happened upon the blog as you searched for answers. Matt really put a lot of time into this topic and it makes it worth it when he can supply some help (or at least some direction to resources) for others who are dealing with the same thing. God bless you and your husband! - KareBear |
|
'"I respectivley side with written." - Chuck Sowers'
It is exciting that the Apostles were writing to us.
John Stott (a paedobaptist, anglican) also sides "with the written" in Through the Bible Through the Year* in his commentary on John 17. In John 17, Jesus prays for "those" (which is us) -- that we will follow the teaching of them (the Apostles). That teaching is found written in the NT. It is not inferred. That way we avoid a risk. Anything may be inferred -- good or bad. Stott needs to review his position on infant baptism based on his commentary. Btw, for those that will now want to refer to "household baptisms," and claim explicit guidance to baptize infants, please read the surrounding or related verses first which in each case specify that the water baptizees were believers. Were infant baptism to be the teaching of the Apostles in this area, they would have explicitly written to "those" (us), "baptize your infants." Water baptism and that which is symbolized by water baptism are inseparable.
It is also exciting that the baptized adult lives in the spirit to bear fruit and glorify God. The baptized infant still lives in the flesh and is unable to bear fruit or glorify God until believing.
*outstanding book btw - cdl |
|
For the Baptist argument, one of the neatest was John Piper's book Brothers, We Are Not Professionnals which has a chapter dealing with baptism. For us Presbys, John Murray wrote a great work called The Mode of Baptism. It's still one of the strongest arguments ever. He came up with many arguments not a lot of people would even think of. Another person who had some original (but not as strong) arguments was Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology that MC mentioned above. After reading the works Calvin, Hodge, Berkhof, Murray, Reymond, it's easy to see the mountain of proof we have versus the ant hill that Grudem, Piper, MacArthur, and cdl stand on. - Stephen |
|
a ton of weak books, works, arguments do not refute a few strong ones. If you want to put those guys against Jesus' top writers (Paul, Peter, John, "Hebrews") it's your choice, but it's not God's will - cdl |
|
And here I thought you'd be happy that I listed your name next to Grudem, Piper, and MacArthur - Stephen |
|
surprised would be more accurate; lowercase cdl the way I do it was a nice touch - cdl |
|
btw, Stephen and the red herring:
John Murray's piece is about immersion, pouring...only indirectly related since dipping an infant is a problem if that's the correct mode (I'm not particularly enamored with any mode though immersion sure catches the symbolism a sacrament might); Murray's piece isn't about infant baptism.
Reymond gets stuck on the why infant's have the right to be baptized. [ In a footnote , Reymond notes ]... : It is true that some Reformed theologians ( e. g. , Ursinus , Polanus , Cloppenburg , Voetius , Witsius ) have taught that covenant children , are regenerated from earliest childhood , are united to Christ , and are therefore entitled to baptism . Other Reformed writers ( e.g. , Zanchius , Ames , Spanheim , Ussher ) hesitate to make any stipulation as to the time of regeneration for covenant children . I count myself among this latter group.
Note Stephen's sidestep while trying to sound well read. IMHO, just stick with what the apostles say in the inspired Word. - cdl |
|
which based on John 17, appears to be the Lord's opinion too
- cdl |
|
Actually JohnMurray's book is called The Mode of Baptism but it deals a lot with the question of infants directly, which I know, because . . . well . . . I read it. Also, don't forget he has written other essays and articles about baptism as well.
As for Reymond, I'll get back to you on that one.
As for Jesus, don't be ridiculous. - Stephen |
|
no offense but I read murray too so where is it or what is it
on Jesus being ridiculous; that might be your problem; today's sunday a good opportune time to get it
- cdl |
|
Chapter Four: Infant Baptism - Stephen |
|
Notice Reymond's statemnet. He doesn't say that children aren't covenant children from earliest childhood, he simply says he hesitates to say for sure whether they are or aren't which, in my opinion, isn't a bad position to take. - Stephen |
|
I meant where online. Reymond shows reform folks can't agree on why and the extent to which the error continues. But, nevertheless, you still aren't responding to Jesus point that we learn the teaching of the apostles which doesn't teach infant baptism. Calling it ridiculous is a strange response. - cdl |
|
btw, I'll be surprised if Murray adds much beyond Pierre Marcel's 1953 book The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. http://www.churchplantingvillage.net/atf/cf/%7B087EF6B4-D6E5-4BBF-BED1-7983D360F394%7D/CHRISTIAN_BAPTISM.pdf is easily accessible online and gives an overview of the Baptist position, but we're just rehashing. Stott's statement has ramifications for your position that you are still avoiding, ie Jesus, in advance, endorsed apostolic teaching and that teaching doesn't teach infant baptism but does teach believers baptism. - cdl |
|
and instead of just rattling off names and expecting readers to buy a lot of books or read dusty library books, here are a few links:
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Marcel_Pierre_88662323.aspx
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj35/article1.html
http://www.founders.org/journal/fj36/reviews.html
http://www.rbc.org.nz/reviews/MaloneReview.doc
- cdl |
|
CDL, he's obviously calling you ridiculous, not Jesus or a particular doctrine.
Also, why would you "be surprised if Murray adds much beyond Pierre Marcel's 1953 book The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism." Since you've read Murray you should know.
Also, stop playing stupid games. Nobody here is denying the importance of apostolic teaching. The whole point is whether Biblical doctrine instructs us to baptize infants or not. So stop building straw man arguments so you can tear them down (e.g. paedobaptists don't believe apostolic teachings).
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
I don't expect readers to buy a lot of books. Call me an old folgy but I like reading books opposed to doing my homework on the web. If all people who do their research on the internet come to the same conclusions you do then, as much as it sounds like fun, I'll pass. - Stephen |
|
I thought I was the fogy around here. My point was:
John Stott (a paedobaptist, anglican) also sides "with the written" in Through the Bible Through the Year* in his commentary on John 17. In John 17, Jesus prays for "those" (which is us) -- that we will follow the teaching of them (the Apostles). That teaching is found written in the NT. It is not inferred. That way we avoid a risk. Anything may be inferred -- good or bad. Stott needs to review his position on infant baptism based on his commentary. Btw, for those that will now want to refer to "household baptisms," and claim explicit guidance to baptize infants, please read the surrounding or related verses first which in each case specify that the water baptizees were believers. Were infant baptism to be the teaching of the Apostles in this area, they would have explicitly written to "those" (us), "baptize your infants." Water baptism and that which is symbolized by water baptism are inseparable.
- cdl |
|
You can't take anything John Stott says seriously anymore. That old folgy went off the deep end a while ago though. - Stephen |
|
that's the most intelligent thing I've read from your family on the internet yet - cdl |
|
CDL, of course the apostles taught believer baptism. The paedobaptist position does not exclude believer baptism. In fact, I would wager to say that all credible Reformed theologians would say that when someone becomes a believer who has never been baptized, then that person should be baptized. The apostles taught that, Calvin taught that, Presbyterians and Baptists teach that, etc. That's not the issue and never has been the issue.
The burden of proof is on you, however, to prove that that is the only case when a person should be baptized. Since infants were included in the old covenant then you need to explain why they are excluded now. You are the one inferring that they should be excluded. The Bible never states, at any time, that they should be excluded. Indeed, the very nature of the new administration of the covenant is more inclusive than the old administration of the covenant.
- Matthew Cochrane |
|
I'm only replying for the sake of other readers though no reply is really needed. The apostolic teaching for us is limited to what they wrote. Since they stopped at believers baptism so do I. Your position is based on what you claim they were thinking which potentially has no end esp. for mystics. Additionally, you are violating the regulative principle of worship established by reform thinkers even. But I know that your mind is closed.
"Jesus prays for "those" (which is us) -- that we will follow the teaching of them (the Apostles). That teaching is found written in the NT. It is not inferred." - cdl |
|
No, no, no. After all this, you're still completely missing the point, CDL. Like I stated previously, please stop building strawman argument and tearing them down. For your own sake as much as anyone else's.
I believe the Bible explcitly teaches infant baptism. I have never claimed that my position is based on what I thought they were thinking. That's absurd.
I believe a careful analysis of Scripture reveals that the Bible teaches that infants are members of the covenant community and are to partake, as such, in its sacraments, unless we are specifically instructed to do otherwise by Scripture (e.g. as in the case of the Lord's Supper). I do not pretend that that is what the apostles were thinking but never quite states. I believe that is the explicit teaching of Scripture.
Far from being close-minded on this issue, as well as others, I went back-and-forth on this matter for years while trying to weigh all sides of the argument. (Of course, you knew that because I explained all of that in the original posts.)
As for the regulative principle, there are two different takes on it (Luther's and Calvin's) but I don't think either one applies in this case. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
"Jesus prays for "those" (which is us) -- that we will follow the teaching of them (the Apostles)." strawman or founder and perfector of our faith.... - cdl |
|
"This makes no sense as in every other possible way the new covenant is more inclusive. - Matthew Cochrane"
"In a powerful new book, evangelical theologian and former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Jack Rogers argues unequivocally for equal rights in the church and in society for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Throughout history, he observes, Christianity has moved towards ever greater openness and inclusiveness." (amazon review of book insightfully cited at TLM's site)
another nonsensical paedo argument goes crashing down. - cdl |
|
Yeah, except for one itsy-bitsy difference: Infants are explicitly included in the covenant in the Bible!
Besides that your logic and reasoning are impeccable. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
If that's seriously the line of argument you're going to resort to taking you might want to consider just dropping the subject so you stop looking so stupid. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
I don't mind looking stupid. I'm a christian.
- cdl |
|
anyway, circumcised infants are a symbol of the covenant which is with those with circumcised hearts, ie believers who are baptized by the Holy Spirit through belief in Christ and who may also be baptized with water; so, you like Rogers, ignore applicable scripture and resort to vacuous arguments such as increasing inclusiveness - cdl |
|
What does
it mean to be a “child of the covenant”? In its
barest form the expression refers to children born into a family, where
at least one parent is a member in good standing of a visible church.
The church is viewed as the covenant community, the visible body of
Christ. The church possesses the sign of the covenant, baptism, and is
called to perform all the sign signifies.
In
1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul declares that the children of at least one
believing parent are considered “holy” and not
“unclean.” To be unclean in this biblical sense is to
be outside the covenant community, unconsecrated, or set apart from
God. So, we conclude that in some sense, however restricted, children
of a believer are within the covenant of grace. We recognize that
God’s promise of gracious salvation is made to believers and
to their seed (Genesis 17:7; Luke 1:55).
With these givens we are still left with several controversial questions. They include the following:
1)
Should infant children of believers be given the sign of the new
covenant, baptism? Those who answer yes to this question do so largely
because they see a continuity (though not identity) with the old
covenant. In the old covenant, the covenant sign of circumcision was
not only permitted to be administered to infants, it was commanded.
Among other things circumcision was a sign of faith in God’s
covenant promises. In the case of adults, such as Abraham, the sign of
faith was given after faith was present. In the case of the infant
Isaac, circumcision was given before faith was present. This indicates
at the very least that, in principle, a sign of faith need not be tied
to the antecedent presence of faith.
Those
who answer no to this question usually argue on two main premises. The
first is that in the new covenant, faith is not only a condition to
receive the promises of the covenant, it is also a necessary condition
to receive the sign of the covenant. The second is that in Israel, the
concept of a divine theocracy was operating which is not in effect in
the new covenant. Though not necessarily conveying salvation,
circumcision did have biological significance. Ethnic separation was
marked by circumcision. Since there is no ethnic separation in the New
Testament, there is no reason to continue the inclusion of children in
the reception of the covenant sign.
2)
Does baptism regenerate infants? Many who practice infant baptism
believe in baptismal regeneration. In this case the sign conveys what
it signifies. For example, the Roman Catholic Church views baptism as
the instrumental cause of justification, by which saving grace is
infused into the infant ex opere operato (“by the doing it is
done”). However, others who practice infant baptism do not
believe in baptismal regeneration.
3)
If baptism does not regenerate or place the child in a state of grace,
the question then is raised, What happens to infants who die in
infancy? This question is dealt with at length by John Gerstner in his
recent book The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, vol.
II. Gerstner distinguishes among three different views of covenant
children affirmed by those who hold to infant baptism.
Infants
are “little saints.” Calvin, for example, believed
that covenant children are elect and regenerate at birth. Here the
greatest “Calvinist” of all time, Calvin himself,
adopted a position that was utterly contradictory to Calvinism. Calvin
assumed that all children of all believers are elect. He apparently
missed the implication that this would mean that every human person was
elect. According to Calvin, all the elect come to faith and none are
ever lost. This would amount to universalism. Every human alive has
some ancestor who was a believer. If Adam and Eve were redeemed, all
the progeny would be numbered among the elect. But if ever there was a
theologian who was not a universalist it was John Calvin.
The
“as if” view. Though not assuming that all covenant
children are elect, this view assumes that most are elect. Since we do
not know who are and who aren’t, the children are treated
“as if” they are elect until they give convincing
evidence to the contrary.
Infants
are “little sinners.” Edwards and most current
Reformed groups see covenant children as being born into the
obligations of the covenant. Here the church has a solemn duty not to
take their election for granted or as an assumption. These children do
not have the privileges of full communicant membership until they make
a credible confession of faith. Their parents, the church, and they
themselves are urged to “seek” salvation.
Though
baptism does not automatically convey salvation or communion privileges
and places the child under covenant obligation, there remains an
advantage for these children. They are placed in the context of the
covenant community where the means of grace are strongly focused.
When
the apostle Paul repudiated the erroneous idea that ethnic identity or
biological inheritance insured salvation among the Jews, he
nevertheless reaffirmed that there was a great advantage to being
Jewish in the Old Testament. He answers his own question,
“What advantage is there in being a Jew?” by
declaring, “Much, in every way!” (Romans
3:1–2). The Jews had the oracles of God. Since faith, the
condition for salvation, comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of
God, it is an enormous advantage to be where the Word of God is
preached.
The child
of believers then enjoys the environment where God chiefly works to
bring His people to Himself. The sign of baptism is not an empty sign.
It is a sign of God’s promise to redeem all who believe. God
does not promise to save all who are baptized. But He does promise to
save all who possess by faith all that baptism signifies. To have the
sign is to have the promise, but not the condition of the promise. To
have the promise without the condition is both a privilege and an
obligation. The obligation is to meet the condition; the privilege is
to have the promise that attends the meeting of the obligation.
The
obligation does not stop with the child. A heavy obligation rests upon
the parents and the whole church for the nurture and admonition of
these children. The church, together with the parents, have the role of
spiritual caretakers of the covenant children. - R. C. Sproul |
|
"sign of God’s promise to redeem all who believe;" infants can't read the signs - cdl |
|
About 3 years ago, I changed from believing in paedobaptism to believing in credobaptism. The verses that finally convinced me of this truth were Hebrews 8: 7-12
Hebrews 8:7-12 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. (8) Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; (9) "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. (10) "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. (11) "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. (12) "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
These verses showed me that the New Covenant is NOT a "mixed covenant". The focal point for me is in verse 11 where we have the phrase "for all shall know me". The meaning of the word "know" is clarified in verse 12; pointing to believers only. Also, the word "all" in this case DOES mean every individual since the meaning of this "all" is emphasized in the phrase in verse 11 - "from the least of them to the greatest of them". Thus "every" member of the New Covenant must be a true believer.
After seeing this, believer baptism falls right into place. With infant baptism there would be more of a mixed bag. - Ken |
|
There they go in Hebrews again - Stephen |
|
Ken it looks to me like you have read every part of this series and associated remarks. My two cents of considering it as a whole: the paedo's don't like to use scriptures that are clear and to the point. They prefer inferences and unprovable theories. - c |
|
credobaptism: the parsimonious alternative - c |
|
"the paedo's don't like to use scriptures that are clear and to the point."
Not all scriptures are clear and to the point. Besides, I can't believe this is coming from the people who turn to Hebrews every time they get backed in a corner.
"They prefer inferences and unprovable theories."
What unprovable theories?
- Stephen |
|
Exactly. Scripture gets less and less clear and more and more pointless in the hands of the paedo interpreter and anyone else who ignores clarity.
Unprovable: 1. gentiles based on the covenant believed that baptism replaced circ so infants were baptized
2. Only Stephen understands Hebrews - c |
|
Stephen, your unprovable theory #1 above is after all, refutable. As Ken shows, the author of Hebrews is explaining to Jews the error in their understanding of the covenant. So, Gentiles such as you and me who have descended from those who are not hindered by a tradition of an old covenant only. It takes brute force and ignorance to get confused in this case.
If PCA wasn't touting that they teach "the whole counsel of God," you might get away with taking a book like Hebrews off the table for any reason, except of course the one you are using. But, I did get a good laugh wrt who is backed into a corner. The shoe size of even a tiny guy like you can't possibly squeeze into a corner you are in unless you are en pointe. - c |
|
unprovable theory #3. the NT is more inclusive so the new covenant includes infants of disciples amongst those with baptismal rights
Here's where such theoretical but false logic leads, "The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference -- all these biblical values argue for gay marriage. If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow." - |
|
sorry forgot this: quoted material by Lisa Miller, Sarah Ball, and Anne Underwood in 12/15 Newsweek - c |
|
Yep, the historical, orthodox doctrine of paedobaptism confrimed by the early church fathers, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, Martin Lloyd-Jones, and R.C. Sproul led liberal Newsweek hacks to believe in the merits of homosexual marriage. That makes sense. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Yep, unbiblical doctrine isn't like wine which gets better with time. - c |
|
| Yep, and paedobaptism is not only an argument for homosexual marriage, but alchoholism. - c frootey |
|
and kool-aid - c |
|
Nevertheless, and all red herrings aside, there isn't enough Purplesaurus Rex© in the universe to make me shamelessly try using inclusivity as an argument for anything. Likewise, repeatedly list all the living or DWEM, cobweb encrusted theologians you want. Unprovable theory #4. Name dropping is a viable argument when one's doctrine is based on unprovable theories rather than legitimate hermeneutics. - c |
|
Paul used inclusivity in Galatians, where the argument stems from - take up your issues with him.
As for Newsweek, I dare say most Christians glanced at that story and saw it for what it was - rubbish. And I dare say everybody else realized the story had nothing to do with the doctrine of paedobaptism.
Take a deep breath my friend, there is far more to the gospel of Jesus Christ than the issue of baptism. We obviously disagree on it but not every issue needs to be brought back to baptism. God bless and have a merry Christmas. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Not even Christmas, yet, but I can see why you want to move on. Paul's use of inclusivity doesn't extend to infant baptism or gay marriage both of which are rubbish. Too bad. After all this time twisting scripture to fit your faulty doctrine, it's no surprise your twisted mind can't understand a clear point. - c |
|
Anyway, Stephen, there's four unprovable theories irt your post. I noticed you conceded the point on inferences. - c |
|
I don't have time to study up on all the church fathers and others, btw, but my guess is they are not as infallible as the Bible. One father, Tertullian, taught one should delay baptism as long as possilbe. If memory serves, Augustine of Hippo taught infant baptism removes original sin. G. K. Chesterton, a Roman Catholic, duh! Calvin, Puritans (such as Cotton Mather??!!!) certainly had their flaws. Ditto C. S. Lewis. Part of the problem with the list of hall of famers is it implies, "We baptize babies 'cuz it's always been done that way." And, of course, the Didache shows that's not true. A doctrine needs to stand the scriptural test, ie be based on scripture for gosh sakes. Bottom line, it all has to be scrubbed against scripture which is untwisted and straightforward on the subject and doesn't need 10 weak arguments or 10 earthly men to show that baptism is for believers. - c |
|
Christmas is over - c |
|
"So Peter spreads the word that it's okay to eat whatever you want and people coincidentally stop having visions and prophetic dreams?" Revelation?
Infant baptism makes more sense. - c |
|
But, of course, an alien gave John a powerful hallucinogen. So powerful it had to be buffered with candy but still gave John a sour stomach. Had to be to overcome John's vision blocking diet because the visions in the second half of Revelations are so really far out no one could have ones like that without chemicals. - c |
|
Nicene Creed of 381: We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins
the argument from history that they were baptizing infants since the beginning also would have to argue that infant baptism includes "repentance, for the remission and forgiveness of sins," but pedos don't believe that. They just pick the part of history that they like - c |
|
I know this might surprise you, but I am not an expert on the Nicene Creed. However, I suspect the excerpt quoted above applies to adult conversions of the "Repent and be baptized" variety. If it's not, however, and is indeed supposed to refer to infants too, then I obviously do not agree.
The point of tracing infant baptism back to NT times is to prove it as a historical fact. I am not sure why that would imply that I agreed with all of ancient Christianity's theological beliefs. They seem to be two completely separate issues. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Your approach to history makes sense to me if one is trying to just prove their thesis without fulling considering the implications. - c |
|
I've been studying the issue diligently. I am a Reformed Baptist who Pastors an evangelical congregation also in the SBC. We're all around 50 + in age so the issue won't affect us. However, I think it is important to occasionally return and prove the doctrines you believe not from tradition but by Scripture. So I applaud the author for his hard work.
One caution to any studying this: the only proper way to study this issue correctly is by way of covenants, studying the Bible from Gen to Rev, drawing your conclusions after all the data is in. Tota Scriptura and Sola Scripture must apply. Statements such as "The NT does not show any examples of infant baptism" won't do the job exegetically. Look at all of Scripture, then draw the conclusions. I'm still studying but trying to give the padeobaptist a full hearing, if for no other reason, Calvin and many other great theologians believed this so we must take it seriously. Why do I say that? Calvin et al is a larger mind on theology than all of us put together. Lots of RBs on the other side who are brilliant as well. One that comes to mind is James White. Acknowledging that helps us, not hinders us, IMHO. But remember....tradition can hinder ALL of us when coming to conclusions.
Another piece of advice: listen to debates on the web on the issue. I've listened to Sproul v MacArthur, Shisho v White, and others I can't even remember. It will help you think through the issue thoroughly.
Finally, remember that Paul says "there are things hard to be understood". God in His sovereignty made it that way for a reason. We must be willing to do the spade work.
Finally, remember even the brilliant minds are fallible but serve as a good guide - similar to how a man-written confession functions IMHO.
Semper Reformanda, brothers & sisters. - |
|
As there is "one Lord" and "one faith," so there is "one baptism, which is not the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." And this baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit the baptism of the Spirit and fire, by which we are buried with him, that being washed and purged from our sins we may "walk in newness of life." As to the baptism of infants, it is a mere human tradition for which neither precept nor practice is to be found in all the Scripture. Eph. 4:5; 1 Pet. 3:21; Rom. 6:4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12
exegetically isn't in my dictionary, but exegesis is. It means to explain, interpret. Exposition. Explanation, esp. an explanation or critical interpretation of a text.
"There are no NT examples of infant baptism" is a true statement. It is made because it is a very strong point. Proponents of doctrines not found in the NT have opened the door to even more unsound doctrines which are not found in the NT such as civil disobedience. Guarding against false teaching and this particular entry point of error is why this discussion is valid for those who are no longer eligible for infant baptism. The rest of the point is that exegesis of other texts do not lead to infant baptism other than by the a priori inference of the paedobaptist. Ironsides pointed out that OT lessons are only valid if confirmed in the NT is a pretty sound and safe hermeneutical guideline.
Great theologians must be put to the test of scriptural truth and be tested by the why's and how's of the doctrines they defend. Just saying Calvin said so (I'm referring to NCT) or other theologian says so without explaining his reasons is not a proof. When the why is shown, the weakness of the argument is once again revealed. Theology, by its very nature, cannot capture all that is in scripture but it is a good tool. The Bible is the final authority. Christianity is a relationship. It is not a formula. - c |
|
Peter to his readers about the hard to understand:
| Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. |
  
  
|
 2Pe 3:15 |
|
And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; |
|
2Pe 3:16 |
|
As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. |
|
2Pe 3:17 |
|
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know [these things] before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. |
|
2Pe 3:18 |
|
But grow in grace, and [in] the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] glory both now and for ever. Amen. |
the bold section pretty well sums up the pedo position. Other translations use words such as twist and distort in place of the KJV "wrest." For what motive? Might seem innocent enough. They are just babies, but having lost every battle before, the salvation of babies via baptism which has finally been given up (for the most part anyway), is at the heart of pedobaptism and confuses. THe motivation is the same as the judaizers, to justify living according to the flesh and according to the code which Jesus nailed to the cross and canceled. And to take credit for their numbers.
Conversely, Christianity is based on living with a clear conscience not on satisfying the law with our own deeds or feelings. - c |
|
Wow, just saw this blog post, man, that's a lot of comments.
We baptised Ashlee (our daughter) within a month and a half of being born too.
There were several in my family who were against it (I think Presbyterian). I didn't have any real concrete reasons as to why I wanted to do it, but I just felt that i wanted to protect my daughter and in my faith (Catholic) this was just one of the things I needed to do for her.
I'm glad I did and although she doesn't understand the covenant with God right now, she eventually will. - Todd |
|
that makes sense in a faith that puts tradition before scripture - c |
|
Enoch, seventh generation of Adam, (son of Jared) who walked with the God and was not. Hebrew: Chanowk means dedicated (from another word also meaning train). Hmmmm.....Enoch was dedicated. Circumcision has not been mentioned because Enoch was before Abram. Hebrews says Enoch lived by faith and pleased God. Enoch and Abel are the first names in the Hall of Fame (Heb 11). Then Noah and Sarah and the Patriarchs. Jude mentions the words of Enoch which may have been prophetic about the flood and applicable for Jude's epistle. I've often wondered why Job was so confident. From the land of Uz, a descendant of Noah's son Shem. Job wouldn't have known much besides Eden, Abel, Enoch and Noah and his own experience. Job is said to be righteous but we don't see his faith until the end of the book when he "sees" God. Job is not in the Hall of Fame. Dedication therefore is good enough unless you are trying to keep the Law rather than focusing on walking with God. Note the logic. Not based on inference such as pedobaptism. Not real convincing but no worse than the pedo argument. But, stays in line with faith. - c |
|
|
|
|
| |
©2009 Matthew Cochrane
| |
|
Recent Activity:
Top 5 Posts of the Month:
Recently Viewed Posts:
Top Ten Most Commented
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies (378)
Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion (147)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: A Followup (108)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (106)
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism (79)
Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition) (78)
Why I Like Mike, Part 2: Responding to the Conservative Establishment's Attacks (75)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: Congregational Meeting Announcement (69)
From the Depths of the Web 2, June 2008 (65)
Can the Church Compromise on Baptism? Part 1 (60)
Top Ten Hits All-Time
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 4: Defining Personhood
- Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 7: The Sign of the Covenant
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
- Mentorship Program for Incarcerated Young Men Gives Christians Opportunity to Witness, Offer Guidance
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 3: The Beginning of Life
- Book Review: Love and Respect
- Book Review: Velvet Elvis
- The True Meaning of Christmas: Wrath, Judgment, Hope, and Grace
- In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
Add your Feeds:
Blogs I read:
Fave Five
Religious and Cultural
Friends and Family
See what my readers are saying…
“this website should be named NotConsistentThought or NotCompleteThought”
“I would say you are too sensitive”
“you just twist and spin”
“you just bloviate and pontificate”
“you are legalistic”
|
|