Okay, okay, I've put this argument off for far too long now...

GQ Chris said:

Why infant baptism? I mean infants cannot comprehend anything.

Click to expand...

Presbyterian Covenant theology includes children in the covenant because they view the sacrament of baptism to be a continuation of circumcision. They infer it from the Scriptures by using what they call "necessary consequence".

Baptist Covenant theology is different in that we don't use "necessary consequence" but see the Old Covenant of works fulfilled in Christ. There isn't any continuation of the Old Covenant in the New. There are other differences as well which certainly apply. We have a different view of the Covenant of Grace than they do. If you want to see the differences I would suggest reading "The Distinctivesness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault. I think he treats very fairly the Presbyterian position but clearly shows the differences.

You can get it Kindle for $3:99 here:

Sorry to drive-by post, but there's a good debate from both sides by two incredibly pastors on this issue; R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur.

I'll find it later when I'm home.

Post Tenebras Lux said:

Sorry to drive-by post, but there's a good debate from both sides by two incredibly pastors on this issue; R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur.

I'll find it later when I'm home.

Click to expand...

John MacArthur is a Dispensationalist and hates even Baptist Covenant theology. It is like comparing apples to oranges.

/

GQ Chris said:

Why infant baptism? I mean infants cannot comprehend anything.

Click to expand...

See:
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/a-contemporary-reformed-defense-of-infant-baptism/

twin1954 said:

Baptist Covenant theology is different in that we don't use "necessary consequence"

Click to expand...

While the phrase "good and necessary consequence" might not be in the 1689 Confession, every orthodox Christian to some degree holds to the teaching. Theology is practicing "good and necessary consequence." In my estimation, no one can be a Trinitarian without "good and necessary consequence, even with the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, simply because it no where says in Scripture, "There is one God in three co-eternal, co-existent Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Rather, this doctrine must be formulated by gathering everything the Bible says about the God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And, even then, Scripture only explicitly states that the Father and Son are God; it never explicitly states the deity of the Holy Spirit. This must be deduced, for example, from the fact that the Holy Spirit is worshiped. All of this is "good and necessary consequence."

Regardless, infant baptism is not arrived at by good and necessary consequence. That is why I am almost always frustrated by the conversation, because it many times boils down (on both sides) to examining individual statements (or lack thereof) within the Scriptures. In reality, both infant baptism and believers-only baptism are arrived at theologically, through the view of the covenants, particularly the Covenant of Grace (a concept which, interestingly, must be arrived at through good and necessary consequence, yet is readily used by Baptists). I am a Baptist, but, in my opinion, any Baptist who argues their position about baptism from the lack of an example of infant baptism in the New Testament is either misinformed or lazy.

twin1954 said:

...but see the Old Covenant of works fulfilled in Christ. There isn't any continuation of the Old Covenant in the New.

Click to expand...

While this statement per se is correct, it is not where the issue lies. The issue actually lies in the nature of the Covenant made with Abraham as well as its relationship to the New Covenant. Circumcision is not an institution of the Old Covenant, but the Covenant made with Abraham. Baptists say that this covenant was a promise of a future covenant not to be formally ratified until Christ's blood, while paedobaptists (if I am not mistaken) say that this is formally the Covenant of Grace, of which the New Covenant is an administration, hence the continuation of infant circumcision through infant baptism. For Baptists, the New Covenant is so-called Covenant of Grace.

Study the Jewish mikvah, and you will have your answer.

TaylorSexton said:

While the phrase "good and necessary consequence" might not be in the 1689 Confession, every orthodox Christian to some degree holds to the teaching. Theology is practicing "good and necessary consequence." In my estimation, no one can be a Trinitarian without "good and necessary consequence, even with the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, simply because it no where says in Scripture, "There is one God in three co-eternal, co-existent Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Rather, this doctrine must be formulated by gathering everything the Bible says about the God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And, even then, Scripture only explicitly states that the Father and Son are God; it never explicitly states the deity of the Holy Spirit. This must be deduced, for example, from the fact that the Holy Spirit is worshiped. All of this is "good and necessary consequence."

Click to expand...

Baptists hold to the view that all truth is necessarily contained in the Scriptures but we do not hold to "good and necessary consequence". By "good and necessary consequence" you can arrive at all sorts of heresies.

I am not arguing against reasonable deduction from the Scriptures as long as it doesn't disagree with the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole. The word substitution is never used in the Scriptures but it is a clear doctrine taught in them. But by "good and necessary consequence" rather than necessarily contained there are all sorts of views of the atonement.

Regardless, infant baptism is not arrived at by good and necessary consequence.

Click to expand...

Oh but it is. They, by using good and necessary consequence, carry over infant baptism from circumcision because of their misguided view of the Abrahamic Covenant.

That is why I am almost always frustrated by the conversation, because it many times boils down (on both sides) to examining individual statements (or lack thereof) within the Scriptures. In reality, both infant baptism and believers-only baptism are arrived at theologically, through the view of the covenants, particularly the Covenant of Grace (a concept which, interestingly, must be arrived at through good and necessary consequence, yet is readily used by Baptists). I am a Baptist, but, in my opinion, any Baptist who argues their position about baptism from the lack of an example of infant baptism in the New Testament is either misinformed or lazy.

Click to expand...

I had to deal with the arguments for years so I now I mostly stay out of it. I purposely did not go into great detail in my response to the OP because I didn't want to get into another debate over it.

Presbyterian Covenant Theology is a product of "good and necessary consequence" and clearly differs from Baptist Covenant Theology because of it. Baptists do not use "good and necessary consequence" to arrive at the Covenant of Grace, which also differs from the Presbyterian view, but find it clearly in the Scriptures because it is contained in them.

While this statement per se is correct, it is not where the issue lies. The issue actually lies in the nature of the Covenant made with Abraham as well as its relationship to the New Covenant. Circumcision is not an institution of the Old Covenant, but the Covenant made with Abraham. Baptists say that this covenant was a promise of a future covenant not to be formally ratified until Christ's blood, while paedobaptists (if I am not mistaken) say that this is formally the Covenant of Grace, of which the New Covenant is an administration, hence the continuation of infant circumcision through infant baptism. For Baptists, the New Covenant is so-called Covenant of Grace.

Click to expand...

I was trying to be simple and brief. But you are correct that they carry it over from the Abrahamic Covenant. That is why I recommended reading the book.

twin1954 said:

I am not arguing against reasonable deduction from the Scriptures as long as it doesn't disagree with the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what Westminster teaches. It adheres to both what is explicitly stated and "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." That's the point I was trying to make; "good and necessary consequence" is deduction. I feel that by "good and necessary consequence" you believe that one is defending beliefs that are un-scriptural. That is not at all the case. As I said, every time I defend the doctrine of the Trinity against heretics I must use "good and necessary consequence." I fail if I do not, because it is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture.

twin1954 said:

Oh but it is. They, by using good and necessary consequence, carry over infant baptism from circumcision because of their misguided view of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Click to expand...

I don't think that it very fair. Both Baptists and paedobaptists arrive at their positions through deduction (good and necessary consequence) from their particular view of the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant and its relationship to the New Covenant. They both take the same process yet arrive at different conclusions. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us who is or is not to be baptized, in regards to infants or believers only. Hence, both positions must engage in "good and necessary consequence" to arrive at their positions.

twin1954 said:

Baptists do not use "good and necessary consequence" to arrive at the Covenant of Grace.

Click to expand...

I don't understand this. The term "Covenant of Grace," just like "Trinity," is found nowhere in Scripture. Thus, it must be arrived at by good and necessary consequence.

Look, I am a Baptist. I am not trying to defend the practice of paedobaptism here. Rather, I am just trying to ensure that we are always fair in our characterization of the view. Frankly, I believe it is unfair to say that their position is arrived at by good and necessary consequence and that ours is not, even though there is an almost wholesale identity in the process. Yes, "good and necessary consequence" might not be contained formally in the language of the 1689 Confession, but it is there. Again, I don't think one can do theology at all without it.

TaylorSexton said:

That's exactly what Westminster teaches. It adheres to both what is explicitly stated and "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." That's the point I was trying to make; "good and necessary consequence" is deduction. I feel that by "good and necessary consequence" you believe that one is defending beliefs that are un-scriptural. That is not at all the case. As I said, every time I defend the doctrine of the Trinity against heretics I must use "good and necessary consequence." I fail if I do not, because it is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture.



I don't think that it very fair. Both Baptists and paedobaptists arrive at their positions through deduction (good and necessary consequence) from their particular view of the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant and its relationship to the New Covenant. They both take the same process yet arrive at different conclusions. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us who is or is not to be baptized, in regards to infants or believers only. Hence, both positions must engage in "good and necessary consequence" to arrive at their positions.



I don't understand this. The term "Covenant of Grace," just like "Trinity," is found nowhere in Scripture. Thus, it must be arrived at by good and necessary consequence.

Look, I am a Baptist. I am not trying to defend the practice of paedobaptism here. Rather, I am just trying to ensure that we are always fair in our characterization of the view. Frankly, I believe it is unfair to say that their position is arrived at by good and necessary consequence and that ours is not, even though there is an almost wholesale identity in the process. Yes, "good and necessary consequence" might not be contained formally in the language of the 1689 Confession, but it is there. Again, I don't think one can do theology at all without it.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't with the necessary part but with the "good" part. Presbyterians arrive at the concept of infant baptism by seeing it as good but cannot arrive at it as necessary.

The Covenant of Grace is clearly taught in the Scriptures though it isn't exactly named as such. One cannot arrive at infant baptism as a continuation of the covenant of circumcision without the "good" part.

Baptists use deduction for sure but we do not shape our theology by what we believe to be "good and necessary".

It all breaks down to how one views the Mosaic covenant (IMO). Is the Mosaic covenant one administration of the new covenant of grace or a re-statement of the covenant of works made with Adam? Adam was told essentially, "do and live," the same is said on Sinai, "do and live." Is the core of that covenant the same as Jer. 31 where God tells us that he will make a new covenant that is unlike the covenant made with our fathers/Israel?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Post Tenebras Lux said:

Sorry to drive-by post, but there's a good debate from both sides by two incredibly pastors on this issue; R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur.

Click to expand...

Eh, I guess that debate is okay. The problem is that you have a covenantal paedobaptist debating with a dispensationalist credobaptist. The debate about baptism is hardly fruitful since the two approach Scripture from vastly different hermeneutics. I believe the discussion is only truly helpful when it is between one who subscribes to the WCF and one who subscribes to the LBCF (1689). Then the discussion can take place where it is supposed to take place: covenant theology. In my humble opinion, the issue of households and the supposed absence of infant baptism in the New Testament is almost utterly irrelevant to the debate. They are both, in a sense, arguments from silence.

1 Peter 3:21 gives a specific definition of baptism as "an appeal to God for a good conscience..." (ESV) An infant cannot do this as defined by scripture.

I quickly embraced Calvinistic soteriology when faced with it. The baptism issue, on the other hand I have flipp-flopped on. To be honest, I first embraced paedo-baptism due to respect for men. My thinking was "Luther believed in it, and so did Calvin, and so did my favorite reformed teachers like RC Sproul, so they must be right."
But I didn't complete understand their reasoning, I didn't really get it.
I discussed the matter with a reformed Baptist pastor and he quoted Jeremiah 31.."31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

I became convinced here that the New Covenant is unconditional salvation, including regeneration. .. Which convinced me that only professing, convicted, converted believers should be baptized.

GQ Chris said:

Why infant baptism? I mean infants cannot comprehend anything.

Click to expand...

Why circumcision? Didn't God call for all male children to circumcised on the 8th day? Comprehension doesn't have anything to do with it. You've brought a presupposition to that table.

thatbrian said:

Why circumcision? Didn't God call for all male children to circumcised on the 8th day? Comprehension doesn't have anything to do with it. You've brought a presupposition to that table.

Click to expand...

As a Baptist, I agree. Too often the baptism conversation is based upon things like "comprehension" and the so-called lack of evidence we have for infant baptism in Scripture whereas the real battleground is covenant theology.

TaylorSexton said:

As a Baptist, I agree. Too often the baptism conversation is based upon things like "comprehension" and the so-called lack of evidence we have for infant baptism in Scripture whereas the real battleground is covenant theology.

Click to expand...

Yes! Very wise statement.

I'm a Presbyterian, but I won't die on the hill of infant baptism. I see both sides of the argument, when made well, by reasonable people.

What makes many who are on fence about infant baptism swing to the paedo side IS covenant theology, so you are 100% correct. That's were we should debate the matter of baptism.

thatbrian said:

Why circumcision? Didn't God call for all male children to circumcised on the 8th day? Comprehension doesn't have anything to do with it. You've brought a presupposition to that table.

Click to expand...

Well in that case, why shouldn't we also allow these infants to take communion with everyone else?

Comprehension didn't have anything to do circumcision. Neither did faith. It was added along with the Land Promises. Slaves, servants, unbelievers...everyone in the Jewish household was circumcised. At one point almost 300 servants were circumcised!


If an adult couple come to faith late in life (50's or so) and have adult progenies living at home with them (for whatever reason, economic, etc.) should the adult children be baptized?


If you have been blessed with finical success and can afford a maid and/or butler would you require them to be baptized?


Yours in the Lord,


jm