Best Evidence for Believer's Baptism?

[jinc1019]

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

All fair points from Dr. Nettles.

 

[jinc1019]

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

Great point JM. The qualification given is faith. Of course, the only time it is given, people who are capable of faith are the only people being directly addressed.

However, how can anyone be "holy" who doesn't have faith? Yet, that's exactly what Paul says infants are. If children are holy, they must be holy for some reason. The ONLY way to be holy is to be in Christ. The standard way of being "in Christ," which means to have Christ cover your sins and take on that debt for you, is to have faith. But if infant children do not have faith, they can't be "in Christ" on that basis. There must be some other reason they are considered "in Christ," right? In other words, infants are said to be holy, the only people who are holy are in Christ, all those in Christ are baptized.

The Bible does not say we can baptized based on the faith of another, but in this case, what other logical conclusion can be reached? Somehow, infants need to be "in Christ" because they are called "holy" AND only those who are "in Christ" are holy. Baptism isn't what makes them holy. Being "in Christ" does. But all those "in Christ" ought to be baptized, a reality plainly asserted in scripture.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

I understand everything you are saying here. But where do you get the idea that infants are only "set apart." The text plainly says "holy" and most of the translations render it that same way. And notice, it says "otherwise they would be unclean." So obviously the child is NOT considered to be unclean. How can a child avoid uncleanliness apart from faith? I've yet to hear how a Baptist can explain this.

 

[JM]

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.

I explained one of the meanings of sanctification due to the distinction you are making but then blurred your own distinction to dismiss the definition. I believe you are assuming much in your definitions of these words rather than allowing the context to define their use.

I’ll ask again, “how are they becoming holy?”

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

Be consistent. Are you making a distinction between holiness and sanctification or retracting it? I agree there is a distinction but would insistent that being sanctified or set apart is not, out of necessity, becoming holy but set apart for holy use. This is inherent in the paedobaptist position who also conclude that baptized children may break the covenant and walk away from their “covenant of baptism.” You would have children becoming “holy” through sanctification of the Holy Spirit but able to reject it, walk away and becoming covenant breakers. The new covenant is unbreakable.

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!

The section in bold is closer to what I was trying to get at.

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."

How old is “old enough?” Many Baptists believe in an age of accountability but scripture does not teach such a thing.

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?

You need to define “holy” in the context of the passage. Are they being sanctified? Are they given access to the blood of Christ who is our sanctification?

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.

You are creating a doctrinal edifice that cannot support your conclusion. The obvious context of the passage has nothing to do with baptism for baptism is not mentioned. It has to do with the believer being allowed to stay in a relationship with an unbeliever. This relationship is acceptable to God because of the believers faith. To extend it to the sacrament of baptism is overreaching.

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.

Your argument falls apart because baptism and faith are bound together in the same way the Lord’s Supper and faith are bound together. You never answered my question. If you extend baptism to the children of believing parents based on their faith would you baptize the children of adult believers? No, you wouldn’t. Why? Because faith is bound to baptism.

If you believe the infant is holy and should be baptized, why wouldn’t you baptize the unbelieving adult who is also said to be holy?

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.

There is no hierarchy in the sacraments only the order in which they are to be attended to. Baptism must be done first which opens up the Lord’s Table where you partake in the Supper. You cannot separate the two even if it might make your argument stronger. What the paedo does is create a false and unbiblical practice called “confirmation.” This is nothing less than a dry baptism where the child professes faith so they may partake of the Lord’s Supper.

One of the ways we know that a thing is unbiblical is that when we allow it, it brings in other unbiblical things.

Like baby dedications practiced by modern Baptists. They are nothing less than dry paedobaptism if you ask me.

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 come up 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.

If memory recalls this scenario happened in New England with the Half-Way covenant. People that were not believers became members of churches and, if I’m not mistaken, these churches became Unitarian of “New Light” Presbyterians.

Let’s get back to the topic. Paul, discussing legal obedience of the outward sign of the Mosaic covenant, highlights the difference. The new covenant is a matter of the heart. The outward sign of the covenant during the Mosaic period was circumcision of the flesh, in the new it is circumcision of the heart.

“Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

Paedos cannot agree on why an infant should be baptized but the Protestant defense tends to be made from a covenant argument. It is stated that since the old Mosaic covenant of works included children the new covenant of grace should as well. As you can see above Paul argues against it…consistently so.

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”

The emphasis is on a new creature and not positional holiness however one defines it. When the Great Commission was given we are told to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[jinc1019]

I explained one of the meanings of sanctification due to the distinction you are making but then blurred your own distinction to dismiss the definition. I believe you are assuming much in your definitions of these words rather than allowing the context to define their use.

I’ll ask again, “how are they becoming holy?”



Be consistent. Are you making a distinction between holiness and sanctification or retracting it? I agree there is a distinction but would insistent that being sanctified or set apart is not, out of necessity, becoming holy but set apart for holy use. This is inherent in the paedobaptist position who also conclude that baptized children may break the covenant and walk away from their “covenant of baptism.” You would have children becoming “holy” through sanctification of the Holy Spirit but able to reject it, walk away and becoming covenant breakers. The new covenant is unbreakable.



The section in bold is closer to what I was trying to get at.



How old is “old enough?” Many Baptists believe in an age of accountability but scripture does not teach such a thing.



You need to define “holy” in the context of the passage. Are they being sanctified? Are they given access to the blood of Christ who is our sanctification?



You are creating a doctrinal edifice that cannot support your conclusion. The obvious context of the passage has nothing to do with baptism for baptism is not mentioned. It has to do with the believer being allowed to stay in a relationship with an unbeliever. This relationship is acceptable to God because of the believers faith. To extend it to the sacrament of baptism is overreaching.



Your argument falls apart because baptism and faith are bound together in the same way the Lord’s Supper and faith are bound together. You never answered my question. If you extend baptism to the children of believing parents based on their faith would you baptize the children of adult believers? No, you wouldn’t. Why? Because faith is bound to baptism.

If you believe the infant is holy and should be baptized, why wouldn’t you baptize the unbelieving adult who is also said to be holy?



There is no hierarchy in the sacraments only the order in which they are to be attended to. Baptism must be done first which opens up the Lord’s Table where you partake in the Supper. You cannot separate the two even if it might make your argument stronger. What the paedo does is create a false and unbiblical practice called “confirmation.” This is nothing less than a dry baptism where the child professes faith so they may partake of the Lord’s Supper.



Like baby dedications practiced by modern Baptists. They are nothing less than dry paedobaptism if you ask me.



If memory recalls this scenario happened in New England with the Half-Way covenant. People that were not believers became members of churches and, if I’m not mistaken, these churches became Unitarian of “New Light” Presbyterians.

Let’s get back to the topic. Paul, discussing legal obedience of the outward sign of the Mosaic covenant, highlights the difference. The new covenant is a matter of the heart. The outward sign of the covenant during the Mosaic period was circumcision of the flesh, in the new it is circumcision of the heart.

“Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

Paedos cannot agree on why an infant should be baptized but the Protestant defense tends to be made from a covenant argument. It is stated that since the old Mosaic covenant of works included children the new covenant of grace should as well. As you can see above Paul argues against it…consistently so.

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.”

The emphasis is on a new creature and not positional holiness however one defines it. When the Great Commission was given we are told to “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…”

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Just real quickly (I'll post more later):

1. I understand your point about the passage now, based largely on the article your provided earlier about 1 Corinthians 7 specifically. You're saying the passage could be read: "A believing spouse can make an unbelieving spouse holy (presumably by providing the Gospel and living a holy life, etc.); If this were not the case, then your (meaning all the children of all Christian parents everywhere, not just the children of the believing and unbelieving spouses) would be unclean (because everyone is born with original sin and apart from God), but as it is, they (the children) have been made holy (because your preaching of the Gospel led them to faith)."

I'm going to think long and very hard about that interpretation. I can see its potential, but I don't jump to conclusions.

2. In the passages, do you know what the term "children" means? Is it the broad usage or a more specific usage? I honestly don't know.

3. I never said the children in the passage were made holy by the Holy Spirit. Rather, I'd argue they are made holy only by being in the covenant community. Until someone has faith, the Holy Spirit won't come. The infants would be considered holy by association, not by rebirth. That would come later.

4. The rest of your points I'll leave alone, since I'm considering the overall point more carefully anyway.

 

[JM]

2. In the passages, do you know what the term "children" means? Is it the broad usage or a more specific usage? I honestly don't know.

According to Strong’s τέκνον refers specially to, “pupils or disciples are called children of their teachers, because the latter by their instruction nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their characters” This would exclude infants.

3. I never said the children in the passage were made holy by the Holy Spirit. Rather, I'd argue they are made holy only by being in the covenant community. Until someone has faith, the Holy Spirit won't come. The infants would be considered holy by association, not by rebirth. That would come later.

How does one become holy by a covenant community? I have already tried to explain it above but I post on breaks at work so I tend to miss important details. The new covenant community is made up of people who have had the work of Holy Spirit performed within their hearts, that’s what matters, that’s what makes them apart of the community.

It’s important to remember that paedobaptism is about the faith of the parents and not the infant. We know this runs contrary to every single example given in the NT. Household baptisms, if you believe it included infants, is an argument from silence especially since we have crystal clear examples of; preaching the Gospel/teaching, repentance and faith, then baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[classicalhero]

I think the obvious response to this is that there are exceptions.

There are no exception to believing God in the Bible.

 

[jinc1019]

There are no exception to believing God in the Bible.

You'll have to be more specific than that since I don't have the time to go back and look through this.

 

[jinc1019]

According to Strong’s τέκνον refers specially to, “pupils or disciples are called children of their teachers, because the latter by their instruction nourish the minds of their pupils and mould their characters” This would exclude infants.



How does one become holy by a covenant community? I have already tried to explain it above but I post on breaks at work so I tend to miss important details. The new covenant community is made up of people who have had the work of Holy Spirit performed within their hearts, that’s what matters, that’s what makes them apart of the community.

It’s important to remember that paedobaptism is about the faith of the parents and not the infant. We know this runs contrary to every single example given in the NT. Household baptisms, if you believe it included infants, is an argument from silence especially since we have crystal clear examples of; preaching the Gospel/teaching, repentance and faith, then baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

I understand what you're saying about the NT community, but you're assuming I think a couple of things:

1. That the NT community is ONLY made up of regenerated individuals. The paedobaptist view is that infants are in the NT community without regeneration, and I don't think there is any reason, even in the passages you cited, to say that infants cannot be part of the community without regeneration from the Holy Spirit. They cannot stay there forever unless they are eventually regenerated, but because an infant doesn't have faith, and faith and regeneration go hand-in-hand, I think it's obvious that infants, if they are in the NT community, are not there because they are regenerated. I don't see anything wrong with that.

2. The whole argument from silence thing is a bad argument. Your earlier arguments are much stronger. Your position is ALSO an argument from silence since we have NO examples of children of believers being baptized, period. You're making inferences as well. You're inferring adult converts should be treated the same as infant children in a believing household. The Bible doesn't directly speak to your position either.

3. Every example we have in the Bible is directed at adult converts, so again, arguing that infants must be treated in the same way an adult convert is doesn't have any direct scriptural evidence either.

 

[JM]

I posted a lot that hasn't been dealt with so I'll give you a day to think about them before I respond.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[jinc1019]

I posted a lot that hasn't been dealt with so I'll give you a day to think about them before I respond.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Having looked over all your points carefully and having read the material you left, I think your understanding of 1 Corinthians 7, while not NECESSARILY true, is more likely to be true than the competing alternatives, including the one I explained earlier. It's impossible I think for 1 Corinthians 7 to support the view that infants are holy by virtue of having believing parents because that same passage could be read as though the children are holy because they were taught the faith by the parents and converted as believers.

So, I'm very thankful for you taking the time to work through that with me.

Logically then, your position about believer's baptism seems more plausible, assuming that the concept of perseverance of the saints is true.

The reason I say that is because it's still hypothetically possible that all infants of believers could be regenerated by the holy spirit at birth and given faith at the moment of regeneration (the Lutheran view). This of course, is impossible if perseverance of the saints is true, because obviously many infants grow up and never have faith (which means many infants were not given faith at the moment of baptism, thereby destroying the Lutheran case). But if perseverance is not true, then why couldn't the Lutheran view be accurate? It could I think.

Perseverance is the only Reformed doctrine I have had trouble with over the years, so it's something I'm going to spend some more time thinking about. The rest of the so-called "five points" are all logically necessary if we simply accept God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and created the universe, which virtually all Christian groups have believed historically.

Anyway, the perseverance question is probably a little too far off-topic for this thread, so I'll start another for it.

-J

 

[jinc1019]

Having looked over all your points carefully and having read the material you left, I think your understanding of 1 Corinthians 7, while not NECESSARILY true, is more likely to be true than the competing alternatives, including the one I explained earlier. It's impossible I think for 1 Corinthians 7 to support the view that infants are holy by virtue of having believing parents because that same passage could be read as though the children are holy because they were taught the faith by the parents and converted as believers.

So, I'm very thankful for you taking the time to work through that with me.

Logically then, your position about believer's baptism seems more plausible, assuming that the concept of perseverance of the saints is true.

The reason I say that is because it's still hypothetically possible that all infants of believers could be regenerated by the holy spirit at birth and given faith at the moment of regeneration (the Lutheran view). This of course, is impossible if perseverance of the saints is true, because obviously many infants grow up and never have faith (which means many infants were not given faith at the moment of baptism, thereby destroying the Lutheran case). But if perseverance is not true, then why couldn't the Lutheran view be accurate? It could I think.

Perseverance is the only Reformed doctrine I have had trouble with over the years, so it's something I'm going to spend some more time thinking about. The rest of the so-called "five points" are all logically necessary if we simply accept God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and created the universe, which virtually all Christian groups have believed historically.

Anyway, the perseverance question is probably a little too far off-topic for this thread, so I'll start another for it.

-J

Having reexamined the issue again more carefully, it seems I'm definitely on the fence about 1 Corinthians 7. I think the Reformed Baptist view is a legitimate one, but I am not sure it necessarily is correct. I think reasonable people can disagree on it.