Best Evidence for Believer's Baptism?

[jinc1019]

Check out Baptist history, they were credo because of covenant theology. The greatest English Puritan theologian, John Owen, even laid a foundational exegesis of Hebrews 8 that essentially prove credo...even though he remained a paedo.

You're right that within Baptist circles that's true, but within Anabaptist history you won't find the same sort of connection (as far as I remember from my studies on the issue).

One of the most convincing passages for me is in 1 Corinthians 7, when the children of a believing parent is called "holy." How can children, who like everyone else are born in sin, be holy? We know the only way a person can be holy is to be "in Christ," which is just another way of saying that we are in Christ's kingdom and under his authority, which is why Christ covers our sins (the same sort of "in" language is used in the old testament to speak about being "in" various kings, etc.) So Christ covers our sins, but how do we get "in" Christ? By having faith. So far, we likely agree.

But what about people who cannot have faith, such as a two-week-old baby? How do they get "in Christ," which again, is the ONLY way to be "holy"? Well either at least some of them have faith too, which the Bible doesn't really speak clearly on, or they must be "in Christ" in some other way.

Now, before going on, I have to say that regardless of whether my interpretation of the text is accurate or not, Baptists need to explain how infants can be holy, as Paul clearly says, without having any faith.

I think the only way this can occur is if infants are holy through the faith of their parents. Thus, they too are "in Christ." And as I'm sure you know, all those "in Christ" are baptized, as the NT clearly says on multiple occasions.

 

[jinc1019]

You're right that within Baptist circles that's true, but within Anabaptist history you won't find the same sort of connection (as far as I remember from my studies on the issue).

One of the most convincing passages for me is in 1 Corinthians 7, when the children of a believing parent is called "holy." How can children, who like everyone else are born in sin, be holy? We know the only way a person can be holy is to be "in Christ," which is just another way of saying that we are in Christ's kingdom and under his authority, which is why Christ covers our sins (the same sort of "in" language is used in the old testament to speak about being "in" various kings, etc.) So Christ covers our sins, but how do we get "in" Christ? By having faith. So far, we likely agree.

But what about people who cannot have faith, such as a two-week-old baby? How do they get "in Christ," which again, is the ONLY way to be "holy"? Well either at least some of them have faith too, which the Bible doesn't really speak clearly on, or they must be "in Christ" in some other way.

Now, before going on, I have to say that regardless of whether my interpretation of the text is accurate or not, Baptists need to explain how infants can be holy, as Paul clearly says, without having any faith.

I think the only way this can occur is if infants are holy through the faith of their parents. Thus, they too are "in Christ." And as I'm sure you know, all those "in Christ" are baptized, as the NT clearly says on multiple occasions.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[JM]

You're right that within Baptist circles that's true, but within Anabaptist history you won't find the same sort of connection (as far as I remember from my studies on the issue).

True, Anabaptists were poor exegetes (wink, wink) and even poured or sprinkled during confessor baptism but latter works by the Anabaptists attempt to deal with the nature of the New Covenant. Also, the Anabaptists and Mennonites made a distinction between “Law and Gospel” which is a key element during the Reformation that fostered a theological atmosphere for covenantal thinking. You’ll notice that fellas like Credobaptist Anglican John Tombs and Particular Baptist Nehimaih Coxe used covenant theology to press Paedos into creating the Westminster brand of covenant theology.

One of the most convincing passages for me is in 1 Corinthians 7, when the children of a believing parent is called "holy." How can children, who like everyone else are born in sin, be holy? We know the only way a person can be holy is to be "in Christ," which is just another way of saying that we are in Christ's kingdom and under his authority, which is why Christ covers our sins (the same sort of "in" language is used in the old testament to speak about being "in" various kings, etc.) So Christ covers our sins, but how do we get "in" Christ? By having faith. So far, we likely agree.

This was answered in the link provided but I will provide another. It will answer your question fully.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

The biggest issue I have with the Paedo interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 has to do with justification. The Paedo gives the child the sign of the “covenant” according to Reformed folks. This sign places the covenant child of God into a relationship with God by birth. Christ directly deals with Legalists who believed the same thing. It also needs to be pointed out that if a “covenant child” leaves the faith it makes the promise of God to save that child meaningless.

[quoteBut what about people who cannot have faith, such as a two-week-old baby? How do they get "in Christ," which again, is the ONLY way to be "holy"? Well either at least some of them have faith too, which the Bible doesn't really speak clearly on, or they must be "in Christ" in some other way.[/quote]

I must remain silent where scripture is silent on the issue of children dying in infancy. It seems you are leaning toward a baptism that imparts holiness or removes original sin, a righteousness imputed by an act or act of faith by the parents. This runs contrary to scripture.

Now, before going on, I have to say that regardless of whether my interpretation of the text is accurate or not, Baptists need to explain how infants can be holy, as Paul clearly says, without having any faith.

See link above. If the unbeliever is placed into an unbreakable covenant by linage, by birth, and God doesn’t save them…how were they ever “holy?”

I think the only way this can occur is if infants are holy through the faith of their parents. Thus, they too are "in Christ." And as I'm sure you know, all those "in Christ" are baptized, as the NT clearly says on multiple occasions.

Let’s say a couple in their 50’s believe the Gospel and are baptized. This couple has children in their 20’s. Do you baptize the unbelieving children because they are “holy” by the faith of their parents? Of course not. Paul must have another meaning when he declares them “holy” and I believe the answer is found in the links provided.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

I think the only way this can occur is if infants are holy through the faith of their parents. Thus, they too are "in Christ." And as I'm sure you know, all those "in Christ" are baptized, as the NT clearly says on multiple occasions.

When baptism is used in this manner it refers to following the Prophet of God. In this case we are baptized into Christ (Melchizedek), being immersed with Him in death and resurrection. It is also used to described being “baptized into Moses” or following Moses.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[98cwitr]

Not sure I understand your point.

Water baptism is like putting a wedding ring on, Spirit baptism is the actual marriage. They are independent events.

"believer's baptism" is defined as

The Christian practice of baptism in which the participant publicly professes faith in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior, and as admission into a local community of faith.

According to: Believer's baptism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

As we can see, this is water baptism, and this practice comes from John The Baptist, originally intended for the remission of sin.

See though what John says:

Matthew 3:11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

This is very important to note, that the Baptism that is unto salvation is from the Spirit and not from H2O! The believer's baptism can be based on a lie, the Baptism of the Spirit cannot.

To summarize, as per our stickied Statement of Faith

The Believers Baptism (credobaptism) – We believe that baptism should be by immersion and that it is an outward symbol of of an inward change that has already occurred.

I say all of this to turn your attention away from the "traditions of men" and toward the Spirit, which is the true source of Baptism that will bring about regeneration and a rebirth within us.

 

[JM]

1. Q. Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally set apart and thus eligible for baptism?
   
   A. No. The term "sanctified" that describes an unbelieving spouse of a believer and the term "holy" that describes the children of believers are based on the same root word in Greek. Therefore, whatever holiness the children have is also shared by an unbelieving spouse. Since an unbelieving spouse is not in the covenant, one cannot use this passage to establish that the children are. Paul's whole argument is grounded in the similarity of the two cases. If unbelieving spouses and children of believers do not share the same type of holiness, the difference between the two cases invalidates Paul's entire argument from the holiness of the children to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse. In fact, Paul's argument actually implies an argument against infant baptism. If the children in Corinth were baptized but unbelieving spouses were not, then the Corinthians would never have accepted Paul's argument that the holiness of the children implied the holiness of unbelieving spouses. I have elaborated on this argument in a separate article on I Cor. 7:14.

FAQ on the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism

 

[JM]

Q. Does the Reformed Baptist view prevent us from embracing God's promise to be a God to our children?

A. This is a difficult issue, both emotionally and exegetically. However, there are several things that can be said with confidence:

1. Whatever these passages mean, they can't be an absolute guarantee of the salvation of our children. Therefore, we must all understand these promises in a qualified sense.
2. The sense given by Doug Wilson, Edward Gross, and others that it is conditional upon the faithfulness of the parents simply doesn't fit the evidence. Isn't Abraham presented to us in Scripture as the father and the example of faithfulness? Yet he was explicitly told that one of his children was not the child of promise. Frankly, if Abraham wasn't "faithful" in the Doug Wilson sense, I don't see how that provides a lot of confidence for most of us ordinary believers.
3. God clearly works through families, a fact that can be learned both from the experience of believers throughout the ages and from Scripture as well. Both blessings and curses tend to flow along family lines -- read the 2nd Commandment! The very fact that God chose to work through the physical descendants of Abraham is an indication of God's usual ways in this regard. However, God is still sovereign and is under no obligation to show mercy to any individual in particular, in spite of his ordinary pattern.
4. Benefits ordinarily flow to children of believers as part of the blessings of the covenant to believers, but that's not the same as covenant membership of the children themselves. Granted that God deals in a special way with children of believers, this is not a ground for baptizing infants. It is simply a statement of what God has promised to do ordinarily (God's decretive will), but it doesn't say a thing about what we should do (God's revealed will).
5. There are grounds for being hopeful, more so than for the children of unbelievers. In Proverbs we find many of God's "general operating principles" (rather than absolute promises). In fact, there's one that bears directly on this issue: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and in the end he will not depart from it." This is a proverb, not a promise, so it does not give a 100% guarantee in this. However, it does provide great encouragement that God ordinarily works through the means of faithful parents to bring his grace to bear on their children. We have no guarantees, but we do have tremendous encouragement.
6. The only biblical evidence that your children are in a state of grace is that they repent of their sins, embrace Christ in faith, and demonstrate the fruit of repentance in their lives. The Pharisees were rebuked specifically for thinking that they could presume upon their lineage in their standing with God (Matt. 3:7-10).

FAQ on the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism

 

[jinc1019]

True, Anabaptists were poor exegetes (wink, wink) and even poured or sprinkled during confessor baptism but latter works by the Anabaptists attempt to deal with the nature of the New Covenant. Also, the Anabaptists and Mennonites made a distinction between “Law and Gospel” which is a key element during the Reformation that fostered a theological atmosphere for covenantal thinking. You’ll notice that fellas like Credobaptist Anglican John Tombs and Particular Baptist Nehimaih Coxe used covenant theology to press Paedos into creating the Westminster brand of covenant theology.



This was answered in the link provided but I will provide another. It will answer your question fully.

http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

The biggest issue I have with the Paedo interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 has to do with justification. The Paedo gives the child the sign of the “covenant” according to Reformed folks. This sign places the covenant child of God into a relationship with God by birth. Christ directly deals with Legalists who believed the same thing. It also needs to be pointed out that if a “covenant child” leaves the faith it makes the promise of God to save that child meaningless.

[quoteBut what about people who cannot have faith, such as a two-week-old baby? How do they get "in Christ," which again, is the ONLY way to be "holy"? Well either at least some of them have faith too, which the Bible doesn't really speak clearly on, or they must be "in Christ" in some other way.

I must remain silent where scripture is silent on the issue of children dying in infancy. It seems you are leaning toward a baptism that imparts holiness or removes original sin, a righteousness imputed by an act or act of faith by the parents. This runs contrary to scripture.



See link above. If the unbeliever is placed into an unbreakable covenant by linage, by birth, and God doesn’t save them…how were they ever “holy?”



Let’s say a couple in their 50’s believe the Gospel and are baptized. This couple has children in their 20’s. Do you baptize the unbelieving children because they are “holy” by the faith of their parents? Of course not. Paul must have another meaning when he declares them “holy” and I believe the answer is found in the links provided.

Yours in the Lord,

jm


[/QUOTE]

I'll have to read the link you provided for more information, but there are a couple of very important responses I want to provide you first.

1. I am NOT saying baptism is what puts the child in a good relationship with Christ. I am saying the faith of the parents does, which is signified by baptism. If infants don't have faith but are still "holy," there must be some reason they are "holy." You said that reason, or at least an understanding of the passage, is provided in the link, which I have not read. But my point is that they are holy because of the faith of the parents.

2. I am not saying someone who DOES NOT believe is holy. A person who does not believe is NOT holy. The problem with infants is that they don't have a position on the matter at all. I think it's a but unfair to say they have "unbelief" when they have no thoughts at all! This is why they are holy, by virtue of the faith of the parents.

3. You questioned (and I'm paraphrasing here), "How can infants be holy if God does not sustain them until the end," to which I reply, "Where in scripture does it say those who are holy persevere to the end? I see where it says if a person has FAITH he or she perseveres, but I don't see anything about a person who is holy persevering. You're making the assumption that the two are the same, and I'm not in the case of infants, who could be considered "holy" because of a believing parent. If I'm wrong about this, then yes, my WHOLE argument collapses, and I acknowledge I could be wrong. That's why I'm here to discuss this.

 

[jinc1019]

Water baptism is like putting a wedding ring on, Spirit baptism is the actual marriage. They are independent events.

"believer's baptism" is defined as



According to: Believer's baptism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity

As we can see, this is water baptism, and this practice comes from John The Baptist, originally intended for the remission of sin.

See though what John says:

Matthew 3:11 “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

This is very important to note, that the Baptism that is unto salvation is from the Spirit and not from H2O! The believer's baptism can be based on a lie, the Baptism of the Spirit cannot.

To summarize, as per our stickied Statement of Faith



I say all of this to turn your attention away from the "traditions of men" and toward the Spirit, which is the true source of Baptism that will bring about regeneration and a rebirth within us.

I appreciate all of your points. I'll consider each one!

 

[jinc1019]

Q. Does the Reformed Baptist view prevent us from embracing God's promise to be a God to our children?

A. This is a difficult issue, both emotionally and exegetically. However, there are several things that can be said with confidence:

1. Whatever these passages mean, they can't be an absolute guarantee of the salvation of our children. Therefore, we must all understand these promises in a qualified sense.
2. The sense given by Doug Wilson, Edward Gross, and others that it is conditional upon the faithfulness of the parents simply doesn't fit the evidence. Isn't Abraham presented to us in Scripture as the father and the example of faithfulness? Yet he was explicitly told that one of his children was not the child of promise. Frankly, if Abraham wasn't "faithful" in the Doug Wilson sense, I don't see how that provides a lot of confidence for most of us ordinary believers.
3. God clearly works through families, a fact that can be learned both from the experience of believers throughout the ages and from Scripture as well. Both blessings and curses tend to flow along family lines -- read the 2nd Commandment! The very fact that God chose to work through the physical descendants of Abraham is an indication of God's usual ways in this regard. However, God is still sovereign and is under no obligation to show mercy to any individual in particular, in spite of his ordinary pattern.
4. Benefits ordinarily flow to children of believers as part of the blessings of the covenant to believers, but that's not the same as covenant membership of the children themselves. Granted that God deals in a special way with children of believers, this is not a ground for baptizing infants. It is simply a statement of what God has promised to do ordinarily (God's decretive will), but it doesn't say a thing about what we should do (God's revealed will).
5. There are grounds for being hopeful, more so than for the children of unbelievers. In Proverbs we find many of God's "general operating principles" (rather than absolute promises). In fact, there's one that bears directly on this issue: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and in the end he will not depart from it." This is a proverb, not a promise, so it does not give a 100% guarantee in this. However, it does provide great encouragement that God ordinarily works through the means of faithful parents to bring his grace to bear on their children. We have no guarantees, but we do have tremendous encouragement.
6. The only biblical evidence that your children are in a state of grace is that they repent of their sins, embrace Christ in faith, and demonstrate the fruit of repentance in their lives. The Pharisees were rebuked specifically for thinking that they could presume upon their lineage in their standing with God (Matt. 3:7-10).

FAQ on the Reformed Baptist View of Baptism

Good points. Some are far more persuasive than others. The second point though is QUITE interesting. Something I'll have to think about a lot.

 

[JM]

But my point is that they are holy because of the faith of the parents.

In what sense is the unbelieving child holy?

I am not saying someone who DOES NOT believe is holy.

That would be the outcome of such a position. The Reformed paedobaptist position is Roman Catholic sacrament light. It believes baptism of children is a matter of obedience of the parents, yet, can't really explain why. It opens up to other problems. If a child is considered holy and receives baptism why not the Lord’s Supper?

If we find a one to one replacement ratio between the old Mosaic covenant of works and the new covenant of grace, baptism replaces circumcision and the Lord’s Supper is a similar sign like Passover, why not admit child to the Lord’s Supper?

The problem with infants is that they don't have a position on the matter at all. I think it's a but unfair to say they have "unbelief" when they have no thoughts at all! This is why they are holy, by virtue of the faith of the parents.

That’s not really a scriptural problem but a problem created by reading the old covenant understanding into the new covenant understanding.

You questioned (and I'm paraphrasing here), "How can infants be holy if God does not sustain them until the end,"

The new covenant of grace is mentioned in Jer. 31 and again in Heb. 8. This covenant is unbreakable. God’s grace is sufficient in this covenant until the end.

"Where in scripture does it say those who are holy persevere to the end?

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb. 8

The physical circumcision mentioned in the old covenant is replaced with heart circumcision in the new covenant and this covenant has the Law of God on the hearts and minds of God’s people. If you read Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 you will find a new covenant unlike the old where God saves completely.

Yours in the Lord,

Jm
PS: I’m typing on a 5 min. break…gotta run.

 

[JLR1300]

You're right that within Baptist circles that's true, but within Anabaptist history you won't find the same sort of connection (as far as I remember from my studies on the issue).

One of the most convincing passages for me is in 1 Corinthians 7, when the children of a believing parent is called "holy." How can children, who like everyone else are born in sin, be holy? We know the only way a person can be holy is to be "in Christ," which is just another way of saying that we are in Christ's kingdom and under his authority, which is why Christ covers our sins (the same sort of "in" language is used in the old testament to speak about being "in" various kings, etc.) So Christ covers our sins, but how do we get "in" Christ? By having faith. So far, we likely agree.

But what about people who cannot have faith, such as a two-week-old baby? How do they get "in Christ," which again, is the ONLY way to be "holy"? Well either at least some of them have faith too, which the Bible doesn't really speak clearly on, or they must be "in Christ" in some other way.

Now, before going on, I have to say that regardless of whether my interpretation of the text is accurate or not, Baptists need to explain how infants can be holy, as Paul clearly says, without having any faith.

I think the only way this can occur is if infants are holy through the faith of their parents. Thus, they too are "in Christ." And as I'm sure you know, all those "in Christ" are baptized, as the NT clearly says on multiple occasions.

Here you say that the only way to be holy is to be in Christ. That sounds logical... but in the very same verse which says that children are holy it says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made holy) by the believing spouse. So here in the very same verse we are told that the unbeliever is holy. So if an unbeliever is holy then obviously it is possible to be holy in some sense of the word without being in Christ. The only question is in what sense of the word?
Also, if the "holiness" or "sanctification" of the unbeliever is not sufficient to qualify them for baptism... then what makes us think that the "holiness" of the infant qualifies them for baptism?

In other words if a woman's faith sanctifies or makes holy her husband, but that holiness does not qualify him for baptism ...then where do we get the idea that the woman's faith makes her child holy in a way that does qualify the baby for baptism?
(P.S. I didn't think all of this up myself, I read it )

 

[jinc1019]

Here you say that the only way to be holy is to be in Christ. That sounds logical... but in the very same verse which says that children are holy it says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made holy) by the believing spouse. So here in the very same verse we are told that the unbeliever is holy. So if an unbeliever is holy then obviously it is possible to be holy in some sense of the word without being in Christ. The only question is in what sense of the word?
Also, if the "holiness" or "sanctification" of the unbeliever is not sufficient to qualify them for baptism... then what makes us think that the "holiness" of the infant qualifies them for baptism?

In other words if a woman's faith sanctifies or makes holy her husband, but that holiness does not qualify him for baptism ...then where do we get the idea that the woman's faith makes her child holy in a way that does qualify the baby for baptism?
(P.S. I didn't think all of this up myself, I read it )

I totally understand and agree with everything you're saying. The problem is that you're not making a distinction between holiness and sanctification. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified, meaning they are being made holy, but that doesn't mean they ARE holy. Infants are specifically referred to as "holy" but the unbelieving spouse is only said to be the process of becoming holy.

Now, I fully admit I do not read the ancient languages, so if someone has a better grasp of the original language on this issue, I'd be more than willing to hear that argument, but as it is commonly translated, I don't see a problem with saying that infants of believers are holy but unbelieving spouses are only "being made holy" by being in constant contact with the believer. The thought here is that when unbelieving spouses are given access to the Gospel and holy living, it's far more likely they will come to faith. Infants, however, are treated as if they are already holy!

 

[JM]

Sanctified means set apart. Physical, non living elements under the old covenant were said to be sanctified, set apart. It makes more sense to say that unbelievers and children are set apart from the world due to their proximity to the Gospel and a Christian who is salt and light.

 

[jinc1019]

In what sense is the unbelieving child holy?



That would be the outcome of such a position. The Reformed paedobaptist position is Roman Catholic sacrament light. It believes baptism of children is a matter of obedience of the parents, yet, can't really explain why. It opens up to other problems. If a child is considered holy and receives baptism why not the Lord’s Supper?

If we find a one to one replacement ratio between the old Mosaic covenant of works and the new covenant of grace, baptism replaces circumcision and the Lord’s Supper is a similar sign like Passover, why not admit child to the Lord’s Supper?



That’s not really a scriptural problem but a problem created by reading the old covenant understanding into the new covenant understanding.



The new covenant of grace is mentioned in Jer. 31 and again in Heb. 8. This covenant is unbreakable. God’s grace is sufficient in this covenant until the end.



For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb. 8

The physical circumcision mentioned in the old covenant is replaced with heart circumcision in the new covenant and this covenant has the Law of God on the hearts and minds of God’s people. If you read Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 you will find a new covenant unlike the old where God saves completely.

Yours in the Lord,

Jm
PS: I’m typing on a 5 min. break…gotta run.

In what sense is the unbelieving child holy?



That would be the outcome of such a position. The Reformed paedobaptist position is Roman Catholic sacrament light. It believes baptism of children is a matter of obedience of the parents, yet, can't really explain why. It opens up to other problems. If a child is considered holy and receives baptism why not the Lord’s Supper?

If we find a one to one replacement ratio between the old Mosaic covenant of works and the new covenant of grace, baptism replaces circumcision and the Lord’s Supper is a similar sign like Passover, why not admit child to the Lord’s Supper?



That’s not really a scriptural problem but a problem created by reading the old covenant understanding into the new covenant understanding.



The new covenant of grace is mentioned in Jer. 31 and again in Heb. 8. This covenant is unbreakable. God’s grace is sufficient in this covenant until the end.



For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb. 8

The physical circumcision mentioned in the old covenant is replaced with heart circumcision in the new covenant and this covenant has the Law of God on the hearts and minds of God’s people. If you read Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 you will find a new covenant unlike the old where God saves completely.

Yours in the Lord,

Jm
PS: I’m typing on a 5 min. break…gotta run.

First of all, I'm very thankful for you taking the time to write all this out for my benefit. I greatly appreciate it.

The issue here is what do we do with the infant children of believers who live in households of faith but can't, because they are just infants, have faith themselves. Anyone old enough to have their own faith must have faith to be "in Christ."

The point is, and I don't see where you addressed it directly (perhaps I'm missing something), infants are specifically called "holy." How can this be? Unbelieving spouses are "sanctified," but that does not mean they are holy in that context. Clearly, Paul is saying the spouse can be "made holy," meaning the believing spouse may bring the unbelieving spouse to faith. That's the obvious context of the passage.

Infants, however, are said to be "holy." So consistency demands we explain how this is possible. Is it simply because they are baptized? No. An unbaptized infant is holy even without baptism because he or she is in a household of faith. It's the faith of the household that makes the infant holy until the infant is capable. Baptism is simply the sign of that infant being "in Christ," which is always how baptism is explained. If an infant is "in Christ," the infant should be baptized because all those baptized are "in Christ."

My whole argument falls apart if infants of believers really aren't holy, but I don't see any reason to believe otherwise from scripture.

You bring up the Lord's Supper, and that's fair, but it has nothing to do with our discussion here. There are some people who do in fact believe they are suitable candidates for the Lord's Supper as well.

 

[jinc1019]

Sanctified means set apart. Physical, non living elements under the old covenant were said to be sanctified, set apart. It makes more sense to say that unbelievers and children are set apart from the world due to their proximity to the Gospel and a Christian who is salt and light.

Children are said to be "holy," correct? Not just "set apart."

 

[jinc1019]

In what sense is the unbelieving child holy?



That would be the outcome of such a position. The Reformed paedobaptist position is Roman Catholic sacrament light. It believes baptism of children is a matter of obedience of the parents, yet, can't really explain why. It opens up to other problems. If a child is considered holy and receives baptism why not the Lord’s Supper?

If we find a one to one replacement ratio between the old Mosaic covenant of works and the new covenant of grace, baptism replaces circumcision and the Lord’s Supper is a similar sign like Passover, why not admit child to the Lord’s Supper?



That’s not really a scriptural problem but a problem created by reading the old covenant understanding into the new covenant understanding.



The new covenant of grace is mentioned in Jer. 31 and again in Heb. 8. This covenant is unbreakable. God’s grace is sufficient in this covenant until the end.



For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb. 8

The physical circumcision mentioned in the old covenant is replaced with heart circumcision in the new covenant and this covenant has the Law of God on the hearts and minds of God’s people. If you read Hebrews 8, 9 and 10 you will find a new covenant unlike the old where God saves completely.

Yours in the Lord,

Jm
PS: I’m typing on a 5 min. break…gotta run.

I've read the link you provided in post #23. Thanks for that, since it directly addresses my concern. I'll consider its arguments carefully, but I'm not sure I agree with it's conclusion about the word "holy." It says that the term "sanctified" is simply the verb form of the word used to mean "holy" for the children, thus the children and the unbelieving spouses shouldn't treated differently. But...I don't see how that argument proves my point invalid. If sanctified actually means "becoming holy," then one can in the process of becoming holy without actually being holy.

 

[JM]

I'll a dress some of the other comments latter today, for now...

So What About Our Children?

A quote from Tom Nettles about the paedo accusation that Baptists treat their children like pagans:

The paedobaptist may object, “You have a deficient view of the standing of your children. You treat them virtually as pagans.” John Owen, the great Puritan theologian of the seventeenth century, when he said that those who reject infant Baptism (as taught within the Reformed tradition) “leave the seed of believers, whilst in their infant state, in the same condition with those of pagans and infidels; expressly contrary to God’s covenant.”12 This is an unfair, but emotionally understandable, response from people whose theology has taught them to view their children as participants in the covenant of grace (even believers, according to Thomas Shepard) by virtue of their flesh relationship with their parents.

The meaning of the objection, however, is not quite clear. Does it mean that Baptists act as pagans and teach their children to worship idols? Does it contemplate Baptist parents having altars on which they offer sacrifices to appease or please various pagan deities? Do Baptist parents hide the Law and the Gospel from their children and await the coming of an apostle into the home like Paul into Lystra or Athens to preach to their pagan children? Do we account our children as practicing participants in a superstitious system which worships and serves the creature instead of the Creator?

These fabricated scenarios are absurd, and it is obvious that Baptists do not treat their children like pagans. But if the question means that we acknowledge that they are children of wrath even as the children of pagans are children of wrath, we must say, “How else can they be regarded?” Titus 3:3-4, Ephesians 2:1-3, and Romans 3:9 affirm the unity of all people, Jew and Gentile, those living under special revelation and those not under special revelation, as “all under sin,” “by nature children of wrath,” and “foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures.” Since the children of believers are not exempt from that verdict, we withhold from them the sign which says “I am resurrected to walk in newness of life.” This in itself should be considered a great advantage, for we do not give children any false hope from a supposed covenantal relationship. We call them to repentance, not to a facade of Christian deportment plastered over a wrath-deserving heart.

Baptists do recognize, however, that by God’s grace, these children are born into homes in which the light of the gospel has dispelled the darkness of this present evil age and the knowledge of Christ informs the actions and attitudes of each day. They thus have great privilege and great responsibility. But everyone should see, with all candor, that none of these benefits is either commenced or augmented by infant Baptism.

They are surrounded with Christian friends and a loving, prayerful environment. They come to know some of the choicest people on earth as mature Christians in the Church befriend them and encourage them. Regular and fervent prayers are offered to God for their physical and spiritual protection and their conversion. They are instructed daily in the home in gospel truth and week by week in the church through the preached Word. This is perhaps the greatest blessing since God is pleased through the foolishness of what is preached to save those who believe; faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the Word of Christ.

Dr. Tom J. Nettles is Professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
He is ordained by the Southern Baptist Church.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

One more thing to think about...what is the requirement for baptism according to the scriptures? Faith or "holiness?" Where is baptism found in the passage you quote from 1 Cor? Where does the Bible say we can perform baptism on one based on the faith of another?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JLR1300]

Those are excellent questions JM.

One of the ways we know that a thing is unbiblical is that when we allow it, it brings in other unbiblical things. For instance, to say that a baby should be baptised, we must bring in the idea that a baby is not just set apart, but actually holy in the moral sense of the word. Then when we do that, we have to say that they are "in Christ". Then when we do that, we have to agree with the idea that non-believers are "in Christ". So one error leads to another and that in turn leads to another and things just get crazier and crazier. Then since babies can be baptized, it becomes logical that they partake of the Lord's supper.

Then since infants who don't believe the gospel can be baptised and partake of the Lord's supper.... why can't teenagers who don't yet believe partake of the Lord's supper. Then since babies who don't believe are baptised and grow up in the church.... we want to make sure they really are believers so we have to introduce another unscriptural ceremony into the church called "conformation". Where is conformation found in the scriptures? So things just snowball. One bad idea just leads to another.

The most serious one of all is that non-believers are in Christ. That's totally nuts.

One last thing, When you consider everyone born to members to be in Christ... eventually your Church is filled with unregenerate people. In my opinion, that is the reason that the Presbyterians recently accepted gay marriage.