In Defense of Infant Baptism

[Ishmael]

I posted this article first on another board but got very little in terms of discussion on the matter. Perhaps this will go over better on this new board:

The questions is, "Is Infant Baptism Biblical?" Bad question IMO but a starting point...

I believe that the question above misses the point entirely by looking
for specific authoritative commandments in the New Testament, instead of
looking for the principles that the Bible teaches about, as Augustine put
it, "signs" and "things."

When I say "Baptism" I refer to "Covenant Baptism" which is different than
"Believer's Baptism," they both, obviously, have different theological
meanings.

"Covenant Baptism" vs. "Believers Baptism"
Covenant Baptism: The application of water in the Name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. (see "Sacraments") The Bible compares Baptism with
the Old Testament practice of Circumcision (see Colossians 2: 9-15). From
the earliest days, the Christian Church practiced infant baptism.

Believer's Baptism: Some churches teach a non-Sacramental adult "believers
baptism" by immersion, others baptize in Jesus name only, while others
reject "water baptism" and believe that baptism is an inward act of the Holy
Spirit (see Romans 6: 1-7).

There are many "modes" of Baptism as well. The biblical mode practiced in
Acts seems to have been "immersion" for the word baptism comes from the
greek:

baptiðzw
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to
wash one's self, bathe

I reject; however, that the most common way we seem to see Baptism down in
the books of Acts (and elsewhere) is the only mode acceptable for Baptism.

Another term that might need to be define is "Sacrament."

Sacrament: According to the Reformation perspective: A sacrament is a sacred
act, instituted by the Lord Jesus, containing visible elements in which God
promises and offers the forgiveness of sins. According to this definition,
there are two sacraments: Baptism (see "Baptism") and the Lord's Supper (see
"Lord's Supper").

When a Reformed Christian uses the term "Sacrament" they are speaking of the
"sign" of Grace NOT a conveyance of Grace. Believer's Baptism only
adherants, who share the common belief that there is no conveyance of grace
in Baptism, typically prefer the word "symbol," that term is acceptable to
me also.

Now, on to my post on the defense of Infant Baptism:

Gen 17:9-14
And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and
thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed
after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a
token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man
child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with
money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must
needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant.

When God comes to Abraham to make his Covenant with people of Israel he does
it by his Grace. For by what other reason can we say that God elected
Abraham out of all others on the planet that God could have chosen to be the
earthly father of His chosen people. The Bible does not speak of Abraham's
life before God's calling to Him with:

Genesis 12
1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from
thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make
thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:
and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

And therefore there is no condition of God's election of Abraham and his
children, but that of God's purposes and God's Grace.

But after God had made this promise to Abraham and to his seed, he made this
a Covenant: "I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a bless" by means of a "sign." That
sign was circumcision.

Although that sign was inferior to the reality, it still pointed to that
perfect "thing," the promise of God to Abraham.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a
token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

What does the promise say, "God will make Abraham a great nation and the
'token' of His promise to him is the circumcision."

Circumcision is not the reality of the Covenant.

The Reality of the Covenant to Abraham: "I will make you great."
The sign of the Reality: Circumcision.

The "sign" is inferior to the "thing," but the "sign" is needed in order to
point the Community towards the "thing."

This sign also point towards the mortification of the flesh. As is indicated
in the Law of Moses:

Leviticus 26:41
And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into
the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled,
and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

Deuteronomy 10:16
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.


Deuteronomy 30:6
And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed,
to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that
thou mayest live.

Deuteronomy 30:6
And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed,
to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that
thou mayest live.

Now especially in this passage from Deuteronomy we can see the true
intention of the Covenant that God made with Abraham and the symbolism
connected with the sign of that old Covenant.

God wanted a mortified flesh that walked in a certain way before God(Corum
Deo). How was Abraham to walk before God?

In faith...
Genesis 22
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said
unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and
get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering
upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of...

And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an
altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid
him on the altar upon the wood.
10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said,
Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing
unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not
withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram
caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and
offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to
this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second
time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast
done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply
thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea
shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because
thou hast obeyed my voice.

And by His attitude of Faith that "God would provide a Ram" God's Covenant
with Abraham was sealed again by Faith for:

Romans 4
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not
before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

His circumcision was not the reality (the thing) of his covenant with God,
it was God's Promise and His faith. That faith is what the Lord "credited to
him as righteousness."

Calvin wrote:
"We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in
circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it
figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the
flesh."

Baptism not being the thing which saves us, but the sign which points
towards our salvation.

How can a little baby be made rigtheous by circumcision?
He cannot, but he can only be made righteous by faith.

How can a little baby be made righteous by baptism?
He cannot, but he can only be made righteous by faith.

The question then is, in light of all I have said, what is the "sign" if
there is any in the New Covenant?

In Matthew 12:39 Jesus says,
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none
will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

I reject that there is any miracle taking place in the Sacrament of Baptism
but I do say that Baptism is this sign of Jonah.

Luke 11:30
For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to
this generation.

For in our Baptism, we recognize and identify with the TRUE sign, which is a
thing, the Death, Burial and Ressurection of our Lord.

Romans 6
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were
baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

So this "sign" of Baptism is not the "thing" but instead points towards the
reality, a sign to "this generation" of Jonah

(:rofl: surely the Preterist conspiracy understands the implications of "this generation...)

[Pilgrim]

That's pretty clear Calvinist. I think that Paedo Baptism is clearly defendable from scripture.

[Ishmael]

Thanks presby mod.

[Gavin]

excellent post, Calvinist.:thumb:

I am moving it to the non-essentials theology section rather than the world religion section. I hope you do not mind.:)

[GrayPilgrim]

IMHO that Baptism is the sign of the covenant is beyond dispute. Since in teh ANE there were always signs and renewal ceremonies. As the renewal ceremony was intended to be repeated, and Baptism is only to be done once it fails to meet this test. Communion/Eucharist obviously is the renewal ceremony. This leaves us with Baptism as the sign. Thanks for that discussion.

I have been moving away from the individualistic view of Christianity to a more corporate understanding, in which covenant baptism seems to have some viability. As with Communion, I believe that God's grace is bestowed at baptism in a particular way.

Okay, now that I have you buttered up :p, here's my question: I have heard adherents to paedo-baptism say about rebellious children, *"Well at least they are more likely to come to faith." I am assuming htis dates back to the beleif that baptism washes away original sin. Have you heard this? Is this a correct assumption? What leads to this beleif that "paedobaptism" leads to a higher probability that a rebellious child will repent?


By his Grace,
GP

*These words are not from just Jo Pewsitter, but seminary profs.

[smilax]

We should start with a discussion of covenant succession, of which paedobaptism seems to be a result.

[Ishmael]

GrayPilgrim:
IMHO that Baptism is the sign of the covenant is beyond dispute. Since in teh ANE there were always signs and renewal ceremonies. As the renewal ceremony was intended to be repeated, and Baptism is only to be done once it fails to meet this test. Communion/Eucharist obviously is the renewal ceremony. This leaves us with Baptism as the sign. Thanks for that discussion.

I have been moving away from the individualistic view of Christianity to a more corporate understanding, in which covenant baptism seems to have some viability. As with Communion, I believe that God's grace is bestowed at baptism in a particular way.

Okay, now that I have you buttered up :p, here's my question: I have heard adherents to paedo-baptism say about rebellious children, *"Well at least they are more likely to come to faith." I am assuming htis dates back to the beleif that baptism washes away original sin. Have you heard this? Is this a correct assumption? What leads to this beleif that "paedobaptism" leads to a higher probability that a rebellious child will repent?


By his Grace,
GP

*These words are not from just Jo Pewsitter, but seminary profs.

Since I am relatively new to Calvinism in general... 7 years a Reformed Baptist and now 2 years a Presbyterian, I can't really comment on what seems to me to be a cultural understanding of covenant baptism, and yes, it is likely based on orginal sin doctrine.

But IMHO it's a wrong understanding. Baptism does not make it more likely one will come to faith given that no man (or woman) comes but by the ELECTION(GRACE) of God. Baptism then, is become what it was always meant to be: The Sign of the New Covenant.

[Solly]

But circumcision involved the setting apart of a people for his purposes - a nation that would serve him and decalre him.

How is infant baptism like that? Do we send our children into the ministry, eldership etc becasue they have been baptised? Surely not, but because they have been born again. circumcision entitled the Jew to all the privileges of Israel. What does infant baptism entitle anyone too. A circumcised Jew could partake of the sacrificial rites of the temple, and approach God (even though he was not regenerate). Do we let our children sit down at the Lord's table (with the unspoken assumption: he died for me)? Didn't Jonathan Edwards get caught up in that very same problem with regard to presbyterian ordinances: the idea of a half-way covenant that allowed the unregenerate to sit down at the table?

In Matthew 12:39 Jesus says,
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

I reject that there is any miracle taking place in the Sacrament of Baptism but I do say that Baptism is this sign of Jonah.

Luke 11:30
For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation.

For in our Baptism, we recognize and identify with the TRUE sign, which is a thing, the Death, Burial and Ressurection of our Lord.

I don't follow the logic of this argument. Jonah was a sign in that he was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish; just so would the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the grave. How is this = to baptism of the unregenerate?

Romans 4
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

His circumcision was not the reality (the thing) of his covenant with God, it was God's Promise and His faith. That faith is what the Lord "credited to him as righteousness."

Which faith he had, being yet uncircumcised Rom 4.9-13

[Jaltus]

Better yet, circumcision was movement from outside the covenant people to being a member of the covenant people.

Let me explain this way: someone who is circumcized MUST participate in the Feasts (once they come of age). The only church-age Feast is the Eucharist, clearly for believers only (I don't plan on defending this here, but can if I need to), which makes me wonder about the connection.

The ECFs believed that communion was for the community only, and that baptism was entrance to the community. once baptized, you could take part in the Lord's Supper. If you were not baptized, you could not.

So, if baptism is the sign of entrance into the People of God, then how could ANY infant be realistically brought into a saving knowledge of Christ?

[Pilgrim]

You assume that to be part of the community is to be saved?

[Ishmael]

Solly:
But circumcision involved the setting apart of a people for his purposes - a nation that would serve him and decalre him.

How is infant baptism like that? Do we send our children into the ministry, eldership etc becasue they have been baptised? Surely not, but because they have been born again. circumcision entitled the Jew to all the privileges of Israel. What does infant baptism entitle anyone too. A circumcised Jew could partake of the sacrificial rites of the temple, and approach God (even though he was not regenerate). Do we let our children sit down at the Lord's table (with the unspoken assumption: he died for me)? Didn't Jonathan Edwards get caught up in that very same problem with regard to presbyterian ordinances: the idea of a half-way covenant that allowed the unregenerate to sit down at the table?


Old Covenant chidlren were not entitled to all the rights of adults. They were learning the faith and participated in Scripture reading for instance at the appropriate time of age. New Covenant Children enter into the fullness of the promise after they are educated just as Jewish children were.


I don't follow the logic of this argument. Jonah was a sign in that he was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish; just so would the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the grave. How is this = to baptism of the unregenerate?


The sign of Jonah is a metaphor which points to the reality of Jesus' actual passion. Sign of Jonah = Sign ... Passion = reality. Baptism is a sign to the Church of the reality of Christ's work on the cross.


Which faith he had, being yet uncircumcised Rom 4.9-13

This is exactly my point. But God chose him first and then later called him righteous not because of the sign of circumcism but because of his faith.

If your point but using this scripture is to note that faith is before the sign then I ask, "How is that then normative in light that all Old Covenant babies were circumsized before they had the ability to have faith?"

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
Better yet, circumcision was movement from outside the covenant people to being a member of the covenant people.

Let me explain this way: someone who is circumcized MUST participate in the Feasts (once they come of age). The only church-age Feast is the Eucharist, clearly for believers only (I don't plan on defending this here, but can if I need to), which makes me wonder about the connection.

The ECFs believed that communion was for the community only, and that baptism was entrance to the community. once baptized, you could take part in the Lord's Supper. If you were not baptized, you could not.

So, if baptism is the sign of entrance into the People of God, then how could ANY infant be realistically brought into a saving knowledge of Christ?

The point here that is largest is that the Church does not know God's elect absolutely. Nor did the Chidlren of Israel know who was going to be righteous according to the law. BUT ALL were part of the promises to the Community as part of the Covenant Community.

Not all baptised are Elected just as not all elected recieve the sign of Election.

[Solly]

Old Covenant chidlren were not entitled to all the rights of adults. They were learning the faith and participated in Scripture reading for instance at the appropriate time of age. New Covenant Children enter into the fullness of the promise after they are educated just as Jewish children were.

At 12 a boy became a son of the covenant; automatically, he couldn't help it. Is that the same for the children of Christians, the automatically become Christians and approach the Lord's table?

Secondly, ONLY boys were circumcised. Will the Presbyterians be consistent too?

If your point by using this scripture is to note that faith is before the sign then I ask, "How is that then normative in light that all ? - see above Old Covenant babies were circumsized before they had the ability to have faith?"

Because it is not the same sign; it is not an act of faith, but of privilege, of separation. Not all of Israel were Israel, not all had faith even with circumcision.

In a spiritualising sense, the external circumcision of the Israelites is a sign of the circumcision of the heart of all true Israelites, the Saints, the Church. Rom 2.28,29 for instance. Baptism is an act of obedience that follows faith - those that believe and are baptised. If one is not baptised for whatever reason, it is not a salvation issue (though it will be a church one). If one was not circumcised, one was cast out of the community of God's people.

If I placed baptism on the same level as Circumcision, I would not be talking to all you apostate Presbies!! :)

[Ishmael]

Solly:
At 12 a boy became a son of the covenant; automatically, he couldn't help it. Is that the same for the children of Christians, the automatically become Christians and approach the Lord's table?

Secondly, ONLY boys were circumcised. Will the Presbyterians be consistent too?


We are consistent with the theology of the liberation theology of Jesus and others who offered the sign of Baptism for ALL genders and races, not just the Jews. But you already know this.


Because it is not the same sign; it is not an act of faith, but of privilege, of separation. Not all of Israel were Israel, not all had faith even with circumcision.


Nor do all of Christ have Baptism or faith. Circumcism didn't mean that an individual had faith nor does baptism mean that an individual has faith. And Baptism should be sign of separation, privalege and responsibility. It's Baptists who neglect this aspect of the sign.


In a spiritualising sense, the external circumcision of the Israelites is a sign of the circumcision of the heart of all true Israelites, the Saints, the Church. Rom 2.28,29 for instance. Baptism is an act of obedience that follows faith - those that believe and are baptised. If one is not baptised for whatever reason, it is not a salvation issue (though it will be a church one). If one was not circumcised, one was cast out of the community of God's people.


Good point about circumcism and the community of Law. Fortuneately, we are not under that Covenant anymore, though ALL Christians should be baptized.


If I placed baptism on the same level as Circumcision, I would not be talking to all you apostate Presbies!! :)

Silly Solly. :rofl: ...At least you aren't the typical Metho-Baptist.. the kind we have in abundance in the States...

[GrayPilgrim]

Pilgrim:
You assume that to be part of the community is to be saved?
Solly:
Didn't Jonathan Edwards get caught up in that very same problem with regard to presbyterian ordinances: the idea of a half-way covenant that allowed the unregenerate to sit down at the table?



The ghost of Solomon Stoddard rears his head. (Remember that Stoddard was Edwards' grandfather and that JE grew up with these people so they remembered him when he was in diapers.) In colonial era New England a crisis arose when the children of the pilgrims failed to believe. [This was by no means a purely American phenomenon; in fact George Whitefield drew some heavy fire or speaking out against unregenerate clergy in the Church of England.] The problem developed because as only the baptized church member was a fully functioning member of society, failure to partake in the sacraments would lead to an individual’s loss of rights and privileges. This lead to the Half-Way Covenant.

However, if Edwards had decided to baulk at this it would have been fine, what got him sacked was really the Bad Book Incident coupled with his changing his grandfather's regulations concerning communion.

In early the 1670s, Stoddard felt assurance of salvation for the first time while administrating the Lord’s Supper, this lead him to believe that it was a converting ordinance, so anyone who could assent to the Westminster Catechism/Confession and lead a moral life was admitted to the Table. Note the change based upon his subjective experience not based upon the objective teaching of Scripture. After Stoddard died, Edwards became the sole pastor at Northampton. So after 20 years of being the sole pastor of the Northampton Church, Edwards' study shows that the Lord's Table is not to be open to those who have not been regenerated. So 20 years after Stoddard died in June of 1750, Edwards is ejected from the Pulpit of Northampton.


Notice Stoddard left it at mental assent and not the experience of regeneration as admittance to the Table. Edwards on the other hand saw admittance to the Table was predicated on regeneration.

[Jaltus]

The point here that is largest is that the Church does not know God's elect absolutely. Nor did the Chidlren of Israel know who was going to be righteous according to the law. BUT ALL were part of the promises to the Community as part of the Covenant Community.

Not all baptised are Elected just as not all elected recieve the sign of Election. And so I can now go out and baptize anyone I run across?

This kind of thinking leads to a Table open to all people, Christian or not. This argument of yours really needs to be rethought.

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus:
This kind of thinking leads to a Table open to all people, Christian or not. This argument of yours really needs to be rethought.

Hence the Half-Way Covenant and Stoddard's "Converting Ordinance" Position.

[Jaltus]

I agree. I think it is a serious problem with his line of thought.

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
And so I can now go out and baptize anyone I run across?

This kind of thinking leads to a Table open to all people, Christian or not. This argument of yours really needs to be rethought.

Are all those random people YOUR children. The promise is to you and to YOUR children.

This is not just my argument and it has been thought through.

[Ishmael]

GrayPilgrim:
The ghost of Solomon Stoddard rears his head. (Remember that Stoddard was Edwards' grandfather and that JE grew up with these people so they remembered him when he was in diapers.) In colonial era New England a crisis arose when the children of the pilgrims failed to believe. [This was by no means a purely American phenomenon; in fact George Whitefield drew some heavy fire or speaking out against unregenerate clergy in the Church of England.] The problem developed because as only the baptized church member was a fully functioning member of society, failure to partake in the sacraments would lead to an individual’s loss of rights and privileges. This lead to the Half-Way Covenant.

However, if Edwards had decided to baulk at this it would have been fine, what got him sacked was really the Bad Book Incident coupled with his changing his grandfather's regulations concerning communion.

In early the 1670s, Stoddard felt assurance of salvation for the first time while administrating the Lord’s Supper, this lead him to believe that it was a converting ordinance, so anyone who could assent to the Westminster Catechism/Confession and lead a moral life was admitted to the Table. Note the change based upon his subjective experience not based upon the objective teaching of Scripture. After Stoddard died, Edwards became the sole pastor at Northampton. So after 20 years of being the sole pastor of the Northampton Church, Edwards' study shows that the Lord's Table is not to be open to those who have not been regenerated. So 20 years after Stoddard died in June of 1750, Edwards is ejected from the Pulpit of Northampton.


Notice Stoddard left it at mental assent and not the experience of regeneration as admittance to the Table. Edwards on the other hand saw admittance to the Table was predicated on regeneration.

Being a lover of history myself I can identify with the delight you likely take in pointing out that YOUR delimna with my argument on Infant Baptism has precedence.

Thank God that in the 21st century people can function in the Free Immanuel Kant religious world without recieving confirmation or communion... it's only right that we should all have life, liberty, etc. Not matter if we go to hell or not.

[Jaltus]

You did not in fact delimit it in such a way. Tell me, in the NT, how is blood-descent efficacious toward salvation?

You seem to be rejecting the Gentile mission implicitly (though with a nuance or two you could changer that).

Is baptism entrance into the community or not?

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
You did not in fact delimit it in such a way. Tell me, in the NT, how is blood-descent efficacious toward salvation?

You seem to be rejecting the Gentile mission implicitly (though with a nuance or two you could changer that).

Is baptism entrance into the community or not?
Well, if it's unclear that you are not to go down to the nursery at your local hospital and baptize strangers I should change the article a bit to be explicit.

No one said that blood descent is efficacious towards salvation. Do you hold that water baptism is? Or that circumcision was?

Baptism entrance or not?

Entrance is upon God's election, nothing more.

At any rate, do not forget that my principle argument about what baptism ought to be is that is a sign of the reality of Grace.

Baptism is not the reality but the sign and children are not recieving anything but a sign of the promise of regeneration and entrance into the community of Grace. The Church does not know if they are God's elect along with the child or any baptized.

Upon confirmation the Church assumes that the person is saved and allows them to the table. The Lord's table is for his disciples.

[GrayPilgrim]

Calvinist:
Being a lover of history myself I can identify with the delight you likely take in pointing out that YOUR delimna with my argument on Infant Baptism has precedence.

Thank God that in the 21st century people can function in the Free Immanuel Kant religious world without recieving confirmation or communion... it's only right that we should all have life, liberty, etc. Not matter if we go to hell or not.

That is not and was not my intent at all. All I wanted to do was bring out the hisotrical event that Solly mentioned in his post. What I do delight in is getting all the possible information on the table, that both supports and contradicts my position, so that I know whether I have answered all the possible problems and so that when I finnaly reach an opinion on a given subject it has solid back.

And I agree with your remark that we are much poorer post-Kant when it comes to the manner in which many Christians live in the universe in the divided way that he establish with his noumenal and phenomenol clap trap. If you would look again at the historical extract, I attempted to give the facts as they were presented in my Jonathan Edwards class not give my editorialized version of the setting. The class was taught by a Lutheran who beleives in paedo-baptism, so no exactly someone who would be anti-sacramental, or even agaisnt the thesis you are arguing for on this thread.

In HIm,
GP

[Ishmael]

GrayPilgrim:
That is nota nd was not my intent at all. All I wanted to do was bring out the isotrical event that Solly mentioned in his post. What I do delight in is getting all the possible information on the table, that both supports and contradicts my position, so that I know whether I have answered all the possible problems and so that when I finnaly reach an opinion on a given subject it has solid back.

And I agree with your remark that we are much poorer post-KAnt whenit comes to the manner in which many Christians live in hte universe in hte divided way that he establish with his noumenal and phenomenol clap trap. If you would look again at the historical extract, I attempted to give the facts as they were presented in my Jonathan Edwards class not give my editorialized version of the setting. The class was taught by a Lutheran who beleives in paedo-baptism, so no exactly someone who would be anti-sacramental, or even agaisnt the thesis you are arguing for on this thread.

In HIm,
GP

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Pilgrim]

Jaltus:
And so I can now go out and baptize anyone I run across?

This kind of thinking leads to a Table open to all people, Christian or not. This argument of yours really needs to be rethought.

Baptism is a sign of community not of salvation. Thus the distinction early in the thread between beleivers baptism and covenant baptism.

And you argument also assumes a parity between the Lord's Supper and Baptism.

I'm curious though, where in scripture is the requirment for salvation mentioned in regards to the Lord's supper in an explicit way.

Some say it is, some say no, some say you must understand communion before comming to the table though that would eliminate almost everyone because who can totally understand the mystery of the sacrament.

Anyway, just a few thoughts.

Pilgrim

Pilgrim

[smilax]

And now... can someone prove covenant succession?

Second, where does Scripture describe the community of the new covenant as anything besides the body of believers?

[GrayPilgrim]

smilax:
And now... can someone prove covenant succession?

Showing my ignorance, again, but what do you mean by covenant succession?

[smilax]

GrayPilgrim:
Showing my ignorance, again, but what do you mean by covenant succession?I don't want to misrepresent them, so see http://www.credenda.org/issues/13-2verbatim.php. As far as I understand, it essentially states that biological children are by default part of the covenant community.

[Solly]

Clvinist: We are consistent with the theology of the liberation theology of Jesus and others who offered the sign of Baptism for ALL genders and races, not just the Jews. But you already know this.

Actually I didn't know it. I'm a Baptist; the inner workings of Reformed Presbyterian eccesiology is not my thing. And I dispute your statement which I have bolded.

Calvinist: Baptism should be sign of separation, privilege and responsibility. It's Baptists who neglect this aspect of the sign.

Perhaps in America, where nominalism is more widespread, whether thru infant baptised people mistakenly thinking they are Christians - Presbyterian or Anglican; or adult baptised people who have "come forward" (I have read Tom Skinner's biography, which is enlightening in this aspect.) But for myself, an old school Strict and Particular Baptist, who is still on the foundation our fathers laid in the 17th century, then baptism is very much a sign of separation, privilege and responsibility.

Calvinist: At any rate, do not forget that my principle argument about what baptism ought to be is that is a sign of the reality of Grace.
Baptism is not the reality but the sign and children are not recieving anything but a sign of the promise of regeneration and entrance into the community of Grace. The Church does not know if they are God's elect along with the child or any baptized.
Upon confirmation the Church assumes that the person is saved and allows them to the table. The Lord's table is for his disciples.

Ahh, another ordinance the church has allowed in. How much the Presbyterians took over from the Catholics!! They were, after all, the Reformed Catholic Church. Thais should run and run... :argue:

Pilgrim: Baptism is a sign of community not of salvation. Thus the distinction early in the thread between beleivers baptism and covenant baptism.
And you argument also assumes a parity between the Lord's Supper and Baptism.
I'm curious though, where in scripture is the requirment for salvation mentioned in regards to the Lord's supper in an explicit way.

Pilgrim, see Calvinists posts for your answer:

Calvinist: I believe that the question above misses the point entirely by looking for specific authoritative commandments in the New Testament, instead of looking for the principles that the Bible teaches about, as Augustine put it, "signs" and "things."
and
The Lord's table is for his disciples.

peace in Him, even to the great unwashed. :yipee:

[Captain Ochre]

Infant baptism, when viewed as salvific apart from the choice of the individual seems to be a salvation borne of works, imo.

I suppose that one could fall back on the sovereignty of God to address that problem . . . but couldn't that be done with *all* works universally in the same manner?

[smilax]

Captain Ochre:
Infant baptism, when viewed as salvific apart from the choice of the individual seems to be a salvation borne of works, imo.Unlike the Catholics, Presbyterians don't believe in baptismal regeneration...

Not all paedobaptisms were created equal.

[Captain Ochre]

smilax:
Unlike the Catholics, Presbyterians don't believe in baptismal regeneration...

Not all paedobaptisms were created equal.

I confess that the subtleties of the Presbyterian position that, in fact, distance it from the RCC in terms of assuring the youngest members of the church of their identification with the covenant escaped me when I was attending a PCA church (not that long ago).
Are there variants among the Presbyterians themselves, too?

Hello Kitty rules, btw.
:)

[Solly]

Calvinist

I am disappointed.

You started this thread. I and others have posted here. I have not had substantial replies to the matters I raised, but instead you have taken your ball back, said "I'm not playing anymore", and posted the question on your own website claiming that it did not lead to discussion elsewhere. :argh:

[Ishmael]

Solly:
Calvinist

I am disappointed.

You started this thread. I and others have posted here. I have not had substantial replies to the matters I raised, but instead you have taken your ball back, said "I'm not playing anymore", and posted the question on your own website claiming that it did not lead to discussion elsewhere. :argh:

Not true, I just cut and paste what I wrote on TOL here and then I cut and paste what I wrote here to my site to try and get mine going. Furthermore, I am not done talking to you about Infant Baptism here... but I suppose I am serving two masters electronically now...

P.S. I removed this part "I posted this article first on another board but got very little in terms of discussion on the matter. Perhaps this will go over better on this new board: from my board.

[Ishmael]

Solly:


Actually I didn't know it. I'm a Baptist; the inner workings of Reformed Presbyterian eccesiology is not my thing. And I dispute your statement which I have bolded.


How can you dispute that Baptism is for all Nation and Genders?
This is not some "inner working of the Presbyterians..
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Acts 2
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 18:8
And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.


Perhaps in America, where nominalism is more widespread, whether thru infant baptised people mistakenly thinking they are Christians - Presbyterian or Anglican; or adult baptised people who have "come forward" (I have read Tom Skinner's biography, which is enlightening in this aspect.) But for myself, an old school Strict and Particular Baptist, who is still on the foundation our fathers laid in the 17th century, then baptism is very much a sign of separation, privilege and responsibility.


Good, then, we agree here.


Ahh, another ordinance the church has allowed in. How much the Presbyterians took over from the Catholics!! They were, after all, the Reformed Catholic Church. Thais should run and run... :argue:


Rightly so, Christ gave us two ordinances.


Chosen,

Calvinist

[Solly]

Thanks Calvinist. Sorry for any toes trodden on, but I didn't find a response here, but did find the thread at CalWeb.

Calvinist:
How can you dispute that Baptism is for all Nation and Genders?
This is not some "inner working of the Presbyterians..

I don't disagree with that; what i disagree with is:
who offered the sign of Baptism for ALL genders and races, not just the Jews
which is not the same thing. The verses you posted all speak of baptism following belief. Except:
Acts 2
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.
Which is referrring to the Holy Spirit, not baptism. Baaad Calvinist.

Good, then, we agree here.

Glad to. I rejoice in any area we agree in. This is, after all, only Theology 102 :cheers:

Rightly so, Christ gave us two ordinances.

Gave who? and what?

The unregenerate? Well, they get infant baptism and confirmation. The regenerate? Well they get Believer's Baptism and the Lord's Table. Guess which ones i will keep.

Good lukc with the Forum. :cool:

[Ishmael]

I don't disagree with that; what i disagree with is:

which is not the same thing. The verses you posted all speak of baptism following belief. Except:

<Acts 2:39>

Which is referrring to the Holy Spirit, not baptism. Baaad Calvinist.


First, those verses are history not doctrine and they were placed here to refute your implication that Baptism was not for all nations, genders, and races.

Second, because the Church of the Bible was new and converting only adults, that is what we will read about. Under the old Covenant there was a time when only adults were given the sign and then their children. After that, those believes in the Covenant instituted the sign of their faith in Faith and gave it to their children.

Lack of Faith in the child did not prevent that child from being circumsized no more than it should prevent the child from being given the sign under our Covenant....

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

No, the verse is speaking of repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But especially it is speaking of Baptism for whatever "sign" of the promise can they see, but baptism?


Gave who? and what?

The unregenerate? Well, they get infant baptism and confirmation. The regenerate? Well they get Believer's Baptism and the Lord's Table. Guess which ones i will keep.


Romans 4:9-12
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Infants partake in this [i]sign of Grace[/] under the New Covenant, which is Baptism that Abraham recieved AFTER his conversation but did not withhold it from his children BEFORE their faith was made known. The Covenant that we are in is clearly the same kind of Covenant (Grace) that Abraham had with God.

Galatians 3
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

That Covenant's sign was intentionally applied to to infants not because of thier own faith but because they were a part of the Covenant succession:

http://www.faithtacoma.org/covenant2.htm

I can go either way at the moment on whether or not the Lord's Table could philosophically include Covenant Children. Many Reformed people DO allow chidlren to the table. A strong argument against this is 1 Cor. 11:28. For what child can truly "examine" themselves before the table.

Calvin:
“[The Lord] does not. . . hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of proclaiming the Lord’s death, and of considering its power. Do we wish anything plainer than the apostle’s teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this cup? A self-examination, therefore ought to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants . . . why should we offer poison instead of life-giving food to our tender children?” (Institutes 4.16.30).

This greek word translated "prove" must mean prove him/her self in the context of "track record" in the Community.


Good lukc with the Forum. :cool:

Thanks,

I need it.

[Jaltus]

This greek word translated "prove" must mean prove him/her self in the context of "track record" in the Community.What Greek word "prove?" You took it from Calvin, not the Greek text.

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
What Greek word &quot;prove?&quot; You took it from Calvin, not the Greek text.

You really teach Greek and yet make so hasty a statement?

Granted, I am no Greek scholar but...

1 Cor. 11:28

KJV: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

ASV: “Let a man prove himself and so he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. . .”

I don't think it's that bad a translation, in fact I think it's the correct rendering of the word here.

"dokimazo" to prove, approve, or test

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
Better yet, circumcision was movement from outside the covenant people to being a member of the covenant people.

Let me explain this way: someone who is circumcized MUST participate in the Feasts (once they come of age). The only church-age Feast is the Eucharist, clearly for believers only (I don't plan on defending this here, but can if I need to), which makes me wonder about the connection.

The ECFs believed that communion was for the community only, and that baptism was entrance to the community. once baptized, you could take part in the Lord's Supper. If you were not baptized, you could not.

So, if baptism is the sign of entrance into the People of God, then how could ANY infant be realistically brought into a saving knowledge of Christ?

The answer to the question is so obvious I feel like maybe you didn't ask what you meant to ask. I will answer anyway:

By God's election alone we are chosen and saved.

[Ishmael]

smilax:
I don't want to misrepresent them, so see http://www.credenda.org/issues/13-2verbatim.php. As far as I understand, it essentially states that biological children are by default part of the covenant community.

Thanks for this, I posted another article on Covenant Succession in my last reply to Solly.

I reject; however, that Children of succession are necessarily "Saved" by virtue of being born to saved parents. These baptized children are saved by Grace Alone just like any other person.

[Gavin]

I reject; however, that Children of succession are necessarily "Saved" by virtue of being born to saved parents. These baptized children are saved by Grace Alone just like any other person.

Are there any clear references to non-salvific, covenant baptism in the NT? Most of the references, like, say, the Great Commission, seem to be directed toward those who had been saved.

[Ishmael]

Gavin:


Are there any clear references to non-salvific, covenant baptism in the NT? Most of the references, like, say, the Great Commission, seem to be directed toward those who had been saved.

I am not sure what the question is, given that this quote from me was in reference to Covenant Succession. Say again?

[Gavin]

I am not sure what the question is, given that this quote from me was in reference to Covenant Succession. Say again?
Sorry for the confusion. I am asking if there are any references to baptism in the NT that specifically refer to covenant entrance, not salvation. IOW, do you ever have people baptized other than after they are saved?

[Ishmael]

Gavin:

Sorry for the confusion. I am asking if there are any references to baptism in the NT that specifically refer to covenant entrance, not salvation.




Quote of me from another post which addresses my view:


because the Church of the Bible was new and converting only adults, that is what we will read about. Under the old Covenant there was a time when only adults were given the sign and then their children. After that, those believes in the Covenant instituted the sign of their faith in Faith and gave it to their children.

Lack of Faith in the child did not prevent that child from being circumsized no more than it should prevent the child from being given the sign under our Covenant....

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

No, the verse is speaking of repentence, baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit. But especially it is speaking of Baptism for whatever "sign" of the promise can they see, but baptism?


If there was a clear command that Baptism was only for Adult believers then these verse would not hold so much weight with me against the back drop of Covenant Theology, which I tried to outline in my Infant Baptism aricle above:

Acts 16:15
And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

This verse must mean either that everyone in the household believed and then were baptized OR that they were all baptized following her faith in Christ. Household must have included her children.

Acts 8
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Does this verse mean that there is a Baptism of the Holy Spirit after salvation and water baptism? I don't think so; instead, it points to the fact that baptism is the sign of the Covenant. The "laying on of hands" here is the actual confirmation of these new believers.

And again in Acts this problem is reversed with some having recieved the Holy Spirit and not Baptism...


IOW, do you ever have people baptized other than after they are saved?

?? In the Bible or in my ministry now?

[smilax]

Calvinist:
If there was a clear command that Baptism was only for Adult believersAdult? Confessing, more like.This verse must mean either that everyone in the household believed and then were baptized OR that they were all baptized following her faith in Christ. Household must have included her children.Yes, but keep in mind that family solidarity was, culturally speaking, far more stringent back then. If one member converted, do you really think the rest wouldn't have? You have to make the blind assumption that infants were present.

Acts xvi, 33-34: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

If this guy can have a household that all believes, why not Lydia's?Does this verse mean that there is a Baptism of the Holy Spirit after salvation and water baptism? I don't think so; instead, it points to the fact that baptism is the sign of the Covenant. The &quot;laying on of hands&quot; here is the actual confirmation of these new believers.Sign of the covenant, yes. Like this: John iv, 1: "When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John..." The laying on of hands does not confirm; it imparts.

[Ishmael]

smilax:
Adult? Confessing, more like.Yes, but keep in mind that family solidarity was, culturally speaking, far more stringent back then. If one member converted, do you really think the rest wouldn't have? You have to make the blind assumption that infants were present.

Acts xvi, 33-34: &quot;And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.&quot;

And you are making a blind assumption that there were no infants.


If this guy can have a household that all believes, why not Lydia's?

Why didn't the text indicate that they all believed first and then were baptized?


Sign of the covenant, yes. Like this: John iv, 1: &quot;When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John...&quot; The laying on of hands does not confirm; it imparts.

Imparts what? The Holy Spirit or Salvation?

[smilax]

Calvinist:
And you are making a blind assumption that there were no infants.So this text shows nothing either way. But if I remember correctly, there isn't much external evidence showing infant baptism in the early church until around the third century. If it were such a normative thing, then...Why didn't the text indicate that they all believed first and then were baptized?Actually, the tense of the participle indicates that they already believed, not that they began when they arrived at the house.Imparts what? The Holy Spirit or Salvation?Spiritual gifts...

[Jaltus]

Calvinist,

My point about the Greek is that your quote was from Calvin, not from the Bible. There was no reference listed, so how could I know what you were pointing at?

Second, you totally missed the point of my other post. I did not ask what IS the entrance into the community, I asked about the SIGN of entrance into the community. Your answer of election is nonsensical.

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
Calvinist,
My point about the Greek is that your quote was from Calvin, not from the Bible. There was no reference listed, so how could I know what you were pointing at?


I should have posted the verse I was refering to. Sorry.


Second, you totally missed the point of my other post. I did not ask what IS the entrance into the community, I asked about the SIGN of entrance into the community. Your answer of election is nonsensical.

Please explain and ask your question again, I went back and looked at it and it's not clear to me.

[Jaltus]

Let me try again. I said:
Let me explain this way: someone who is circumcized MUST participate in the Feasts (once they come of age). The only church-age Feast is the Eucharist, clearly for believers only (I don't plan on defending this here, but can if I need to), which makes me wonder about the connection.

The ECFs believed that communion was for the community only, and that baptism was entrance to the community. once baptized, you could take part in the Lord's Supper. If you were not baptized, you could not.

So, if baptism is the sign of entrance into the People of God, then how could ANY infant be realistically brought into a saving knowledge of Christ? What I meant was that if baptism is the sign of entrancy into the community, and entrance into the community is only salvation, how can we give a SIGN of entrance to someone whom we KNOW has not entered? That is dishonest.

Baptism is a public proclaimation to the world that you are showqing yourself to be buried with Christ and risen a new creature. Infant baptism does not incorporate that AT ALL. It has a rigid adherence to circumcision as the only correspondance, but that is only a single metaphor for baptism. Jesus' death and reusrrection is the other major parallel given, and I do not see how infant baptism can in any way meet that comparison.

[Pilgrim]

The PC(USA) explains it briefly in this way:

When we are baptized as infants we show that even before we are as yet ready to respond, God has a call on us. When we are baptized as adults we demonstrate that having been called we respond in obedience.

This is of course only a small part of the whole meaning, but I think it is helpful.

And what would be the specific problem with a child being seated at the Lord's table?

[Solly]

Pilgrim:
The PC(USA) explains it briefly in this way:

When we are baptized as infants we show that even before we are as yet ready to respond, God has a call on us. When we are baptized as adults we demonstrate that having been called we respond in obedience.

This is of course only a small part of the whole meaning, but I think it is helpful.

And what would be the specific problem with a child being seated at the Lord's table?

What the problem is here is that Reformed Christians hold tenaciously to the fact that if there isn't a scripture for it, we don't do it. And then, without scripture for it, Presbies sprinkle infants, and apparently allow them to sit down at the Lord's Table, on the surmise that "God has a call on us".
Firstly, how will said children "examine themselves" when thay aren't in the faith? How will they judge themselves correctly, without the Holy Spirit? How will they recognise the "chastening of the Lord"?

Secondly, where is the scripture for that? Baptism was taken over following Jewish proselyte baptism. We are all proselytes, converts; not born into the faith. John the Baptist (In the beginning there were no Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc, just one Baptist) never mentioned sprinkling children, nor did Jesus.
I was staggered that even the great B B Warfield, a man whose view on things I value highly, descended into sheer obfuscation when trying to defend the indefensible in his article on Baptism.

I challenge the infant sprinklers to come up with one clear command or event of scripture in the NT that proves that our children should be sprinkled. Not analogies, not similarities, not inferences, not interpretations a posteriori, but one single command or event.
We are not Lutherans. (What is not forbidden is allowable) pace any Lutherans here; this is a reformed debate.

In the 19th century, the Anglican Evangelicals (the likes of J C Ryle) had a great deal of trouble with this, because the BCP rules that children must be sprinkled, but they knew it should not be done. They either had to leave (as with J C Philpot, one of our own chief men), or they started splitting hairs, and talking about "realising your baptism" to get around it.

"He who believes, and is baptised." Where is this order ever reversed?

[Socrates]

A big pragmatic problem with sprat sprinkling (brephorhantism) is that soooo many people think that they are Christians because their parents brought them along for this ritual when they were babies. And I know evangelical ministers of such church lamenting about why so many of their flock are not living Christian lives. But they should not be surprised -- they allow them to be admitted into the community before they believe. So on what logical grounds should they be excluded if they explicitly declare unbelief or implicitly show their unbelief by their lack of fruit?

Of course, this must be secondary to Scripture, which says nothing to even hint at brephorhantism, and everything to explain that baptism follows belief. Sorry to say, but the Reformers didn't go far enough to remove human traditions.

[Socrates]

smilax:
Adult? Confessing, more like.Yes, but keep in mind that family solidarity was, culturally speaking, far more stringent back then. If one member converted, do you really think the rest wouldn't have? You have to make the blind assumption that infants were present.

Acts xvi, 33-34: "And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calvinist said:
"And you are making a blind assumption that there were no infants."

Oh yes, totally amaurotic, right, sure. Of course, infants were more evolved in those days, and could all believe in God as the text says.

[Jaltus]

If one member converted, do you really think the rest wouldn't have?

Matthew 10:34-36
34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'


Yes, I really think the rest would not for Jesus Himself tells us they would not.

[Ishmael]

Socrates:
smilax:
Adult? Confessing, more like.Yes, but keep in mind that family solidarity was, culturally speaking, far more stringent back then. If one member converted, do you really think the rest wouldn't have? You have to make the blind assumption that infants were present.

Acts xvi, 33-34: &quot;And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.&quot;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calvinist said:
&quot;And you are making a blind assumption that there were no infants.&quot;

Oh yes, totally amaurotic, right, sure. Of course, infants were more evolved in those days, and could all believe in God as the text says.

(I guess this is saracasm? Nice.)

...I guess you are a big know-it-all, too... :p

[Ishmael]

Solly:
What the problem is here is that Reformed Christians hold tenaciously to the fact that if there isn't a scripture for it, we don't do it. And then, without scripture for it, Presbies sprinkle infants, and apparently allow them to sit down at the Lord's Table, on the surmise that &quot;God has a call on us&quot;.
Firstly, how will said children &quot;examine themselves&quot; when thay aren't in the faith? How will they judge themselves correctly, without the Holy Spirit? How will they recognise the &quot;chastening of the Lord&quot;?


First of all, it is a scriptural argument built on Covenant Theology. The argument is made upon the body of Scripture given in the first post. Just because you don't agree and don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a Scriptural argument.


Secondly, where is the scripture for that? Baptism was taken over following Jewish proselyte baptism. We are all proselytes, converts; not born into the faith. John the Baptist (In the beginning there were no Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc, just one Baptist) never mentioned sprinkling children, nor did Jesus.
I was staggered that even the great B B Warfield, a man whose view on things I value highly, descended into sheer obfuscation when trying to defend the indefensible in his article on Baptism.


Covenant Theology is not built on "one" Scripture just as many doctrines you accept are not built on one Scripture or command.




I challenge the infant sprinklers to come up with one clear command or event of scripture in the NT that proves that our children should be sprinkled. Not analogies, not similarities, not inferences, not interpretations a posteriori, but one single command or event.
We are not Lutherans. (What is not forbidden is allowable) pace any Lutherans here; this is a reformed debate.


You find the one the explicitly forbids the practice and I will re-convert. OR find the passage of Scripture that disconnects the Old Covenant from the New to the degree you would like and I will re-convert to Baptist.

Believer's baptism is not explicitly commanded, so that’s just a nonsensical argument.


In the 19th century, the Anglican Evangelicals (the likes of J C Ryle) had a great deal of trouble with this, because the BCP rules that children must be sprinkled, but they knew it should not be done. They either had to leave (as with J C Philpot, one of our own chief men), or they started splitting hairs, and talking about &quot;realising your baptism&quot; to get around it.

&quot;He who believes, and is baptised.&quot; Where is this order ever reversed?

We have already shown you where it is possibly reversed AND we have shown you the Covenant Theology which gives large precedence for the practice of Infant Baptism. Here are more articles to re-state, since you apparently missed the whole argument in deference to your own rigid Bible interpretation.

http://www.fivesolas.com/fs_bapt.htm - Francis A. Schaeffer
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MurrayJohnWhyWeBaptizeInfants.htm
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/WarfieldBBPolemicsInfantBaptism.htm
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/ZwinglianStatementInfantBaptism.htm

If you would like more, I can post some more.

[Ishmael]

Socrates:
A big pragmatic problem with sprat sprinkling (brephorhantism) is that soooo many people think that they are Christians because their parents brought them along for this ritual when they were babies. And I know evangelical ministers of such church lamenting about why so many of their flock are not living Christian lives. But they should not be surprised -- they allow them to be admitted into the community before they believe. So on what logical grounds should they be excluded if they explicitly declare unbelief or implicitly show their unbelief by their lack of fruit?

Of course, this must be secondary to Scripture, which says nothing to even hint at brephorhantism, and everything to explain that baptism follows belief. Sorry to say, but the Reformers didn't go far enough to remove human traditions.

Sorry....? I thought we understood salvation to be by Election...?

I don't see how this cute story about these "mysterious un-named ministers" is relevant in light of our Reformed doctrine on salvation.

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:


Matthew 10:34-36
34 &quot;Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35 For I have come to turn &quot;'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--
36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'


Yes, I really think the rest would not for Jesus Himself tells us they would not.

So this verse is normative for every family now and forever? I need to check on my family................. :rofl:

[Ishmael]

Jaltus:
Let me try again. I said:
What I meant was that if baptism is the sign of entrance into the community, and entrance into the community is only salvation, how can we give a SIGN of entrance to someone whom we KNOW has not entered? That is dishonest.


We do not know anything of the kind... Besides the non-elect are partakers of a portion of Grace which is the general benevolence of God to those eternally separated from him.


Baptism is a public proclamation to the world that you are showing yourself to be buried with Christ and risen a new creature. Infant baptism does not incorporate that AT ALL. It has a rigid adherence to circumcision as the only correspondence, but that is only a single metaphor for baptism.

It absolutely does proclaim to the world the infant's identification with Christ. It sets aside the child for participation in the community of Christ. It is all built on Covenant Theology outlined in my article and here is another that explains it by FS:

http://www.fivesolas.com/fs_bapt.htm - Francis A. Schaeffer


Jesus' death and resurrection is the other major parallel given, and I do not see how infant baptism can in any way meet that comparison.

You identified with Christ on the same power that a baby is able to use to be identified. God's election and nothing more.
-------------------------
What's funny here is that you Reformed baptists turn into Wesleyians so quickly when trying to defend credobaptism as the only baptism allowed for Christians. You have to show all sorts of works salvation principles in order to defeat infant baptism. Quite funny if you ask me.

[Socrates]

"Calvinist" the brephorhantist wrote:

"Believer's baptism is not explicitly commanded, so that’s just a nonsensical argument."

Oh puh-lease. It's certainly implicit in all the passages where baptism follows belief!

In another post, he wrote:
"Sorry....? I thought we understood salvation to be by Election...?"

And I believe that too.

C:
"I don't see how this cute story about these "mysterious un-named ministers" is relevant in light of our Reformed doctrine on salvation."

As I said, this was a pragmatic argument. But it's still a problem for you, because your denomination admits unsaved people to the community.

[Socrates]

Calvinist wrote:

"What's funny here is that you Reformed baptists turn into Wesleyians so quickly when trying to defend credobaptism as the only baptism allowed for Christians. You have to show all sorts of works salvation principles in order to defeat infant baptism. Quite funny if you ask me."

Humph, the Reformed Baptist Confession predated the Westminster Confession. And the vast majority of brephorhantists have a works-salvation mentality; conversely, the vast majority of credobaptists believe the Reformation principle of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

[Dark Knight]

goo goo ga ga... Jesus ...goo ga ga goo

[Solly]

LOLOL DK.

Honestly Calvinist, you can't win an argument by saying that I am holding to my rigid bible interpretation.

St. Peter at the Gates: So, do you believe Jesus is the Son of God, and rose from the Dead?

Farrell Till: Oh come on, don't try that rigid Bible interpretation on me!!

The fact is the Jesus said: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them, etc.

Now, you have two ways to go on the basis of this verse.
You either take it as read and go out and baptise everyone, as the Catholics did when the converted the heathen hordes of eastern europe, or you baptise those who are converted to Christ - there is no half way house.

Scripture shows quite clearly that those who were baptised by the apostles were baptised upon belief. You can point to families; all that means is the the leader of the house had a good influence, and others came over to the true religion. There is not one instance of an infant being baptised, nor one command. Don't you think that amongst all his suggestions Paul would have mentioned just once, don't forget to baptise the children. After all, he commented on their baptising for the dead (whatever that means); he regulated for the children of unbelieving partners.

Oh, but we use Covenant Theology, and justified inference from that.
Balderdash. The Reformed churches didn't have the TF to completely break up the Catholic organisation, so they "Reformed" it, and gave it a "scriptural" basis. They attacked the anabaptists as re-baptisers, not recognising their baptism upon faith as genuine. They did the same to the Baptists, in Great Britain and the US. Your Federal Covenant Theology is fundamentally flawed, in placing OT texts and ideas on a par with NT ones, rather than placing the OT under the NT. With the Catholics you carry over OT ideas and implement them, to everyone else's distaste, such as Magistrates being religious watchmen - although over here that has gone down the pan now that the Presyterians are also just a sect now.

I am not a Baptist becuase I like baptism, but because I believe the scriptures teach New Covenant Theology, and that is radically different. I don't need inference, when I have clear command about obedience to Christ in the Church.

By the same inference and implication, Usury was banned amongst Christians in the middle ages, and the poor old Jews shoved into the position of providing finance for "Christian" princes, with the threat of their worldly goods being confiscated.
By the same inference, presbyter became Priest, John 6 became Transubstantiation, and Israel's covenant laws became the death penalty for heretics, and Baptists, and the Jewish Sabbath became the most miserable day of the week for Scottish Presbyterians, where joy was banished for 24 hours.

And as for: What's funny here is that you Reformed baptists turn into Wesleyians so quickly when trying to defend credobaptism as the only baptism allowed for Christians. You have to show all sorts of works salvation principles in order to defeat infant baptism. Quite funny if you ask me.

Sheesh, is that it? Your damning answer and critique? That we are a bunch of legalists?

How can one partake of the community of the twice born? Our citizenship is in heaven; how can un unregenerate baby be part of that? I suppose you have them all lined up in the Sabbath School singing "Yes, Jesus loves me".

Calvinist, you must do better. you have not yet presented a scriptural case for infant sprinkling on the terms you understand it, except to call in "inference" and "leadings of scripture". Neither you nor Pilgrim have substantiated your claim that "God has a call on us" just because we are born to a Christian couple.

The Wet One.

[Jaltus]

We do not know anything of the kind... Besides the non-elect are partakers of a portion of Grace which is the general benevolence of God to those eternally separated from him. Yes, we do know that infants are not in fact part of the current community of Christ. Ever read Romans 10:9? Infants cannot confess or believe in their hearts for they have not the understanding to do so. In other words, your objection is baseless.

For that matter, just because God allows grace to the no0nelect does not mean they should be allowed to sit at the Lord's Table. That, my friend, is some seriously bad theology.

It absolutely does proclaim to the world the infant's identification with Christ. It sets aside the child for participation in the community of Christ. It is all built on Covenant Theology outlined in my article and here is another that explains it by FS: How can the infant identify with anything? It is an infant! Oh, the parents can dedicate it (see John the baptist), but they cannot in fact make the child part of the covenant community. Again, Romans 10:9 shows us that a child cannot be part of the community. Salvation is not something you are born into, it is something you must live. It is not something chosen for you, it is something you must choose.

Covenant theology is nothing more than a sad apologetic for infant baptism. Your theology should not dictate your position on ordinances. In fact, it should go the other way. Sorry, but "my theology says" is not a trump card, it is a cop out.

You identified with Christ on the same power that a baby is able to use to be identified. God's election and nothing more. Begging the question. When does "election" occur? Is salvation something I am born into or is there a specific time when I ask Jesus to be my Lord?

Yeah, that's what I thought, evasion.

[smilax]

So where is the Biblical proof of covenant succession sans fluff about denominational history? Outline it without any links, please.

Where is the explanation of what it means to be in the community of the new covenant without being saved? Set aside? Practically speaking, what is the difference between a child who set aside and one who is not? And what of those children who do fall away, despite having a "blameless nurture"? Then we just cop out and say there are too many other factors to consider. The covenant community is the church; the church consists of professing believers.

And please, let's talk about why paedobaptism was not a normative practice immediately after the apostles.

"Children" in the new covenant are converts. "Be fruitful," is replaced with, "Teach all nations." The family unit is important; but in and of itself, it has no direct relationship with the new covenant, as Christ's words ensure. (Matthew x, 34-36, Luke ix, 59-62, xiv, 26.) Circumcision does not have a physical equivalent, but rather the spiritual reality in Christ. (Philippians iii, 3.)

Colossians ii, 11-12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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."

No hint of circumcision implying infant baptism here! Rather, we are born again, becoming as little children, and therein lies our circumcision.

Seems as though "covenant theology" has become as much a hinderance to doctrine as the Roman Catholic traditions. Our Biblical theology must govern our systematic theology, not the other way around.

[Jaltus]

Good call, Smilax!

[Ishmael]

I am going to get back in this soon... I am just so tired from road marching all week... road marching with the un-washed, mind you.

[Solly]

road marching with the un-washed, mind you.

:eww: :x

[George Blaisdell]

Smilax writes:

> The covenant community is the church; the church consists of professing believers...
> Colossians ii, 11-12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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."

In the early Church, baptism followed repentance, which followed instruction [catechesis], which followed being called to the faith. It normally took some three years of repentance and instruction before a person was judged to be ready for baptism, which was understood to be a great mystery in which a person was cleansed of all their sins, which they confessed prior to baptism, and their bodies and souls were given exorcisms of evil spirits, and they were called to renounce and spit upon satan and all his legions... And then, amidst the assembly of the faithful, in songs of prayer and psalmic mymnody, the priest would baptize by complete immersion three times, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In this action, the penitent died to his worldly existence, and was born anew from above into the Body of Christ, the Holy Church, Whose head is Christ.

It is still done this way in my Church. It never changed...

And following baptism is chrismation, the annointing with the oil of Holy Chrism, the Christing, so to speak, giving the seal of the Holy Spirit upon the newly birthed. Baptism is understood as the divine enlightenment of the nous [usually translated as 'mind', but better understood as the eye of the heart, the eye of the core of the soul, the director of intelligence, and the image of God in man] and is the grace of the Holy Spirit granting a pure entry into the Body of Christ that receives the newly born one... The Church.

Baptism is not understood as some kind of sign of something, but as the fact of entry into the Body of Christ who baptizes... The new creature that emerges from the waters of baptism is holy and pure, and fragile... And it is the keeping of that purity and holiness that is his or her great work subsequently, for it is lost as we sin, and regained as we confess our sin and repent from it, thereby running the race set before us, unto the perfecting of the saints in Christ.

I know that this is not how any of this is commonly understood on this forum, but I offer it as an alternative to the mental convolutions that seem to obfuscate the profound simplicity of the meaning of baptism. It is in baptism that we die to the world and are born anew from above into Christ, into His Holy Body, of which He is the Head, His Holy Church. Our salvation is established in baptism, but not at all assured. Following baptism, we must, together with Paul, "work out our salvation in fear and trembling." If we fail to do so, we will be lost, yet if we "persevere to the end" we will be saved.

Salvation consists in one's life lived, and not merely in some event in it. We do not run around worrying about whether or not we are the elect, we worry about our sins... A holy life is not to be had in the commission of sin... But in repentance...

So I offer a little alternative to the flow of the discussions here, and I should caution any who might think I have any authority to speak of such matters, for I do not, and am not even yet baptized, but God willing I shall be come Mar 5th - Please pray for me...

geo

[GrayPilgrim]

Boy, it appears that even FAS might have gotten something wrong :brow:.

Jaltus is correct, IMHO, covenant theology is nothing more than an apologetic for infant baptism. Daniel Lane in his paper entitled "The Meaning and Use of the Old Testament Term for "Covenant" (B:RIYT): with Some Implications for Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology: Subtitled How a Deficient Understanding of "Covenant" Has Contributed to the Theological Missteps of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism" delivered Nov. 20, 2002 at the annual ETS conference demonstrates that NO covenant theologian has ever taken the time to define the word covenant fully! Nor is there a consensus among them about what it means.

He looked at Bullinger, Berkhoff, Murray, VanGemeren, O. Palmer Robertson, McConville, Smick, Vos, Kline, McComiskey, Thompson and Waltke and found at least four mutually exclusive usages od the word BRYT.

Despite the competent analyses of many passages provided in their writings, in none of the studies which htis writer surveyed did the author actually make a thorough lexical study of berith so as to establish the semantic range of hte term itself. In some cases (ESP. Murray, Robertson & McConville) there was not even a clear distinction made between whether they were explaining the term or expounding the divine covenants (Lane, "Meaning and Use" p. 18).

Let us recall that McConville was the contributor in NIDOTTE 1:746-55 (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis) for the word BRYT and yet in those 10 pages he expounds the covenants without ever stating a definition of the word itself.

Let me quote from Lane again:

Conclusion:The failutre of covenatn theology to define the term berith before expounding the various covenants, and to do so on the full range of uses of berith in the Old Testament, is a remarkable oversight for a field of theology which takes as its name "covenant theology." This failure is the root cayse of their inconsistent and sometiems contradictory conclusions about hte meaning of covenant / berith. It also has resulted in a two-fold deficiency in the predominant understanding of berith with covenant theology: (1) an inadequate appreciation of its essential dynamics and the imlications of those dynamics, and (2) a slowness to recognize its range of use (i.e., the different covenenat functions which it can cover).

I tend to agree with Lane's assessment. Covenant theology flatens out Scripture to fit everything since the Fall into the Covenant of Grace and is guilty of an improper importation of the OT into the NT. I think that this stems from allowing a fuzziness to remain around the term "covenant", therefore I recommend that we take a few steps back and define "covenant" before proceeding and then return to our originally scheduled debate.

[ItalianGold]

I would appreciate any answers to:

If circumcism was the original convenent and sign of salvation, what happened to all the women?

Was Christ's mother Mary baptised?

Did Christ baptise?

[Jaltus]

Christ did not baptize, He had His disciples do it for Him.

NIV John 4:1 The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John,
2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.


As for Mary, there is no record either way.

[Covenanter]

I think most of us will agree that baptism per se has no saving merit. We are concerned with its significance.

The Westminster Confession is a good starting point:
Q. 94. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.

Baptism is primarily speaking to the believer of the benefits he now has as a believer in Christ, & he is confessing by baptism his commitment to Christ & his identification with the people of God.

An instructive discourse on baptism is found in Hebrews 9, where the word "baptisms" in 9:10 has disappeared from almost every translation to be replaced by "washings."

Hbr 9:10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Note the way the sprinkled blood, or blood, water & ashes of the sacrifice is contrasted with the sprinkled blood of Christ.

The basis for Christian baptism is seen to be the Old Covenant ceremonial washings, NOT circumcision, which were sprinklings with the applied sacrifice. These were not applied to infants.

Read on in Hebrews.

Covenant baptism is not "Christian circumcision" for the link with circumcision in Col. 2

Col 2:11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;
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.
Col 2:13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

It is in him, in CHrist that we are circumcised in heart, not in baby baptism.

[Covenanter]

It will be helpful to define Covenant Theology by Scripture:


Consider these Scriptures:

Gen 15:9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.
......
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:


Jer 34:18 And I will give the men that have transgressed my covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they had made before me, when they cut the calf in twain, and passed between the parts thereof,
19 The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf;
20 I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life: and their dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth.

A Biblical covenant is generally between superior & inferior parties, whereby the superior guarantees protection, while the inferior guarantees obedience. The covenant is "cut" (from the Hebrew root word) and the references show the divided sacrifices. Death is the penalty for breach of covenant.

In that definition we can see that the relationship of God with Adam was in fact a covenant. At that point no cutting was required, for there was no disobedience.

The covenant sign, circumcision is a cutting of the body part which produces the seed. And the covenant with Abram concerns his seed.

The expression my covenant occurs many times in Scripture.

Now consider these Scriptures:

Lev 26:9 For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.
10 And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.
11 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
12 And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.

Both Scriptures show the covenant relationship. God dwelling with his people. Supremely, the covenant is the means whereby sinners become the "people of God." Its a profitable study to see how often an expression similar to "I will be your God, and ye shall be my people " occurs in Scripture.

Why was Jesus given his names?

Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

God with us, to save his people.

We can understand the meaning of early Scripture by seeing the way it unfolds. Could Isaiah have understood Isaiah 53 the way we can in the light of the cross?

As Peter says:
1Pe 1:10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace [that should come] unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

We can see the types & shadows of the Old COvenant in the light of the New Covenant antitype.

The New Covenant in the blood of Jesus is the Everlasting Covenant made clear. We, in Adam. and in practice, have broken the Covenant. We deserve death. Christ stands in for us, as Son of man, for man, and in perfect obedience keeps all the requirements of the Old COvenant. And is put to death, shedding the blood of the New Covenant.

God's people were chosen in Christ before the creation of the world. IN CHRIST we are in the New Covenant. His blood cleanses us from all sin.

Baptism speaks of the blood of the eternal covenant shed for the one baptised, symbolically applied in believers' baptism.

And IN CHRIST, with our robes washed in the blood of the Lamb we will dwell with God for ever in the New Heaven & New Earth, where all the everlasting, Covenant promises of God will find their perfect fulfillment.

Rev 7:14b ... These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.
17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

[HeDied4all]

By way of personal experience I can say this;
I was baptized at the age of 6 and understand that through Adams transgressions we are all born sinners. The Bible makes this clear in several different scriptures. However, me being of the flesh would have loved the opertunity to come to Christ on my own and asked for baptizim. That's ironic! When we give our lives to the Lord we become born again and we are then baptized by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Have a great day!
Jesus Loves You And So Do I

[joelkaki]

I know this isn't the subject of this thread, but I couldn't help noticing your name: HeDied4All. Judging from that, would you be willing to debate me on limited atonement on one of the boards (either the gym or in theology 101)? I proposed this a while back, but no one accepted, so I now ask if you are willing. No problem if you don't want to.


BTW, I believe in infant baptism.

Joel

[Jaltus]

I'd take you on about limited atonement in a heartbeat.

Here comes John 3:16 with real exegesis, not that "world does not mean world" garbage.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

02-22-2003 @ 11:34 PM
Jaltus:

I'd take you on about limited atonement in a heartbeat.

Here comes John 3:16 with real exegesis, not that &quot;world does not mean world&quot; garbage.

And I'd root for you---if you'd get me some manly pom-poms....

[joelkaki]

Jaltus, you want to start a thread on Theology 101? I'll debate you on it if you really want to.



Joel

[Covenanter]

Come back everyone - why do you all abandon the discussion as soon as I join in :bawl:

[Ishmael]

02-10-2003 @ 07:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=12885#post12885)
Solly:
LOLOL DK.
Honestly Calvinist, you can't win an argument by saying that I am holding to my rigid bible interpretation.


But it is true. You have a wooden understanding of the word baptizo in the first place as has been demonstrated in the mode of Baptism thread.


St. Peter at the Gates: So, do you believe Jesus is the Son of God, and rose from the Dead?

Farrell Till: Oh come on, don't try that rigid Bible interpretation on me!!


LOL.


The fact is the Jesus said: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them, etc.

Now, you have two ways to go on the basis of this verse.
You either take it as read and go out and baptise everyone, as the Catholics did when the converted the heathen hordes of eastern europe, or you baptise those who are converted to Christ - there is no half way house.


No. The "half-way" house as you put it is the clear teaching in Acts of at 25% of the verses that mention baptism and in the same verse mention that the person and "their household" were baptized. This is definitely consistent with the OT sign which was administered to entire households, including infants and even servants.


Scripture shows quite clearly that those who were baptised by the apostles were baptised upon belief. You can point to families; all that means is the the leader of the house had a good influence, and others came over to the true religion.


No actually 25% of the verses in acts mention household and it does not mean that the leader of the household had good influence but that his or her entire household received the sign. Whether or not infants were present in the "household" is in debate. Oscar Kuhlman has argued that "household" must indicate that infants were present and I agree on the principle that when "households" were converted under the OT Covenant sign it explicitly meant that ALL (infants, servants, etc.) were circumcised.

If you argue that Baptism cannot be applied to infants here then you argue that NT Baptism is more exclusive than OT circumcision, which is contrary to the teaching of the NT, especially Hebrews which teaches that the NT sign is more inclusive.


There is not one instance of an infant being baptised, nor one command. Don't you think that amongst all his suggestions Paul would have mentioned just once, don't forget to baptise the children. After all, he commented on their baptising for the dead (whatever that means); he regulated for the children of unbelieving partners.


An argument from silence on a matter I believe would have been obvious the all believer of that time. In addition Paul teaches that the believing spouse will sanctify unbelieving spouses AND that in this way children will be clean.... what does Paul mean here? He cannot mean that unbelieving Spouses will be saved, can he?

Furthermore, the only people believing first were adults. This is again the pattern of the OT sign: Adult converts receive the sign after faith and children receive it before faith. Either way you receive the benefits of the covenant thru faith.


Oh, but we use Covenant Theology, and justified inference from that.
Balderdash. The Reformed churches didn't have the TF to completely break up the Catholic organisation, so they &quot;Reformed&quot; it, and gave it a &quot;scriptural&quot; basis. They attacked the anabaptists as re-baptisers, not recognising their baptism upon faith as genuine. They did the same to the Baptists, in Great Britain and the US. Your Federal Covenant Theology is fundamentally flawed, in placing OT texts and ideas on a par with NT ones, rather than placing the OT under the NT. With the Catholics you carry over OT ideas and implement them, to everyone else's distaste, such as Magistrates being religious watchmen - although over here that has gone down the pan now that the Presyterians are also just a sect now.


I would like to see you try and prove all this.


I am not a Baptist becuase I like baptism, but because I believe the scriptures teach New Covenant Theology, and that is radically different. I don't need inference, when I have clear command about obedience to Christ in the Church.


But there is no clear command to baptize the way you believe and there is no clear regulation against children receiving the sign.


By the same inference and implication, Usury was banned amongst Christians in the middle ages, and the poor old Jews shoved into the position of providing finance for &quot;Christian&quot; princes, with the threat of their worldly goods being confiscated.

By the same inference, presbyter became Priest, John 6 became Transubstantiation, and Israel's covenant laws became the death penalty for heretics, and Baptists, and the Jewish Sabbath became the most miserable day of the week for Scottish Presbyterians, where joy was banished for 24 hours.
[QUOTE]

Bah, Bah and double Bah... Why this is here is a mystery to me.

[QUOTE]
And as for: What's funny here is that you Reformed baptists turn into Wesleyians so quickly when trying to defend credobaptism as the only baptism allowed for Christians. You have to show all sorts of works salvation principles in order to defeat infant baptism. Quite funny if you ask me.

Sheesh, is that it? Your damning answer and critique? That we are a bunch of legalists?

How can one partake of the community of the twice born? Our citizenship is in heaven; how can un unregenerate baby be part of that? I suppose you have them all lined up in the Sabbath School singing &quot;Yes, Jesus loves me&quot;.


Does the sign save? The sign is given to infants just as the sign of circumcision, which did not save -- faith did, was given to infants. A baby received some of the benefits of the Community of faith and receives the sign of those benefits. The sign is a symbol of the washing that Christ does to her body the Church. How any Calvinist does not understand this amazes me... :argh:


Calvinist, you must do better. you have not yet presented a scriptural case for infant sprinkling on the terms you understand it, except to call in &quot;inference&quot; and &quot;leadings of scripture&quot;. Neither you nor Pilgrim have substantiated your claim that &quot;God has a call on us&quot; just because we are born to a Christian couple.

The Wet One.

It's not a clear Scriptural command of either side of the issue. However, I can definitely say that your position is disconnected from the OT Covenant in a way that I am sure was not the intention nor the practice of the Early Church.

[Solly]

Today @ 03:52 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46616#post46616)
Calvinist:
But it is true. You have a wooden understanding of the word baptizo in the first place as has been demonstrated in the mode of Baptism thread.

You are the only person who considers that I have not proven anything, by your selective browsing of the source material. But then, your "wooden" presbyterian interpretation of scripture blocks your change of view. However, this is not argumentation, merely assertion. the only reason I have a wooden interpretation of baptizo, in YHO, is because it is not YOUR interpretation.
Well well well, how surprising.

Fact 1: You have no instance of an infant or child being baptised in the NT.

Fact 2: You have no clear and present link between circumcision and baptism in the NT.

Fact 3: You have no clear link showing that "this is that", ie OT circumcision = baptism in different administrations of the covenant of grace.

Fact 4: You take a covenant sign applied to infants, regardless of mental capacity, and put it on a level with a concsious act, and try to back it up by saying, oh but converts were circumcised, and their children. Phlah!!

Fact 5: Despite what the lexicons say about the meaning of the words, and the theological use they are put to, you still assert that no clear guidance is given, and prefer to fall back on the "what is not forbidden, is allowed" argument.

Fact 6: In fact, all you can do, is shout shout shout, It ain't so, we're right, why can't you see it.

Your whole argumentation is based on the premise that you don't have a clear scriptural warrant for your actions, but you believe that you go with the flow of scripture, and that any body who happens to rely on the clear meaning of words, and their use in various contexts, and the lack of evidence pointing another way, is being unfaithful to scripture. You twist and turn, you bring in the Early Church, as if that is relevant; you bring out unmentioned facts, and say: they are there really; you bring in human logic: well of course God wants it such and such.

And your final gambit: It's not a clear Scriptural command of either side of the issue. The last resort of the hopeless.
So, Calvinist, if YOU have no clear scriptural warrant for what your churches are doing, then what ARE you doing? Sola Scriptura. Show us where we are wrong, from the scriptures, and I might take more notice; but since you don't have clear scripture warrant for what you are doing, well...

[Solly]

From: A Historical Survey of Baptism, by Brian Gordon
There is no instance of infant baptism recorded in the New Testament, either by Jesus, the Apostles, or any other Christian. This is generally conceded by scholars.


Dollinger, a Catholic scholar, Professor of Church History in the University of Munich says: "There is no proof or hint in the New Testament that the apostles baptized infants or ordered them to be baptized" (John Joseph Ignatius Dollinger, The First Age of the Church, II. 184).

Dr. Edmund de Pressense, a French Senator and Protestant, says: "No positive fact sanctioning the practice (of infant baptism) can be adduced from the New Testament; the historical proofs alleged are in no way conclusive" (Pressense, Early Years of Christianity, 376. London, 1870).

[George Blaisdell]

Solly writes:
____________________________________________

"...you bring in the Early Church, as if that is relevant;"
____________________________________________

Unless you are saying that Christ failed, you might want to see if you can engender a little more kindness in your thinking about the early Church... God's word tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truths, their basis and support, and that we are to keep all the teachings [traditions], whether by word or by epistle, and that the written is not exhaustive of these...

The early Church, the pillar and ground of truth, baptized infants, and still does so... If your rejection of all things "Rome" is so precious, then perhaps it might help to remember that the early Church was Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, Constantinople, and Rome... It was from this communion that Rome broke, and birthed the reformation some half a millennium later...

The early Church is the one that kept the traditions, and the witness is pretty universal, that infants are baptized. Unless you do not believe the Bible when it tells you that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, I would hope that you might give this fact some consideration outside your Roman Rejection...

geo

[Solly]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46960#post46960)
George Blaisdell:

Solly writes:
____________________________________________

&quot;...you bring in the Early Church, as if that is relevant;&quot;
____________________________________________

Unless you are saying that Christ failed, you might want to see if you can engender a little more kindness in your thinking about the early Church... God's word tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truths, their basis and support, and that we are to keep all the teachings [traditions], whether by word or by epistle, and that the written is not exhaustive of these...

The early Church, the pillar and ground of truth, baptized infants, and still does so... If your rejection of all things &quot;Rome&quot; is so precious, then perhaps it might help to remember that the early Church was Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, Constantinople, and Rome... It was from this communion that Rome broke, and birthed the reformation some half a millennium later...

The early Church is the one that kept the traditions, and the witness is pretty universal, that infants are baptized. Unless you do not believe the Bible when it tells you that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, I would hope that you might give this fact some consideration outside your Roman Rejection...

geo


George, with respect, you might want to pause a moment before you reach for your 12 bore.

Geo--Unless you are saying that Christ failed, you might want to see if you can engender a little more kindness in your thinking about the early Church.

When did I say that? I pointed out, Reformed protestant to Reformed protestant, that our principle is sola scriptura.

Geo--God's word tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truths, their basis and support, and that we are to keep all the teachings [traditions], whether by word or by epistle, and that the written is not exhaustive of these...

That is a different issue, that clouds the issue here.

Geo--The early Church, the pillar and ground of truth, baptized infants, and still does so

If you check out my post above, you will see a quote from a catholic that says they did not.

Dollinger, a Catholic scholar, Professor of Church History in the University of Munich says: "There is no proof or hint in the New Testament that the apostles baptized infants or ordered them to be baptized" (John Joseph Ignatius Dollinger, The First Age of the Church, II. 184).

Geo--If your rejection of all things &quot;Rome&quot; is so precious, then perhaps it might help to remember that the early Church was Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, Constantinople, and Rome... It was from this communion that Rome broke, and birthed the reformation some half a millennium later. The early Church is the one that kept the traditions, and the witness is pretty universal, that infants are baptized. Unless you do not believe the Bible when it tells you that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, I would hope that you might give this fact some consideration outside your Roman Rejection

Again, with respect, I have not rejected "all things Rome", I have rejected Calvinists assertions, here and elsewhere, about what the early church did or did not, and its relevance to this thread topic.
Frankly, I think you are overreacting. If I remember, any references to Rome where made in the context that the Reformers did not thoroughly reform the church, but revised parts of it. I might also take issue, though not further on this thread, that Rome "birthed" the Reformation. I haven't seen it described that way before; is this Papal revisionism?

Geo--Unless you do not believe the Bible when it tells you that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth,

Unless you know nothing about Protestant doctrine, which I don't for one minute believe, then you will know that we do not read this verse in the way that the Eastern and Western Catholic church did. But again, that is another subject.

Geo--Unless you are saying that Christ failed

Which bit of the church are you holding up as an example of purity of doctrine and practice btw?

[George Blaisdell]

Solly: writes:

> George, with respect, you might want to pause a moment before you reach for your 12 bore.

You're right - I heard what I perceived [with little actuality, I should add] as an attack upon the value of the witness of the early Church, and its practices... And reached for the double-oo's. Thanks for being understanding!

> I pointed out, Reformed protestant to Reformed protestant, that our principle is sola scriptura.

And I butted my sorry way right in! Sorry!

> > Geo--The early Church, the pillar and ground of truth, baptized infants, and still does so...

> If you check out my post above, you will see a quote from a catholic that says they did not.

I am not really all that good at accounting for Catholic scholar's statements... All of Eastern Orthodoxy baptises infants, and they always have, or there would have been a lot of controversy about it in the early Church... There isn't...

> > Geo--...the early Church was Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, Constantinople, and Rome... and the witness is pretty universal, that infants are baptized...

> I have rejected Calvinists assertions, here and elsewhere, about what the early church did or did not, and its relevance to this thread topic.

If they affirm that the early Church did indeed baptize infants, they are correct... And absent specific scriptural prohibition from doing so - You do not cite scripture specifically prohibiting infants from being baptized, do you? - Then we can safely affirm the validity and propriety of infant baptism on the basis of the absence of its prohibition in scripture, and the presence of it in the early Church, even unto the present day without controversy...

> Frankly, I think you are overreacting.

I agree...

> I might also take issue, though not further on this thread, that Rome &quot;birthed&quot; the Reformation. I haven't seen it described that way before; is this Papal revisionism?

Just Orthodox common sense... Do you know of any early reformationsts who were not Roman Catholics? The Reformation came forth out of the Roman Church, which had been 500 years in apostacy from the original communion of Churches that is Christ's Church.

> > Geo--...the Church is the pillar and ground of truth,

> ...we do not read this verse in the way that the Eastern and Western Catholic church did.

Most Protestants I know just ignore that passage... Is there really another way of understanding it so that it is not referring to a real existential Church with real flesh and blood people in it? [I am more ignorant than you might think! Prior to Orthodoxy, I was unchurched.]

> Which bit of the church are you holding up as an example of purity of doctrine and practice btw?

The whole of it, the whole Church, the Body of Christ, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church which some of us on this board confess to believe in by our regular and creedal creedal confession...

Which bit of the Church???

Do you believe in morselled out and portioned bits of Church that are scattered about? Is it these scattered bits that you think the passage refers to? Or all of them gathered together in one pile?

Or do you mean the "spiritual" Church? The "Church Triumphant"? And that what Christ did was establish this celestial Church by His incarnation? And not a real one with real people that was the pillar and ground of the truths?

The early Church and it's practices should, I would think, have some 'carry' for Protestant discussion of doctrine... Don't you agree?

geo

[Solly]

03-29-2003 @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47523#post47523)
George Blaisdell:

Geo--Thanks for being understanding!
And I butted my sorry way right in! Sorry!

Solly--Accepted, and apologies if I responded too harshly. On the basis of your comments on Rome's "separation" from the East I had inadvertantly assumed you were coming from a Roman communion angle!!

Geo--If they affirm that the early Church did indeed baptize infants, they are correct... And absent specific scriptural prohibition from doing so - You do not cite scripture specifically prohibiting infants from being baptized, do you? - Then we can safely affirm the validity and propriety of infant baptism on the basis of the absence of its prohibition in scripture, and the presence of it in the early Church, even unto the present day without controversy...

Solly--While groups like the Lutherans continued with certain practices on the basis that "what is not condemned in scripture is allowable", Protestants, and specifically Baptists, work on the basis that if it isn't commanded, it isn't necessary. There is enough evidence to show that baptism was administered to adult converts, and noe with regard to infants. I believe the historical evidence shows that the early church did not baptise infants until a couple of centuries later. The fact of a practice being in existence does not mean that it has scriptural support (and on the basis of sola scriptura, I would not engage in anything in the church that did not have such). Reformed Prebyterian Protestants like Calvinist and Pilgrim baptise infants on the basis of their Covenantal theology.

Geo--Most Protestants I know just ignore that passage... Is there really another way of understanding it so that it is not referring to a real existential Church with real flesh and blood people in it? [I am more ignorant than you might think! Prior to Orthodoxy, I was unchurched.]

Solly-- Firstly I have a great interest in the Orthodox Church, hampered only by lack of funds to look into it more. My local Christian bookshop has an Orthodox section of over 40 books from St Vlad's, Hermann of Alaska and Conciliar. Excellent stuff.
As far as conversion is concerned, I have come to the Strict and Particular Baptist position (via a couple of years in the charismatics) from an unchurched position myself. I have an interest in the nature of the church, it's basis, structure and history. There was a point when my study of John Henry Newman's investigations into the "real" church nearly led me down the particular road that he travelled; I also looked into the Plymouth Brethren, which has informed some of my views, if only to clarify them. One day, I might get time to read the ECF's!!
How about we start a new thread on this topic, since it is worth looking into. We could make it a slow discussion (ministry constraints preclude a swift engagement)?

I'm just about done on the topic of Baptism, anyway, on this thread and the other.

[joelkaki]

Fact 4: You take a covenant sign applied to infants, regardless of mental capacity, and put it on a level with a concsious act, and try to back it up by saying, oh but converts were circumcised, and their children. Phlah!!


How do you account for the fact that circumcision was explicitly said to be an outward sign for the reality of inward, heart circumcision, and yet it was applied to infants in the OT? They did not have the mental capacity either. Why should something symbolizing what happens on the inside have been applied to babies in the OT either?

Joel

[George Blaisdell]

Solly:[/i] writes:

> "While groups like the Lutherans continued with certain practices on the basis that &quot;what is not condemned in scripture is allowable&quot;, Protestants, and specifically Baptists, work on the basis that if it isn't commanded, it isn't necessary. There is enough evidence to show that baptism was administered to adult converts, and none with regard to infants. I believe the historical evidence shows that the early church did not baptise infants until a couple of centuries later. The fact of a practice being in existence does not mean that it has scriptural support (and on the basis of sola scriptura, I would not engage in anything in the church that did not have such). Reformed Prebyterian Protestants like Calvinist and Pilgrim baptise infants on the basis of their Covenantal theology."

Thanks for the overview. In it you write:

"I believe the historical evidence shows that the early church did not baptise infants until a couple of centuries later."

What does the Church say? You see, if we are to believe scripture, then we must believe that with regard to Christian Truth, the Church is the "pillar and ground", so that stepping outside the Church and into "historical evidence" that is not from the Church would seem in itself to be uscriptural... The basis for doing so would seem to have to be that the early Church failed and fell into error, which would seem to in its turn be predicated on the idea that Christ failed in His incarnation...

Now the early Church was a communion of believers in Christ, sharing the cup of the body and blood of our Lord, and in the course of history, She went through trials, and some well and some ill, and separated Herself from unbelief and from apostatic and heretical teachings of those within Her by the withdrawal of communion... This is what happened with the Roman Church... But the communion of the faithful, the Church of the Apostles, never went out of existence... It is to Her communion that Rome needs to conform, and Protestants need to Reform...

> > Geo--Most Protestants I know just ignore that passage... Is there really another way of understanding it so that it is not referring to a real existential Church with real flesh and blood people in it? [I am more ignorant than you might think! Prior to Orthodoxy, I was unchurched.]

> Solly-- Firstly I have a great interest in the Orthodox Church, hampered only by lack of funds to look into it more.

Some free reads are at: http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm The Orthodox have this habit of letting you read about half the book on line, and you have to buyy the book for the other half... Well, at least SOME of the authors do... :-)

> My local Christian bookshop has an Orthodox section of over 40 books from St Vlad's, Hermann of Alaska and Conciliar. Excellent stuff.

It is the only Christian literature I read anymore... Except the Bible. The whole idea that some individual has some opinion about some Bible verse is entirely uninteresting to me if that person is not within the communion of the Church... With a very few exceptions, and these proving the rule...

> As far as conversion is concerned, I have come to the Strict and Particular Baptist position (via a couple of years in the charismatics) from an unchurched position myself.

Yanked from the whirlpool of the rat-hole of perdition by the Holy Spirit too? What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from abnormal to normal, and not to supra-normal, which is life in Christ...

> I have an interest in the nature of the church, it's basis, structure and history.

Then the historical and apostolic communion that is the Church would seem to be a good place to begin... So your interest in Orthodoxy might bear fruit. The strength of Orthodoxy is in the Church, and She is ONE... The Church is the continuing incarnation in history - And when the Church gets a chastizement, it is not pretty... Viz Russia and Saudi Arabia... "Nominal Christianity" brings correction or worse...

> There was a point when my study of John Henry Newman's investigations into the "real"; church nearly led me down the particular road that he travelled; I also looked into the Plymouth Brethren, which has informed some of my views, if only to clarify them. One day, I might get time to read the ECF's!!

I was busy avoiding "Christians" when I read the "Way of the Pilgrim" and began volume 1 of the "Philokalia", and simply knew immediately that I was home... It was like sitting down with an old pal across a cup of Jo at Starbucks... Except the guy was writing in Greek in the 4th century... Yet he was obviously addressing the very same matters of spirit and soul that I was addressing 1700 years later... Except he knew what he was doing!

> How about we start a new thread on this topic, since it is worth looking into. We could make it a slow discussion (ministry constraints preclude a swift engagement)?

I would be OK with that, but must warn you that I am slow too, and not all that well informed.

> I'm just about done on the topic of Baptism, anyway, on this thread and the other.

There is only so much one can say and do on it...

geo

[George Blaisdell]

joelkaki: writes:

> How do you account for the fact that circumcision was explicitly said to be an outward sign for the reality of inward, heart circumcision, and yet it was applied to infants in the OT? They did not have the mental capacity either. Why should something symbolizing what happens on the inside have been applied to babies in the OT either?

Great point! ':thumb:'

[Solly]

Today @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49415#post49415)
joelkaki:

Fact 4: You take a covenant sign applied to infants, regardless of mental capacity, and put it on a level with a concsious act, and try to back it up by saying, oh but converts were circumcised, and their children. Phlah!!


How do you account for the fact that circumcision was explicitly said to be an outward sign for the reality of inward, heart circumcision, and yet it was applied to infants in the OT? They did not have the mental capacity either. Why should something symbolizing what happens on the inside have been applied to babies in the OT either?

Joel

Where they told that at the time, either to Abraham or Moses, or was it a covenant stipulation which was later seen to mean something? I have pointed out, on this thread or the other, that circumcision speaks of cutting off, whereas baptism by immersion (an oxymoron I know from a Baptist pov) speaks of going in. But even if the typology is allowed, you still can't say this is that. However, the typology is not the same. As Cal points out, there is the element of washing or cleansing in baptism. They are on different levels, and the imagery from cultic washings speaks to the matter more.

[Solly]

Today @ 05:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49429#post49429)
George Blaisdell:
Geo--What does the Church say? You see, if we are to believe scripture, then we must believe that with regard to Christian Truth, the Church is the &quot;pillar and ground&quot;, so that stepping outside the Church and into &quot;historical evidence&quot; that is not from the Church would seem in itself to be uscriptural... The basis for doing so would seem to have to be that the early Church failed and fell into error, which would seem to in its turn be predicated on the idea that Christ failed in His incarnation...

Now the early Church was a communion of believers in Christ, sharing the cup of the body and blood of our Lord, and in the course of history, She went through trials, and some well and some ill, and separated Herself from unbelief and from apostatic and heretical teachings of those within Her by the withdrawal of communion... This is what happened with the Roman Church... But the communion of the faithful, the Church of the Apostles, never went out of existence... It is to Her communion that Rome needs to conform, and Protestants need to Reform...

Solly--Here we differ. For Protestants, even the ECFs are historical evidence. If they deviated from scriptural teaching, well there you go. They weren't inspired.

geo--Yanked from the whirlpool of the rat-hole of perdition by the Holy Spirit too? What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from abnormal to normal, and not to supra-normal, which is life in Christ...

Solly--Heh heh, I like arguments like that. Prots use that one all the time.

Geo--I was busy avoiding &quot;Christians&quot; when I read the &quot;Way of the Pilgrim&quot; and began volume 1 of the &quot;Philokalia&quot;, and simply knew immediately that I was home... It was like sitting down with an old pal across a cup of Jo at Starbucks... Except the guy was writing in Greek in the 4th century... Yet he was obviously addressing the very same matters of spirit and soul that I was addressing 1700 years later... Except he knew what he was doing!

Solly--A bit like Ephraim Rose by the looks of it.

George, I'd like to have a thread going on 1 Tim 3.15. Feel free to start if if you like; it will take me a few days to gather my resources outside of my own preparations.

Calvinist/Joel. Since the purpose here isn't conversion, I will leave it at what has been said. Let others make up their minds and contribute. All the best.

[Ishmael]

Today @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49431#post49431)
Solly:



Where they told that at the time, either to Abraham or Moses, or was it a covenant stipulation which was later seen to mean something? I have pointed out, on this thread or the other, that circumcision speaks of cutting off, whereas baptism by immersion (an oxymoron I know from a Baptist pov) speaks of going in. But even if the typology is allowed, you still can't say this is that. However, the typology is not the same. As Cal points out, there is the element of washing or cleansing in baptism. They are on different levels, and the imagery from cultic washings speaks to the matter more.

Thus the expansion of the Covenant which Baptism points to. Baptism is a sign of the "cutting off" of the individual by the circumcision of the heart and a cleansing of the baptism of the holy spirit possible because of the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

As Solly points out, circumcision is not the same as Baptism. Baptism is a better, more inclusive sign that retains some of the significance of the OT sign.

[George Blaisdell]

Solly: writes:

Solly-- For Protestants, even the ECFs are historical evidence. If they deviated from scriptural teaching, well there you go. They weren't inspired.

They've all got errors, if that's what you mean, yet they superabound in truth as well... But the point is that across the centuries and millennia, there are teachings that are taught at all times by everyone, and contradictied by no-one, and these all within the Church... These are the Church Tradition, common to all cultures and all particular Churches in Christ... For these have the approval of the whole Church, which is not limited to ecumenical councils, which still need "ontological ratification" of the whole Church for 3-4 centuries minimum, prior to their trustworthiness being somewhat established...

It's a chuckle in Orthodoxy:

"How many Orthodox does it take to change a light-bulb?" [The patriarch's answer below...]* [The patriarch is that old white-bearded smelly guy with a wife of iron, and wearing those long black robes, whose hand is being grabbed and kissed by the faithful...]

> > geo--Yanked from the whirlpool of the rat-hole of perdition by the Holy Spirit too? What I have come to learn is that this saving is only from abnormal to normal, and not to supra-normal, which is life in Christ...

> Solly--Heh heh, I like arguments like that. Prots use that one all the time.

So you were indeed plucked from the rat-hole swirl!

> > Geo--I was busy avoiding "Christians" when I read the "Way of the Pilgrim" and began volume 1 of the "Philokalia", and simply knew immediately that I was home... It was like sitting down with an old pal across a cup of Jo at Starbucks... Except the guy was writing in Greek in the 4th century... Yet he was obviously addressing the very same matters of spirit and soul that I was addressing 1700 years later... Except he knew what he was doing!

> [b]Solly--A bit like Ephraim Rose by the looks of it.

Naaagh! That guy is 20th century - Had some wierd ideas, and a whole lot of good ones... Ever read his "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future"? Seminal work on cult-mind....

> George, I'd like to have a thread going on 1 Tim 3.15. Feel free to start if if you like; it will take me a few days to gather my resources outside of my own preparations.

I have never started a thread here - You go ahead, and let me know to find it - pm works...

> Calvinist/Joel.

Your name is Joel?

> Since the purpose here isn't conversion, I will leave it at what has been said. Let others make up their minds and contribute.

Yup...

> All the best.

And to you...

geo

*"???CHANGE???" ':huh:'

[Covenanter]

02-16-2003 @ 09:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=17057#post17057)
GrayPilgrim:

I tend to agree with Lane's assessment. Covenant theology flatens out Scripture to fit everything since the Fall into the Covenant of Grace and is guilty of an improper importation of the OT into the NT. I think that this stems from allowing a fuzziness to remain around the term &quot;covenant&quot;, therefore I recommend that we take a few steps back and define &quot;covenant&quot; before proceeding and then return to our originally scheduled debate.

OK - I defined "Covenant" for you & I might as well have written in invisible ink. Don't you folks want to know? or to put me right?

:argh:

[Solly]

George, go here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2629)

[Jude3b]

There is no Biblical defense for Infant Baptism. It is a Religionists tradition, and a Roman Catholic tradition. Sincerely, Jude 3b

[Twilly Spree]

The Roman Catholic church also has Confirmation where as an adult you reaffirm what was said in your Baptism.