Looking for non-sacrificial doctrine

[CelticRebel]

Heart Circumcision and Baptism

What then is the counterpart of circumcision in the New Covenant? The most quoted text to link circumcision and water baptism is Col. 2:9-12:

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
​

This text, however, has been misinterpreted by many covenant paedobaptists.


Paul teaches that all Christians have received circumcision by the circumcision of Christ. What is “the circumcision of Christ?” It may be interpreted to be either the death of Christ objectively or the circumcising of the believer’s heart by Christ. Either way, Paul is speaking of the manner in which the believer has been “circumcised also” through Christ’s death and resurrection. Because of Christ’s death, we have received a better circumcision than the Judaizers “by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, . . . buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith [emphasis added] in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:11,12).
Here is a definite link between circumcision and baptism. Christians have been circumcised “also” by being buried with Christ in baptism. But is Paul referring only to the actual water baptism as the direct fulfillment of circumcision? To quote Paul, “May it never be!” This fulfilled circumcision is “made without hands.” There is no human hand involved in its administration, whether by knife or by water. His full definition of the Christian’s fulfillment of circumcision is “by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised up with Him through faith [emphasis added] in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”


To summarize, the Christian’s circumcision is that union with Christ’s death and resurrection, symbolized by baptism, which is evidenced by outward faith! Verses 13 and 14 also support this view by defining the ones who have received the “circumcision” as those who have actually experienced the new birth and the blotting out of sins. This new life of faith is the New Covenant heart-circumcision “by the circumcision of Christ” which fulfills the type of Old Covenant circumcision. Only these people were “buried with Christ in baptism,” according to this passage, because their hearts had been circumcised; and this was exhibited by their faith. Their water baptism symbolized their prior spiritual baptism.
Some paedobaptists consider union with Christ in baptism in Rom. 6:3,4 as a secondary reference to water baptism, counting it primarily a reference to regeneration. Yet, inconsistently, they use the same concept of union with Christ in baptism in Col. 2:11,12 as a primary reference to the relationship of water baptism to circumcision instead of its clear intention of relating circumcision to regeneration. My conclusion is that Paul defined the circumcision of Christians in Col. 2:9-12 as primarily union with Christ by faith, secondarily symbolized in their water baptism, as in Rom. 6:3,4.


If circumcision is the sign and seal of the Abrahamic Covenant, what then is its New Covenant counterpart? I believe the Scriptures define it to be the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit exhibited in faith. This is why Paul prohibited physical circumcision. They had received its reality in the new heart (Gal. 3:3). Paul tells the Galatians that they do not need physical circumcision to enter into the covenant relationship with God because they have already entered that covenant relationship by the circumcision of Christ, a new heart by union with His death and resurrection. Therefore, as circumcision (the shadow or type) was the sign of entrance into the Abrahamic Covenant and the seal of Abraham’s saving faith, so regeneration (the form or antitype) is the sign of entrance into the New Covenant and the seal of the believer’s faith (Eph. 1:13,14; Jn. 3:5,6).


Baptism then, is the indirect fulfillment of physical circumcision only through its association with the direct fulfillment, spiritual circumcision. This is why we see only confessors’ baptism in the New Testament record. It was easy to know who entered the Abrahamic Covenant; they were born into the household and were outwardly circumcised. But how can one tell if someone has entered the New Covenant and has experienced spiritual circumcision? Only by his repentance and faith, signified by the outward sign of fulfilled circumcision and cleansing, water baptism. Acts 2:37-42 is clear exegetical proof that the only children baptized were those who received Peter’s word of repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 2:38,39,41). They outwardly showed inward circumcision and then were baptized. This is how Christ ordained to build His church (Mt. 16:16-18; 28:19).


Water baptism, then, is the outward sign of the inward circumcision of the heart rather than the outward counterpart of the outward circumcision of the flesh. Just as Abraham’s Old Covenant “seed” initially entered the covenant by physical circumcision and confirmed it by spiritual circumcision, his New Covenant “seed” initially enter the covenant by spiritual circumcision and confirm it by baptism. Physical descendants of Abraham’s New Covenant “seed” are not to be permitted the sign of baptism until they show by faith that they have also become the spiritual “seed” of Abraham. David Kingdon’s book, Children of Abraham, is a more thorough study of this concept. Regeneration by the Spirit, not the infant baptism of believers’ “seed,” is the fulfillment of the promise to give a multitude of nations to Abraham as his descendants. Faith comes first as the evidence of regeneration, then comes baptism–not the other way around.

 

[CelticRebel]

3
The Third Pearl

Specific Proof Texts
Having concluded thus far that Abraham’s New Covenant “seed” consists solely of those “of faith” and the Spirit, and that the circumcision of the New Covenant is not Abraham’s but Christ’s circumcision in regeneration, evidenced by faith and outwardly symbolized by baptism, let me now deal with the pearl of specific proof-texts which have been used to support the baptism of covenant children.
Acts 2:39

“For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” This is a pivotal text for infant baptism. Paedobaptists like Berkhof, Murray, and Marston sometimes cut the text off at “the promise is to you and to your children, . . .,” exclaiming that these Jews immediately assumed the covenant sign of baptism was for their children. However, the text also includes “those who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Two things must be defined in this text: (1) what is the “promise,” and (2) who is to receive it?


First, the word epaggelia (promise) in v. 39 is used in the context to identify the promise of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s mediation, evidenced outwardly through repentance and faith (v. 38; see also Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:4; and Acts 2:33). If one points out that these were Jews who would immediately think of the promise to Abraham and his “seed,” he would be right. For we find that the “promise” to Abraham included the pouring out of the Spirit on his “seed,” Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:14), given only to those who believe (Gal. 3:22).


Going further, we are heirs according to the “promise” and Abraham’s seed if and only if we belong to Christ (Gal. 3:14,29). Rom. 4:16 states that the “promise” to Abraham is made certain to each and every “seed” of Abraham–Jew and Gentile–by faith, that it may be in accordance with grace and not the flesh. Rom. 9:6-8 declares that it is only the children of the “promise” (i.e., regenerated by the Holy Spirit) who are regarded as Abraham’s “seed” and the true Israel. And this is in the context of sovereign election, which determines who receives the “promise,” even within the covenant family of Isaac.


To briefly summarize, the “promise” made to Abraham that he would become “the father of many nations” is fulfilled in the New Covenant by the certain pouring out of the promised Spirit upon his “seed” who come to God through repentance and faith in the perfect mediation of Jesus Christ. Only those who receive the “promise” of the Spirit through repentance and faith in Christ are actually Abraham’s “seed” and “heirs.” These alone are entitled to the sign of the New Covenant, which is baptism.


Again, who is offered the promise of the Spirit through repentance and faith in Christ in Acts 2:38? All those mentioned in v. 39, “you and to your children and to all those who are afar off.” But is this an indiscriminate assurance that each of those mentioned will definitely receive the promise? No. Only “as many as the Lord our God will call.” Here is the condition for receiving the promise: the effectual calling of God.


The real question is, to whom does hosous an (as many as) refer? Does hosous an (as many as) refer only to “those afar off” (usually understood to be a reference to the Gentiles), or does it refer to the whole phrase, including “you and your children?” According to the Greek lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich, hosous an introduces a conditional relative clause which denotes the action of the verb as dependent upon some circumstance or condition. This is, namely, the sovereign will of God in effectual calling expressed in the subjunctive of proskaleo (may call). Hosous is the masculine accusative plural for the verb proskaleo. And since teknois, humin, and pasin (children, you and all) are collectively offered the promise by use of the conjunction kai (and), we may refer to these three dative plurals as the compound indirect object. Also, since teknois and pasin are masculine, hosous an (as many as) may legitimately modify both of them. Therefore, all three classes are offered the promise of the Spirit through repentance and faith. Yet, in hosous an, the condition of reception by all three must depend on the sovereign effectual calling of God. There is no greater promise to the children of those addressed than to the Jew and Gentile parents present. Not all those addressed received the promise and were baptized, but only those who “received” Peter’s word of repentance and faith by God’s effectual calling, including the children (2:41).


One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention “and your children” if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the “you” which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of “and your children” is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one’s children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord’s Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.


Another common objection states that Acts 2:39 must first be read through the eyes of the Abrahamic Covenant. However, it is my belief that the fuller revelation of the New Covenant must define how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in it, rather than letting the Abrahamic Covenant interpret the New Covenant revelation of its fulfillment. It is a principle of interpretation that is in question here. We teach our children this principle by describing the relationship between the testaments with a little rhyme:

The New is in the Old concealed
The Old is in the New revealed.
​

Acts 2:38,39, and 41 support the principle that New Covenant revelation should define the participants of the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than vice versa. Only those children in the crowd who received Peter’s word were baptized. There is no other exegetical possibility in the text and context.


Regardless of their age, only those who received Peter’s word and claimed God’s promise were baptized. There is no mention in this passage of infants being baptized along with their parents. In fact, this passage explicitly hinges the reception of the promise of the Spirit upon God’s sovereign effectual calling which is evidenced by repentance and faith. These and these only were baptized into the fellowship of the church.


Acts 2:39 defines the fulfillment of the “promise” only in those who are effectually called by God–those who receive the Word in repentance and faith. These only should be baptized.
The “Household Baptism” Texts

The question of household baptisms has long been used to support paedobaptism. These are the baptisms of the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Stephanas, and Crispus.
Cornelius’ Household (Acts 10:22; 11:12,14)

The account of Peter’s preaching the gospel to Cornelius’ household does not support infant baptism. Peter did preach the gospel to the whole household, and “all” the household was saved. How do we know that? Acts 10:44 and 11:15 state as much. The Holy Spirit fell upon them “all” and led them to repentance and faith (11:17,18). In fact, Peter explicitly stated in 10:47 that he baptized only those who “received the Holy Spirit as we did.” This extension of Pentecost to the Gentiles clearly defined who was baptized. There is no mention of infants in the household, but only those who were “listening to the message” (10:44). Infants are capable of being regenerated by God (e.g., John the Baptist), and some may have been present. But they are not able to listen to the gospel and to “speak with tongues and magnify God” (Acts 10:46). Only the people who did this received baptism as a sign of the Abrahamic “promise” of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14). I conclude that the episode in Cornelius’ household not only does not support infant baptism but is also a strong indicator for disciples’/confessors’ baptism.


Lydia’s Household (Acts 16:15)
The case of Lydia is inconclusive. Where was Lydia’s husband? She may not have been married at all. Only women are mentioned at the riverbank. And it appears that she and her household were baptized at the river before she took Paul back to her house. This opens the probability that only women were in her household (every member of which was probably at the riverbank with her) and that she was an unmarried or widowed businesswoman. Even if this is not entirely accurate, there is no mention of infants or older children in her household. Even many paedobaptists hold this instance of household baptism as inconclusive for their position.


Philippian Jailer’s Household (Acts 16:30-34)
The account of the Philippian jailer is probably the best possibility for including infants in the household baptism. All his household was baptized, but it is wrong to apply the promise of verse 31 to the “covenantal baptism” of the household based upon the jailer’s faith. This is clearly demonstrated in the following verses, where it is recorded that Paul and Silas preached the gospel to “all who were in his house” (v. 32) and that “all his household” (v. 34) believed in God with him.


There is a translation problem with this text that needs to be examined. J. A. Alexander (Acts) agrees that v. 31 is simply a promise of salvation by faith to the jailer and his household upon belief by both. Verse 34 is more complicated. The NASB, NIV, KJV, Williams, and Beck translations indicate that the faith which was shared by his whole household was the basis for their rejoicing: “having believed in God with his whole household.” However, the participle is masculine, singular and seems to describe the faith of the jailer: “He greatly rejoiced with his whole household, having believed [that is, the jailer] in God.” The emphasis seems to be that the household rejoiced with him because he had found faith (RSV, NEB).


Even if the latter interpretation is correct, we still have the problem of infants rejoicing. It is true that infants can detect and participate in joy in a household. But can infants rejoice because they realize their father has found faith in God? This may well be the basis for the whole household’s rejoicing. However, because of the context in preaching the Word to all in the house and because all were resultingly baptized, I believe their rejoicing was the same as the jailer’s rejoicing–the evidence of a new-found faith and redemption expressed in the joy of the Holy Spirit’s regeneration. Because they all heard the gospel, were baptized, and rejoiced, it is a legitimate conclusion that they all believed. He and his “whole household” were baptized because they all believed. Can infants hear the Word and respond in faith? No. If infants were present, for which there is no proof, the context denies that they were baptized. In fact, the context suggests that no infants were present. This case of household baptism actually lends support to confessors’ baptism.


Crispus’ Household (Acts 18:8)
A related case which supports the same conclusion concerns the household of Crispus. Here is a definite account concerning baptism in which the whole household, along with Crispus, believed in the Lord. It should also be noted that in the same verse, the other Corinthians who were baptized had first believed. It seems clear that the whole household first believed and then were baptized. This case also positively supports confessors’ baptism within households.



Stephanas’ Household (1 Cor. 1:16)
The last household baptism mentioned in the New Testament is that of Stephanas by Paul. The thrust of this text is that the baptized believers were in division and controversy over who baptized them. It seems they were capable of knowing who baptized them, thus excluding infants. Further, 1 Cor. 16:15 describes the “household of Stephanas” as having devoted themselves for ministry to the saints. Infants cannot self-consciously devote themselves in such a way. Yet even if this does not prohibit infants in the household of Stephanas, the most that can be said is that we do not know if infants were present. At best, this account is inconclusive for infant baptism.


In summary, the accounts of Lydia’s and Stephanas’ households are inconclusive, while the accounts of Cornelius’, Crispus’, and the jailer’s households actually point to conscious belief and regeneration before baptism. Therefore, I conclude that the weight of the household baptisms leans toward confessors’ baptism.

 

[CelticRebel]

4
The Fourth Pearl

Jesus’ Attitude Toward Children
One set of proof-texts has often been used to point out that Jesus taught the inclusion of infants of believers in the covenant of grace. This is the group which shows Jesus with the children.
Matthew 18:1-10

The first set of passages consists of Mt. 18:1-10, Mk. 9:33-37 and Lk. 9:46-48. In each of these, Jesus set a little child before His disciples to teach them a lesson. The contextual problem was their arrogance in discussing which was the greatest disciple. In Mt. 18:2 we find that the paidion (little child) responded to Jesus’ call in the verb proskalesamenos (having called to Himself). This is the same verb of Acts 2:39, which conditions the reception of God’s promise through repentance and faith by God’s effectual calling. This means that the child was not an infant and was capable of responding to Jesus’ call.


In this context, Jesus taught His disciples three things. First of all, they must be converted and become “as little children” to enter the kingdom of heaven. The use of the child as an illustration of their needed humility is clearly preceded by the need of conversion to enter the kingdom of heaven (18:2-5). This passive use of strepho (to turn or change) lays down a requirement to enter the kingdom of heaven which is akin to the new birth in John 3. Their vain claims at greatness betrayed proud hearts.


Jesus defined what He meant in verse 3 by the inferential oun (therefore) of verse 4. They must be converted and humble themselves “as this little child” to enter into and to be great in the kingdom of heaven. This little child came to Jesus at His call without regard to anything within himself; he came humbly.


Secondly, Jesus taught the disciples that they must receive even children who come to them as receiving Himself. They must honor the least among them as they would honor Christ Himself, instead of thinking themselves as greater (see Jer. 31:33,34; Mt. 11:11).
Thirdly, Jesus taught the disciples that to cause one of “these little ones who believe in Me” to stumble was an offense against God and would bear His wrath. These passages have nothing to do with infants in the covenant because this paidion (little child) responded to Jesus’ call, proskaleo, as a believer in Him. This childlike humble submission to Christ as Lord was what He was trying to teach His disciples regarding the attitudes and dispositions that characterize His kingdom. It is neither an instance of nor a support for infant baptism.
Matthew 19:13-15

A second set of passages has been appealed to more often as a support of infant covenant privileges in baptism: Mt. 19:13-15; Mk. 10:13-16; and Lk. 18:15-17. The disciples rebuked the people for bringing the little children to Jesus. In Lk. 18:16 we read that Jesus called the children to Himself (proskalesamenos) “having called to Himself” (this is the same word found in Acts 2:39), just as He did in the previous set of passages. Then He commanded the disciples to quit restraining the children from coming to Him.


Although some have pointed out that Luke calls the children mentioned in this passage brephe (infants), yet the reflexive pronoun auta (them) defines those who were restrained from coming to Jesus as the brephe, not the parents who were bringing them. The context defines these “infants” as capable of responding to Jesus’ call. Also, it should be pointed out that Paul reminded Timothy that he had known the Scriptures from a brephous (a babe), that is, from infancy. This shows that brephe may be used to describe a child who is old enough to learn the Scripture. Such a child certainly would be old enough to come to Jesus when called by Him.


The picture seems to be that the parents brought the children to be blessed, and then Jesus called the children to come to Him. The children who came to Him were picked up and blessed. Once again Jesus taught that one must “receive” the kingdom of God as a little child receives it to enter the kingdom. There is no promise here to these children unless they come to Jesus and receive the kingdom as well. In fact, if any passage in Scripture teaches the fallacy of paedobaptism, this one does. Neither Jesus nor His disciples baptized these children. Rather, the Lord blessed them.


In summary, Jesus did bless children as they were presented to Him by their parents. However, no promise of entrance into the kingdom is made to these children unless they also come to Jesus and receive the kingdom as examples of the way adults should receive it. The most that can be seen in these passages is infant blessing. There is certainly no hint of infant baptism.

 

[CelticRebel]

5
The Fifth Pearl
The Sanctification of Believers’ Children

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
​

(1 Cor. 7:12-16).
First Cor. 7:12-16 is a passage which is often used to illustrate the special position of believers’ children “in” the church and covenant of grace and to argue for their right to baptism by physical line. However, there are at least two more credible explanations that would permit the children to be called “holy” and yet prevent their right to baptism until repentance and faith are evidenced.


First, the context of this particular passage has to do with a Christian who is married to an unbeliever. The whole context has to do with Christians remaining in the condition they are when saved (7:17-40). Should they remain married or should the Christian leave the unbeliever? Paul declares that they should remain married because God sanctifies the unbelieving partner. The whole of Scripture clearly establishes that the only way for anyone to be saved and thereby “sanctified” in this saving sense is by personal and saving belief in Christ. In this passage, however, Paul is using the term “sanctified” in the sense of receiving God’s recognition of a legitimate marriage. This is the main point!


Paul’s further point is that the children are not akatharta (unclean), but hagia (holy) in light of the unbelieving spouse’s sanctification by their relationship to the believer. Many have seen this as a reference to the special position of believers’ children with God. However, the context and usage of akatharta (unclean) must help define the sense of hagia (holy) here. The main thought concerns the recognition of the marriage by God. If the marriage were not accepted by God, then it would be illegitimate and unclean-and so would the children.


The only other use of akatharta in the New Testament in reference to a person is in Acts 10:28. There Peter told Cornelius, not yet a believer in Christ, that God had instructed him to consider no man akatharta. Although Cornelius was a God-fearer and might be called “holy” for the sake of the fathers (Rom. 11:16), yet he was not “holy” by virtue of being “in” the New Covenant thereby having a right to baptism. Here is one instance where a person was considered not unclean–and possibly “holy” for the sake of the fathers–yet not “in” the covenant of grace.
Therefore, both context and word study suggest that hagia (holy) refers to the legitimacy or sanctioning of the marriage and of the children rather than, necessarily, to the covenant promises of salvation and sanctification. Also, how old are the children of this legitimized marriage? Are they infants, teenagers, or adults? If this opens the way to covenant baptism, should all the children still living at home be considered hagia (holy) and baptized in the covenant relationship, even if adolescents or adults? Certainly not, according to the rest of Scripture on confessors’ baptism. Any arbitrary attempts to define ages of accountability in order to limit baptism to minor children in this household also encounter problems. Esau was circumcised at age twelve, and Israelites up to age forty were circumcised by Joshua (Joshua 6). Neither one of these situations required a good confession before circumcision. If 1 Cor. 7:14 prescribes baptism of “holy” children simply because of their physical descent, then even adult children should be included. In light of these difficulties, it is better to understand this passage as speaking of the children’s legitimacy before God.
Second, there is an alternative to the legitimacy position which still does not include either spouse or child “in” the New Covenant.
The real question here is how can an unbelieving spouse be “sanctified,” and how can the child of a believer be called “holy” under the New Covenant administration of grace? If the basic meaning of both of these words is “set apart” unto God, then further questions arise as to how each of the parties is “set apart” unto God and what the relationship of each is to the New Covenant.


Most agree that the unbelieving spouse is not in the New Covenant until regeneration (Acts 26:18). However, Kline (By Oath Consigned, pp. 94-102) has to be somewhat arbitrary in order to explain how the believing husband’s marital covenantal authority has changed from including his wife in the Old Covenant while not including her in the New Covenant. Yet he maintains that the believing husband’s parental covenantal authority is still valid in the New Covenant as the basis for his children being “in” the covenant and receiving baptism. Such intricate logic is far too arbitrary to be convincing. Instead, it seems that by union with the believer, God recognizes the marriage as holy and promises to accept the unbeliever’s husband or wife in “setting apart” that marriage to fulfill His purposes.


In the case of the children in this mixed marriage, the way in which they are “set apart” is more difficult to determine. Two texts often used to support the children’s participation in the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant are Romans 11 and Eph. 6:1-4. They deserve our consideration.


First, Paul states in Rom. 11:16 that his kinsmen in the flesh, the branches presently cut off from participation in the olive tree of the New Covenant, are still “holy” because their root is “holy.” However, these “beloved for the sake of the fathers” (v. 28) shall be grafted in again if they do not continue in unbelief (v. 23). Here is the case of physical descendants of Abraham and his covenant promises (9:1-5) who are yet “holy” but not “in” the New Covenant and kingdom until they believe. Here is one use of “holy” applied to physical “seed” who are outside the New Covenant because of their unbelief. This supports the view that the children of 1 Cor. 7:14 can be considered “holy” for the sake of their parents and their heritage in the gospel blessings and yet not be “in” the New Covenant until they believe. Therefore, they may be considered “holy” as were the physical “seed” of Abraham (Rom. 11:16), yet be refused the covenant sign until they profess repentance and faith.
Secondly, if we strictly say (as many paedobaptists do) that the children of Eph. 6:1-4 were addressed and accepted as saints (1:1), we also must strictly say that they had believed and were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (1:13). This is hardly a convincing argument concerning the inclusion of children in the church without regeneration and conversion. The fact that the children would be able to understand Paul’s exhortation, were called saints, and were sealed by the Spirit, makes it perfectly plausible that he was talking to professing children who were real members of the New Covenant church.


However, it is also possible that Paul was addressing the children in the congregational gathering who sat under the preached Word of God even though they are not yet personally “in” the New Covenant church. Obedience to the fifth commandment is required of all children, believers and unbelievers alike. It is not uncommon for pastors to address churches as the “saints” when there is an unchurched child of unchurched parents in the assembly. Is Paul’s exhortation inapplicable to them? Of course not. To appeal to Eph. 6:1-4 as teaching that unbelieving children are members of the New Covenant and church is to “grasp at straws.”


If we are going to make the children of Ephesians 6 members of the church, there is better evidence that they are considered believers and, therefore, have been baptized (Eph. 1:13; 4:4-6). The inadequate appeal to Ephesians only further supports the possibility that the children referred to may be considered “set apart” as privileged by their gospel heritage and exposure, yet not actually be “in” the New Covenant Church and entitled to baptism.


It is my conclusion that 1 Cor. 7:14 is referring either to the children’s legitimacy in the eyes of God, or at the most, to their “set apart” position for the sake of their parents’ gospel heritage rather than covenant position. And how can we give two separate meanings to the sanctification of the children, on the one hand, and not to the unbelieving parent, on the other hand, unless we do so arbitrarily? It is impossible to do so except by a prejudicial treatment of the text. This verse makes no mention of covenant children’s baptism even though this would have been a perfect opportunity for Paul to explain that practice to these Gentile Corinthians. The use of this text to support infant baptism is completely unwarranted.


After examining the important pearl of prooftexts for infant baptism I come away with more doubt than proof. What I find with transparent honesty and clear conscience is that these prooftexts support believers’ baptism much more than they do infant baptism.

 

[CelticRebel]

6
The Sixth Pearl
The Disjunction of John’s and Jesus’ Baptism with Christian Baptism

There is often an attempt to differentiate the intent and subjects of John’s and Jesus’ baptisms and the intent and subjects of Christian baptism. This is an unbiblical and erroneous differentiation.
It is usually admitted by Baptists and paedobaptists alike that John baptized only upon condition of repentance (Mt. 3:6; Mk. 1:4) unto the forgiveness of sins. Acts 19:4 reveals that John pointed men to Jesus as well. It is also clear that the disciples of Jesus baptized only those who were made disciples beforehand (Jn. 4:1). There is no mention of, nor evidence for, infant baptism of the children of those who were made disciples in either John’s or Jesus’ baptisms. What, then, is the relationship between John’s, Jesus’, and Christian baptism? And what does the relationship have to say to us regarding paedobaptism?
One question that deals with this issue is this: who baptized Jesus’ disciples into Christian baptism? It could not have been Jesus (Jn. 4:1-2). John baptized at least Andrew and another disciple (Jn. 1:35,40), yet there is no record of their rebaptism by Jesus or by others at Pentecost. Apollos is another case of one of John’s disciples of whom there is no record of rebaptism into Christian baptism (Acts 18:24-28). In fact, at Pentecost, only those conversing with Peter and who received his word were baptized (Acts 2:37-42). It appears that the disciples of Christ and the 120 in the upper room were not rebaptized into Christian baptism because it would have been repetitious for these believers to ask, “Brethren, what shall we do?” In fact, these 120 may have helped baptize the 3,000.


The only possible case for rebaptism in the New Testament is in Acts 19:1-7 (and Calvin disagrees). It seems that these disciples of John’s baptism did not have the whole message of John about Jesus and the Holy Spirit when they were baptized. Perhaps they received it secondhand. Therefore, they were rebaptized into Christ by Paul. Calvin says that this rebaptism was not necessarily by water but by Christ’s baptism with the Holy Spirit. He points to Paul’s action of laying on hands and no mention of water to support his position. There is much disagreement on this text. But if we say John’s baptism was not sufficient for Christian baptism, we still have the problems presented by Apollos’ baptism, which was seemingly accepted by Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, and by the baptism of the faithful before Pentecost.
There does not seem to be a line of demarcation between John’s, Jesus’, and Christian baptism. This is further attested by the truth of Mk. 1:1, which defines the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ with the coming of John in verse 2. Therefore, the subjects of John’s and Jesus’ gospel baptisms must apply also to Christian baptism; that is, the subjects are limited exclusively to disciples or professors. Jesus affirmed this in the Great Commission when He gave the command to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing and teaching “them” (Mt. 28:19). “Them” refers only to those who become disciples. Every use of the word “disciple” in the New Testament refers to a conscious, willful following of a teacher. When Christ commissioned His followers to baptize disciples, He was further establishing the practice of believers’ baptism.


It might be added that Jesus clearly defined the basis for building His church in Mt. 16:16-19,24-26 by means of the incident of Peter’s confession. This is also a great support for the intended subjects of baptism into His church in the Great Commission. If we call baptism an institution by Christ for the outward sign of admission into His confessional church, should we not also trust His instituted precepts concerning the subjects of baptism rather than resorting to a very questionable reliance on “good and necessary inference?” It is my belief that Christ’s instituted instructions for founding His church must interpret the application of the Abrahamic Covenant to baptism rather than vice versa by inference.


Some have tried to deny that Jesus defined confessors’ baptism only in this text by claiming that His words refer exclusively to the initial institution of baptism. Therefore, the reasoning goes, we would expect a missionary-minded Christ to give instructions for confessors’ baptism, naturally assuming the baptism of his/her infants to follow. However, the fact remains that Christ instituted baptism and practiced it Himself (through His disciples) long before the Great Commission (Jn. 4:1). In His earlier baptism, He clearly baptized only those who were made disciples, excluding their infant children. If we are going to assume that the Great Commission is the official institution of Christian baptism, then was Christ’s baptism not Christian? And why did He not add “baptizing them and their children?” The practice and command of Jesus’ baptism, along with John’s, names believers only as the subjects of baptism. I, for one, am not prepared to contradict either Christ’s teaching or example.
I conclude, then, that John’s, Jesus’, and Christian baptisms are not to be artificially separated as has often been done. There is no good evidence of this pearl in Scripture and, therefore, no evidence that the subjects of baptism after Pentecost were any different from the subjects before. In both cases they were believing disciples.

 

[CelticRebel]

7
The Seventh Pearl
The Argument of Silence
One of the most widely used arguments to support the practice of paedobaptism is its looming silence in the New Testament. The principal line of reasoning goes like this: It was so obviously a part of the covenant of grace to give covenant children the covenant sign in the Old Testament that there was no reason to mention or defend it in the New Testament. Thus, supposedly, the case is proven. However, this principle of hermeneutics which draws “good and necessary inferences” from silence can be quite subjective and can lead to error very quickly. It is, of course, a legitimate principle if there is no clear precept to contradict its inference. However, the regulative principle of Reformed worship requires positive institution for the sacraments (see the Westminster Confession, chapt. 20, sect. 5).


It is my contention that this argument for paedobaptism cannot stand when examined in the light of two major principles of hermeneutics: 1) the weight of regulative and instituted precept, and 2) ironically, the argument of silence itself when rightly employed.
Regulative Precept

Let us consider the weight of regulative precept. If we were to look for New Testament precepts for paedobaptism, our search would prove futile. As the great Presbyterian theologian B. B. Warfield said, “It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized.” (Studies in Theology, p. 399). The actual precepts concerning baptism can apply only to disciples because repentance and faith are necessary for New Covenant baptism. Many paedobaptists admit this much. However, the paedobaptist argument goes further to conclude that since these precepts are in the context of a missionary church, it is logical that there would only be calls to repentance and faith before baptism. Therefore, they say, the precepts for repentance and faith do not apply to infants of believers in an established church. For the paedobaptist, it would take an expressed precept to specifically prohibit infants from receiving the covenant sign of baptism because of the prior Abrahamic precept. Yet these same paedobaptists (i.e., Berkhof and Murray) quote the command to examine oneself as sufficient precept, along with the argument of silence concerning covenant communion, to prohibit unregenerate children of the Abrahamic Covenant who ate the Passover in the Old Testament from eating the Lord’s Supper, which is the Passover’s fulfillment in the New Testament.


This inconsistency in employing this prohibitive precept is exposed in the light of Acts 2:41-42, where all those baptized were permitted entrance to the breaking of bread, the Lord’s Supper. If infant baptism is admitted in Acts 2, then so also must infant and small children’s communion be admitted. It was many years later when the precepts of self-examination because of irreverent partaking were given. So in the paedobaptist position, there is confusion concerning the ground of entrance to the Lord’s Supper-is it baptism or self-examination? And how shall the elders know to whom the Lord’s Supper should be served if the primary ground is self-examination? In the light of these considerations, the precept of self-examination before partaking of the Lord’s Supper (which is indeed legitimate) does not compare in strength to the precepts of repentance and faith before baptism. There is great inconsistency here and great danger in being arbitrarily selective in the application of these hermeneutic principles.


It appears that there is much more conclusive precept for excluding the infant children of believers from baptism than from the Lord’s Supper. The precepts of confessors’ baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors’ baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship.
Argument of Silence

In fact, if the argument of silence is applied consistently, there is even greater support for disciples’ baptism. The council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was called to deal with the Judaizers, who required circumcision for new Christians. The answer of the council concerning circumcision was that we are saved by grace alone without circumcision (15:11) and that it is good to “abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled and from sexual immorality.” If baptism is the direct counterpart of circumcision, then why did the council not simply say, “You and your children have been circumcised in the baptism of Christ and need not physical circumcision”? Here the argument of silence speaks against baptism as the direct counterpart of circumcision and in favor of salvation by grace or regeneration as its direct counterpart and abrogation (15:11).


Further, Paul wrote the entire letter of Galatians to deal with the Judaizers, who were requiring the Galatian church to be circumcised (Gal. 5:2,3). Why did Paul not simply say, “After believing, you and your children were baptized; thus, you have already received the New Covenant counterpart of circumcision and no longer need it?” Here again the argument of silence speaks against baptism as the direct counterpart of circumcision and speaks in favor of the receiving of the Spirit by hearing with faith as its counterpart and basis for abrogation. (Gal. 3:2,3).


An objection to this argument is that Paul would not allude to baptism as the reason for not receiving circumcision because that would put baptism in the class of works salvation like the Judaizers claimed for circumcision. I do not agree. Paul could easily have explained that neither circumcision nor baptism contribute to salvation in any way, yet water baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, and it is no longer applicable in the New Covenant administration. But Paul did not do that. After clearly stating that circumcision has nothing to do with salvation, he explained that the new creation is the answer to the Judaizers for entrance into the true circumcision, the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15,16; Php. 3:3). The whole teaching of Galatians is that it is not the children of the flesh and circumcision but the children of faith and regeneration who are the Israel of God and the true children of Abraham (Gal. 3:14,29; 6:14-16). Thus, the argument of silence in the council and in Paul does not favor a New Covenant direct identity of circumcision with baptism and, therefore, neither does it in any way imply infant baptism.
Some have tried to legitimize the argument of silence for infant baptism by claiming a New Testament silence concerning, for example, the Christian Sabbath and the admission of women to the Lord’s Supper. Yet the fourth commandment was taught by Jesus in the New Testament (Matt. 12; Mark 2), and there are explicit references to the Lord’s Day as being observed by Christians on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). There are also further correlating principles concerning the Ten Commandments for Christian practice (Rom. 2:14-15, 7:7, 8:4; Jer. 31:31-34). Further, concerning the admission of women to the Lord’s Table, Paul clearly addresses both men and women in the first part of 1 Corinthians 11. When he goes on to discuss the responsibility to take the Lord’s Supper properly he is still writing both to men and women. There is no such biblical evidence for infant baptism. In these two cases the argument of silence is not nearly as silent as in the case of infant baptism.


The argument of silence is certainly a hermeneutically legitimate principle but clear instruction overrules supposed logical inferences. People like John Murray would never follow such a hermeneutic on other matters. It is my conclusion that the “pearl” of silence is not good enough to string.

 

[CelticRebel]

8
The Eighth Pearl
The Argument of Expanded Blessings

One of the great pearls that shines as brightly as the rest is found in rhetorical questions such as: If the Old Covenant children were granted the covenant sign, in this New Covenant day of expanded blessing and fulfillment, shall we prohibit the covenant sign to believers’ children? Are our New Covenant children less blessed and privileged than were Old Covenant children? Such questions are certainly legitimate and lie at the heart of the matter of paedobaptism.


The primary power of such questions as an argument stems from the fact that no Christian wants to prohibit precious infants from God’s blessings or to limit God’s goodness in granting favor to infants. These thoughts tug at our heartstrings and constrain us to say “yes” to the covenant sign on our infants. However, God’s Word, and not our well-intentioned sentimentality, must determine the answers to such questions as those in the above paragraph.


If God so chooses to grant physical children the covenant sign in the Old Covenant shadow and to prohibit the covenant sign to physical children in the New Covenant fulfillment, He has the sovereign right to do so. Nor does this necessarily imply that our New Covenant children are less privileged or blessed in being prohibited the New Covenant sign. I rhetorically reply: Are our children less blessed and privileged by being born to godly parents who show forth the fullness of the Spirit which was not fully outpoured in the Abrahamic Covenant? Are our children less blessed in having Christ and Him crucified proclaimed to them from infancy as compared to the types and shadows preached to their Old Testament counterparts? Are our children less privileged in being raised in the Israel of the Spirit as compared to the children raised in the Israel of the flesh? I think not.


Our children, above all others in the Old Covenant Israel and on the present-day earth, have privileges above measure. They are being raised in homes and churches which set the crucified and risen Lord of glory before them as their daily fare. Our gracious God has chosen them above multitudes that perish in gospel darkness to hear the same promise He sovereignly used to bring us into the everlasting kingdom:

“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise [of the preceding sentence] is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as [of you, your children, and all afar off] the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38,39).
​

Deut. 30:6 is an interesting passage in light of Acts 2:38ff and God’s promise to circumcise the hearts of the Israelites and their seed after He returns them from the prophesied exile. He seems to be referring to the same promise in Jer. 31:31-34 and Eze. 36:25ff. If we consider this passage to be fulfilled in the New Covenant administration of grace, we are rightly understanding Acts 2:38,39,41 to say this:

The promise of heart-circumcision is to you and your children, as many as the Lord our God shall call to Himself, as in the same case as the Gentiles. From your children God will circumcise hearts according to His sovereign calling and they may receive the sign of the New Covenant heart-circumcision on the basis of their outward repentance and faith (v. 41).
​

It does seem possible that God promises to call His elect out of believers’ children as well as out of the Gentiles, but we cannot say that they are in the New Covenant of heart-circumcision and should receive its outward sign until they repent and believe. This concept of election from believers’ “seed” is akin to that of Hoeksema (Believers and Their Seed). Yet the precepts of baptism and the application of the New Covenant sign as illustrated in Acts 2:38,39,41 prevent us from applying the sign of heart-circumcision until our children have shown evidence of having entered the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34).


Our children have been blessed with hearing and memorizing the written Word of God from the cradle. They have been blessed with the tear-stained prayers of Spirit-filled parents pleading for their souls’ regeneration and conversion. They have been blessed with the New Covenant forms of the Old Covenant shadows to woo them to Christ. Can we say that they are less privileged in growing up under the sowed seed of the full revelation of God’s sovereign plan? No! They cannot be considered less privileged when God has sovereignly chosen to preach the gospel of sovereign grace to them while so many of our fallen race perish each day in ignorance and darkness. Also, we have this promise of God to plead before Christ our personal Advocate for our children:

So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it (Isa. 55:11).
​

Let us plead the goodness of God to His people and call down His Spirit to plant the Word of life in the hearts of our children till they bear the fruit of a new creation in Christ Jesus.


We Christians have every reason to say that our children have expanded blessings in the New Covenant–even if they, in God’s good pleasure, must not receive the outward sign until they have a profession of faith. Let us not appeal to the shiny pearl of sentimental, rhetorical questions to set aside the revealed and chosen will of God in the New Covenant application of sovereign grace. Rather, let us proclaim the gospel of grace to our children, begging God for mercy upon them.

 

[CelticRebel]

9
The Ninth Pearl
The Testimony of Tradition

Tradition is the last and smallest pearl which is threaded on the paedobaptist string. Too often in paedobaptist polemics, however, it is treated as if it were the largest. But if the Scripture is our only rule of faith and practice, then tradition’s role must be only to clarify and corroborate what Scripture clearly sets forth. Two attractive areas of tradition are Jewish proselyte baptism and early church practice according to the apostolic fathers. In both of these traditions, T. E. Watson has presented the most incisive summary.


First of all, Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2, p. 746) and Berkhof (Systematic Theology, p. 622) both admit that Jewish proselytes and their children up to age twelve were baptized into Judaism. However, unborn children in the womb of the baptized mother were not baptized after birth as they were considered already clean and a part of Israel. If we appeal to any part of the Judaistic practice, we have to contend with the late age of household children receiving baptism as well as the prohibition of baptism to unborn children in the womb. Neither of these difficulties lends any support to infant baptism. Some scholars discount Jewish proselyte baptism in the first century altogether. It is certainly no support for infant baptism.


Second, the very earliest explicit mention we have of infant baptism in the didactic writings of the early church is from Tertullian, around 200 A.D. In this passage he urges the delay of baptism, especially of little children, that its significance might be fully realized. This, of course, admits that little children or infants were being baptized in his day. But this is far from granting that it was an apostolic tradition.


Origen, Augustine, and many others following them say that it was the apostolic custom to baptize infants. It is probable that Origen was baptized as an infant ca. 185 A.D. He claims that this was the tradition handed down from the apostles. Irenaeus mentioned the stages of life from infancy to old age as the stages Christ went through to save all those who are born again at every age, thus possibly alluding to infant baptism via the tendency of the church fathers to identify baptism with regeneration. So it seems that from the second half of the second century to the Reformation in the sixteenth century, infant baptism was accepted as an apostolic tradition.


However, Irenaeus also claimed in his possible reference to baptism that he had received an apostolic tradition that Jesus was forty to fifty years old, contradicting the scriptural record. It is also well-known that the church fathers have claimed many other apostolic traditions that are unfounded. In fact, Tertullian is often recognized as a staunch defender of apostolic traditions. But why did he not defend infant baptism if it is an apostolic tradition? Such testimony must not be regarded as conclusive unless well-founded in Scripture.


Appeal can also be made to a much earlier source, namely the Didache (100-125 A. D.). This early church manual gives instruction only for the baptism of catechumens. Its silence on infant baptism is deafening. This is especially so because of the paedobaptist claim that the “missionary” church of Mt. 28:18-20 only recorded disciples’ baptism at first, that infant baptism came later. But why then was infant baptism not mentioned in this church manual? As far as we know from Scripture and the Didache, it was not mentioned because it was not practiced.
The earliest clear didactic references to baptism are either silent about or negative toward infant baptism. I cannot let such uncertain evidence in tradition interpret Scripture or apostolic tradition for me. Tradition, as many paedobaptists agree, can offer corroborating proof only if infant baptism is first found in Scripture. Yet as I gaze through the eyes of Scripture, the small pearl of tradition shrinks in size and fades from sight.

 

[Albion]

And just when I had come to agreement with you that Anglicanism was where I probably belonged.

Of course I'm sorry to read that, but the fact that Anglicans baptize infants is quite well-known, I'd think.

I had a very long struggle with infant baptism. I read everything I could get my hands on about it. I went through all kinds of reasoning within myself and tortured logic trying to find a way I could believe it and accept it. I never could.

I can see scriptural support for the baptism of young children -- if they are old enough to express belief and faith in Jesus. Scriptural support for infant baptism I do not see. And as I said, I have studied everything I could find on the subject.

You know, then, that "whole households" were baptized in the New Testament, and that the meaning of ANY sacrament (whether that be two or seven) is that it is God's ordinance instituted by Christ for our benefit. For example, nowhere do we find that you have to understand how Christ is present in Communion, etc. for it to be a channel of grace. Or how any part of any sacrament "works." So also in the case of Baptism. The only apparent reason why so many instances of baptisms as recorded in the New Testament seem to be about adults is because the party was dealing with an adult.

 

[CelticRebel]

Conclusion
A String Without Pearls

As I have examined each pearl on the string, I have come away with, at best, a necklace of discolored and missing jewels. In reality, I confess that I am left with an empty string called “good and necessary inference” which does me no good in showing the beauty of Christian baptism. It is a string of twine around the neck of a princess.


I cannot build my doctrine on an empty string. Therefore, I accept the one priceless pearl of disciples’ baptism and wear it upon my hand as a sign of my marriage to Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of entrance into the New Covenant by the inward circumcision of the heart, evidenced by one’s confession of faith in Christ. Old Testament children entered the Abrahamic Covenant by the circumcision of the flesh. If they came to faith, it became a seal of the righteousness of faith, as it was to Abraham (Rom. 4). Now our New Covenant children enter the New Covenant by the circumcision of the heart, sealed by the Holy Spirit and signified by the sign of disciples’ baptism.


I rejoice to see a revival of Reformed beliefs in our Baptist churches across the land. Baptists are rediscovering their Reformed roots. However, the work of restoring biblical truth has cost many pastors their jobs and their families’ peace of mind. In love, I challenge those with Baptist convictions not to accept too quickly a welcome refuge in paedobaptist churches. Stand fast with Baptists to “strengthen the things that remain” instead of fleeing to what appears to be more welcome surroundings.


It is sad to see Baptist pastors and laymen gloss over baptism in order to serve in paedobaptist churches. Before any such change is contemplated, God’s Word should be studied on the subject with diligence and honesty. Pastors take vows on such things. Baptists today need sacrificial Luthers, Calvins, and Bunyans in our pulpits and pews to count the cost of building biblically Reformed and baptistic churches of faithful disciples. It ought to be done. It can be done. And by God’s grace, it is being done with increasing frequency all over the world.


Finally, having gone through so many struggles on the question of Christian baptism, I can only heartily plead for unity and understanding between Baptists and paedobaptist brethren who hold the great doctrines of grace in common –to God’s glory in His church.

 

[CelticRebel]

Of course I'm sorry to read that, but the fact that Anglicans baptize infants is quite well-known, I'd think.


You know, then, that "whole households" were baptized in the New Testament, and that the meaning of ANY sacrament (whether that be two or seven) is that it is God's ordinance instituted by Christ for our benefit. For example, nowhere do we find that you have to understand how Christ is present in Communion, etc. for it to be a channel of grace. Or how any part of any sacrament "works." So also in the case of Baptism. The only apparent reason why so many instances of baptisms as recorded in the New Testament seem to be about adults is because the party was dealing with an adult.

Yes, I knew that Anglicans baptized infants. But I didn't know if it was a necessary belief to be an Anglican.

I still don't see anywhere in the NT where baptism came before faith. What water baptism signifies can only be applied to a believer. It is a sign that we through the grace of God and faith in Jesus have died to our old self, been buried, and raised to new life in Jesus. That cannot happen to one who has not believed.

 

[Albion]

Yes, I knew that Anglicans baptized infants. But I didn't know if it was a necessary belief to be an Anglican.

Well, as I said earlier, the priest and congregation are not likely to throw you out the front door "from whence you came" if you let on that you are opposed to infant baptisms, but they are affirmed in all the Anglican documents, in the Prayerbook, the Catechism, the Articles of Religion, etc. You could probably get away with it if you want to look at it that way (not making an issue of it), and it's not part of the Nicene Creed, but there's no question about where the church stands...and that, I thought, was important to you, i.e. being in a church that reflected your own beliefs.

I still don't see anywhere in the NT where baptism came before faith. What water baptism signifies can only be applied to a believer.

What do you make of "whole households" being baptized? Do you think that applied only to the servants or that Jewish households of that era usually didn't have any children in them?

It is a sign that we through the grace of God and faith in Jesus have died to our old self, been buried, and raised to new life in Jesus. That cannot happen to one who has not believed.

That's why witnesses or sponsors who promise to raise the child in the faith are required.

 

[Job8]

Not his death as a substitutionary sacrifice.

Then why are you bothering with Christianity? Eastern religions should suit you fine.

Without the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, there is no Christianity and there is no Christ.

 

[CelticRebel]

Well, as I said earlier, the priest and congregation are not likely to throw you out the front door "from whence you came" if you let on that you are opposed to infant baptisms, but they are affirmed in all the Anglican documents, in the Prayerbook, the Catechism, the Articles of Religion, etc. You could probably get away with it if you want to look at it that way (not making an issue of it), and it's not part of the Nicene Creed, but there's no question about where the church stands...and that, I thought, was important to you, i.e. being in a church that reflected your own beliefs.

Yes, that is important to me, although I am tolerant of a wide range of beliefs.

What do you make of "whole households" being baptized? Do you think that applied only to the servants or that Jewish households of that era usually didn't have any children in them?

The article I posted reflects my beliefs on that. I don't see where any baptism was done without faith coming first.


That's why witnesses or sponsors who promise to raise the child in the faith are required.

(I have also responded in red within your post above)

First, I appreciate this discussion, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be contentious or start an argument.

About sponsors: The child could be raised in the faith and still not believe. Baptism before faith is the proverbial putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

 

[CelticRebel]

Then why are you bothering with Christianity? Eastern religions should suit you fine.

Without the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, there is no Christianity and there is no Christ.

The Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree. I prefer the atonement views of the early church, not those which came 1000 years later (Satisfaction, RCC), or 1500 years later (Penal Substitution, Magisterial Reformers).

 

[Albion]

First, I appreciate this discussion, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to be contentious or start an argument.

Not a problem.

About sponsors: The child could be raised in the faith and still not believe. Baptism before faith is the proverbial putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.

If that is what happens, the child will not have saving Faith, so it's not as if the baptism somehow sidestepped the process of conversion that all of us must experience.

Anyway, I see that your conclusions about this matter are strongly felt. I still wonder, though, if you've studied Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or other churches that baptize infants. The Baptistic POV about this matter is quite a minority view and was rejected by the Protestants and Catholics alike when it surfaced a few centuries ago.

I would hope you would not overlook what these churches have to say on the matter. When I did a careful study of the matter myself, a few years ago, I came away thinking that the case for infant baptism was at least as strong as the case against it.

That said, I am now thinking that if you still feel called towards Anglicanism for all the good reasons other than this one, your next step might best be to have a talk with an Anglican or Episcopal pastor whom you'd respect, and just lay your cards on the table. You can't really lose, whichever way the discussion trends.

 

[Job8]

As Albion notes, mainline churches normally require only that a person accept Christ as Lord and savior.

How can you have a Savior without His substitutionary sacrifice? So either we have total hypocrisy or total apostasy. As I said before, this gentleman should find a good Eastern religion and then he won't even have to think about this.

 

[Job8]

The Eastern Orthodox Church would disagree. I prefer the atonement views of the early church, not those which came 1000 years later (Satisfaction, RCC), or 1500 years later (Penal Substitution, Magisterial Reformers).

It's what the Bible teaches, not what "religions" make of the sacrifice of Christ. We can either go by our "preferences" or believe God.

Based strictly on the Bible there is no Christianity without the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. Indeed there is no genuine Christ, "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world (Jn 1:29). We could delve into all the Scriptures, but that is not necessary. It is significant that Christ is called the Lamb in the book of Revelation, and that He is the Lamb upon His throne.

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure what the problem is with mainline churches, including the Episcopal church that Albion is trying to sell you.

Albion is not trying to sell anything, and if he were, it certainly would not be The Episcopal Church. He is attempting to respond to the questions and concerns brought to this thread by CelticRebel, whose interest in Anglicanism predates a conversation with me.

It's what the Bible teaches, not what "religions" make of the sacrifice of Christ. We can either go by our "preferences" or believe God.

and let's keep in mind that this is not a debate forum but that all our answers ought to be for CelticRebel and connected to what she has asked--which is about joining or finding a church home for herself.

 

[CelticRebel]

Not a problem.


If that is what happens, the child will not have saving Faith, so it's not as if the baptism somehow sidestepped the process of conversion that all of us must experience.

Anyway, I see that your conclusions about this matter are strongly felt. I still wonder, though, if you've studied Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or other churches that baptize infants. The Baptistic POV about this matter is quite a minority view and was rejected by the Protestants and Catholics alike when it surfaced a few centuries ago.

I would hope you would not overlook what these churches have to say on the matter. When I did a careful study of the matter myself, a few years ago, I came away thinking that the case for infant baptism was at least as strong as the case against it.

That said, I am now thinking that if you still feel called towards Anglicanism for all the good reasons other than this one, your next step might best be to have a talk with an Anglican or Episcopal pastor whom you'd respect, and just lay your cards on the table. You can't really lose, whichever way the discussion trends.

Yes, I have studied all those churches and their views on baptism, in-depth. In the past, I have been a member of the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church. I had considered going into ministry in both, but infant baptism was a major stumbling block.

Still, today, just for membership purposes, I believe Anglicanism would probably be the best fit for me, or a moderate Baptist, Mennonite, or Quaker church. But there again, the problem is distance. Even with the AMiA church that is closest to me, that's still an hour's drive. Nearest moderate-conservative Baptist church is 90 minutes, and nearest Mennonite church is two-plus hours. Looks as if I'm just out of luck.

Oh, I did find a non-denominational church about 20 miles away. I talked with the pastor yesterday, and he told me they were full-gospel/Pentecostal. I don't think that's an option.