Baptism - Just Stirring the Pot

[msortwell]

Do you believe a credo-baptistic view is consistent with a "fully" covenantal theology?

If you hold to a Covenantal theology, have you ever changed your view of the proper mode and subject of baptism?

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Lambeth1595]

Do you believe a credo-baptistic view is consistent with a "fully" covenantal theology?

No Mike I do not. Paedobaptism all the way!

 

[msortwell]

No Mike I do not. Paedobaptism all the way!

No fair! What is the basis for your response? Where do you see the inconsistency between the Reformed view and a credo-baptist view.

Is it primarily because the Reformers were paedobatists or is there a deeper theological inconsistency between credo-baptism and the balance of Reformed theolgy?

Mike

 

[TubaFour]

I am still studying this issue... What I do find interesting is the issue of the continuities or discontinuities between the Old Covenant and the New. It seems to me that if one takes the view that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant renewed, then, Paedobaptism makes a lot of sense. If one takes the position that the New Covenant is a different covenant qualitatively, then I can see that credo baptism makes more sense.

aL

 

[msortwell]

I am still studying this issue... What I do find interesting is the issue of the continuities or discontinuities between the Old Covenant and the New. It seems to me that if one takes the view that the New Covenant is the Old Covenant renewed, then, Paedobaptism makes a lot of sense. If one takes the position that the New Covenant is a different covenant qualitatively, then I can see that credo baptism makes more sense.

aL

One of the better write-ups I've seen substantiating the paedobaptist view was Francis Schaeffer's paper titled, "Baptism." It can be found at . . . http://www.fivesolas.com/fs_bapt.htm

Any that are studying the issue would do well to include Mr. Schaeffer's paper as part of that study.

The point where I would differ from Mr. Schaeffer's conclusion would be where I would see the proper recipients of baptism to be those who have recently entered into the family of God rather than having entered into the family of believers - i.e., new children of the promise.

Therefore, I remain a credo-baptist, but my view of baptism is more consistent Mr. Schaeffer's than it is with the majority of by dispensational Baptist brothers.

Mike

 

[TubaFour]

Mike,

Thanks for the link to the article. I printed it but haven't had a chance to read it yet...

aL

 

[Lambeth1595]

No fair! What is the basis for your response?

Any charge against paedobaptism can be made against circumsicion. Abraham believed God and was circumcised and Isaac was also circumcised as an infant. With the sign and seal now being baptism (as bloody ordinances were fulfilled in Christ) so the babies of believing adults such after the pattern of Abraham should be baptised as Isaac was circumcised.

 

[msortwell]

Any charge against paedobaptism can be made against circumsicion. Abraham believed God and was circumcised and Isaac was also circumcised as an infant. With the sign and seal now being baptism (as bloody ordinances were fulfilled in Christ) so the babies of believing adults such after the pattern of Abraham should be baptised as Isaac was circumcised.

While I understand the biblical basis for paedobaptism, and agree that the position has some merit . . . a charge could be made against the paedobaptist view that there was no explicit command in Scripture for believers to baptize their children, whereas it was explicitly commanded unto Abram that he, and his seed after him, circumcise the foreskin of their male children (Gen 17:9-11). To state that the requirement for infant baptism is as Scripturally iron-clad as the command to the Jews to circumcise their male children is not accurate.

I believe that proponents of both positions too often over state their case. Although I am a credo-baptist, I must confess that a biblical case AGAINST paedobaptism simply does not exist. That is, I cannot prove scripturally that my paedobaptist brothers are wrong. Certainly, I see the credo-baptism (and that by immersion) as better supported in Scripture (otherwise I wouldn't be a Baptist). But it cannot be stated unequivocally that all ceremonial baptisms described in Scripture were definitely by immersion. Nor can it be stated that all such baptisms were definitely performed on believers. The strongest case for Baptists is limited to showing how the language used, and the situations described would seem to be most consistent with the believers/immersion baptism model.

If anyone can offer an iron clad, bible based argument for any individual view of baptism, I'd like to see it (e.g., credobaptism, paedobaptism, immersion, sprinkling or pouring).

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Do you believe a credo-baptistic view is consistent with a "fully" covenantal theology?

No. I do think that my Reformed Baptist brethren are much more covenantal in their understanding of theology than dispensational Baptists, but paedobaptism is an application of Covenant Theology. The denial of paedobaptism reveals a different understanding of Covenant Theology.

If you hold to a Covenantal theology, have you ever changed your view of the proper mode and subject of baptism?

I have. I used to be a credobaptist, but as I continued to study Covenant Theology, it became obvious why my Reformed brethren were calling me inconsistent in my claim to uphold Covenant theology. I should note, however, that even when I was a credo, I did not think that immersion was the only proper application of baptism, and believed that sprinkling and pouring were also valid.

 

[msortwell]

The denial of paedobaptism reveals a different understanding of Covenant Theology.

How would you articulate that difference in understanding?

 

[TubaFour]

Mike,

I read the Schaeffer article, and he makes a good argument for paedobaptism. I would be curious about where you get off the wagon from Schaeffer's perspective.

aL

 

[msortwell]

Mike,

I read the Schaeffer article, and he makes a good argument for paedobaptism. I would be curious about where you get off the wagon from Schaeffer's perspective.

aL

Mr. Schaeffer writes, "Further than this, we must never forget that circumcision is not just a sign through the years of Abraham's faith, but it is a sign of the faith of the individual father."

This seems to factor very heavily into his basis for baptizing infants of believers. However, in the NT economy our fathers are not our physical fathers necessarily. Please consider,

1 Tim 1:1-2
1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith : Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. KJV

Titus 1:4
4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. KJV

Philem 10
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: KJV

It seems to me that the baptism of new children in Christ is arguably as consistent (perhaps more consistent) with the practice of old testament circumcision. The question really gets down to, "Who is the appropriate recipient of the 'sign and seal' of the covenant? I believe it is those who, by profession, are participants in that covenant. I do not understand our physical children to be participants in the covenant. The question seems to be, "Is the biological family the familial relationship that should govern the administration of the sign and seal?" I do not believe it is. I believe those who are the "spiritual fathers as it were, should baptize the professing "spiritual offspring."

Relative to the immersion/other mode question: I still see the circumstances described in the NT baptisms and the language used to describe those baptisms as more likely describing baptism by immersion. However, as I stated previously, the argument for immersion cannot be considered as iron clad. Absent the one reference in Scripture to washing tables by "baptizmos" (Mark 7:4) we Baptists could be alot more confident that ours was THE definitive answer.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[TubaFour]

Mr. Schaeffer writes, "Further than this, we must never forget that circumcision is not just a sign through the years of Abraham's faith, but it is a sign of the faith of the individual father."

This seems to factor very heavily into his basis for baptizing infants of believers. However, in the NT economy our fathers are not our physical fathers necessarily. Please consider,

1 Tim 1:1-2
1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith : Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. KJV

Titus 1:4
4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. KJV

Philem 10
10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: KJV

It seems to me that the baptism of new children in Christ is arguably as consistent (perhaps more consistent) with the practice of old testament circumcision. The question really gets down to, "Who is the appropriate recipient of the 'sign and seal' of the covenant? I believe it is those who, by profession, are participants in that covenant. I do not understand our physical children to be participants in the covenant. The question seems to be, "Is the biological family the familial relationship that should govern the administration of the sign and seal?" I do not believe it is. I believe those who are the "spiritual fathers as it were, should baptize the professing "spiritual offspring."

Relative to the immersion/other mode question: I still see the circumstances described in the NT baptisms and the language used to describe those baptisms as more likely describing baptism by immersion. However, as I stated previously, the argument for immersion cannot be considered as iron clad. Absent the one reference in Scripture to washing tables by "baptizmos" (Mark 7:4) we Baptists could be alot more confident that ours was THE definitive answer.

Blessings,

Mike

Good points Mike. I am reading this article which I think makes some pretty good arguments against Paedobaptism from a covenantal stand point. http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

The writer seems to be making the same general argument you're making.

There are clearly distinctions between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant which the author highlights and relies upon to distinguish circumcision from baptism.

aL

 

[heymikey80]

Hey, thanks for the Schaeffer link. I've been wanting this since the pamphlet went out of print.

This subject has interested me for some time.

This seems to factor very heavily into his basis for baptizing infants of believers. However, in the NT economy our fathers are not our physical fathers necessarily.

I would have no problem with this first part. If the child's parents aren't indeed their spiritual parents as well, then you're right, they should not request or receive their children's baptism.

I've occasionally met people like this -- and most of them don't want their kids baptized anyway.

.... I do not understand our physical children to be participants in the covenant.

OK, there I'd ask the Scriptural reasoning. There're a number of places where your physical children indeed are participants in the covenant: Ep 6:1-2 & Col 3:20 refer directly to physical children. I doubt very seriously children in the First Century Empire would be permitted to attend worship to any god they pleased. In the New Testament there are four places where entire households are mentioned as being baptized -- and very quickly on the heels of the head of household's conversion.

I think this really hammered home to me when I was reading the covenant with Abraham where God actually commanded infant circumcision. If a sign of faith were commanded on infants before ... what's our reasoning for tacitly withholding a sign of faith from infants today? I'm not even sure the discontinuities can deal with this issue. It seems like modern individualism has decided the proper subjects of baptism.

 

[msortwell]

Hey, thanks for the Schaeffer link. I've been wanting this since the pamphlet went out of print.

Your welcome.

OK, there I'd ask the Scriptural reasoning. There're a number of places where your physical children indeed are participants in the covenant: Ep 6:1-2 & Col 3:20 refer directly to physical children. I doubt very seriously children in the First Century Empire would be permitted to attend worship to any god they pleased. In the New Testament there are four places where entire households are mentioned as being baptized -- and very quickly on the heels of the head of household's conversion.

Ep 6 and Col 3 make no reference to, or inference regarding the spiritual condition of the children being addressed. They simply contain commands to children. Your logic would have only believers be subject to the decalogue.

I am familiar with the references to full households being baptized. And as you know they make no mention of the ages, or salvific state of any members of the family other than the head of the household. This makes any conclusions based upon these verses conjecture. Not what I would call "wild conjecture," but conjecture none-the-less.

I think this really hammered home to me when I was reading the covenant with Abraham where God actually commanded infant circumcision. If a sign of faith were commanded on infants before ... what's our reasoning for tacitly withholding a sign of faith from infants today? I'm not even sure the discontinuities can deal with this issue. It seems like modern individualism has decided the proper subjects of baptism.

In covenant with Abraham, a primary element within that covenant, as it was understood at the time, was the familial relationship of the participants in the covenant to Abraham.

The further revelation in the NT shows us clearly that participation in the covenant is spiritual. The true seed of Abraham are now understood to be those that are in Christ. Prior to this further revelation, it made sense that the children of Abraham's physical seed received the sign and seal. However, now that we have learned that the "children of the promise" are those who have faith in Christ, it would seem more consistent with the intent of the ordinance to administer the sign and seal upon the true seed of Abraham.

Your statement regarding "modern individualism" is unfounded and therefore unwarranted. If there is something in my response that indicates a bent toward individualism, please direct my attention to it.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Knight]

I pretty much fall in line with Mike on this one. (No surprise there... )

The big question that must be answered here is not "Who should be baptised?" For we know that it is members of the New Covenant that should partake of baptism.

The real question we need to ask is "Who are members of the New Covenant?" The obvious answer to this is those whom God has elected unto salvation. This would be those who have recieved regeneration of the Holy Spirit and placed faith in Christ for salvation.

I agree that there is a case to be made for pedobaptism. I disagree that it is a compelling case.

Just my $0.02.

 

[heymikey80]

Ep 6 and Col 3 make no reference to, or inference regarding the spiritual condition of the children being addressed. They simply contain commands to children. Your logic would have only believers be subject to the decalogue.

Um, if you check the context, Paul is speaking to people presumed to believe. Otherwise why would "husbands, love your wives as Christ has loved the church" (Ep 5:25)? But it gets a bit more convincing than that: Paul's reasoning is, "for we are members of His [Christ's] own body" :29. Paul is using arguments that clearly lead us to expect his hearers to be generally believers.

There's also Paul's instruction to Titus: "An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient." (1:6) Either that excludes everyone with small children (which begs the question, why require it of elders of adult children), or small children believe.

I am familiar with the references to full households being baptized. And as you know they make no mention of the ages, or salvific state of any members of the family other than the head of the household. This makes any conclusions based upon these verses conjecture. Not what I would call "wild conjecture," but conjecture none-the-less.

It definitely scopes the treatment of baptism in this arena. There was no Apostolic inquiry into the ages of the children in the families. In Cornelius' case the whole extended family was drawn there; yet Peter quotes an angel, "he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household." (fr. Ac 10 & 11) You don't know the age or the salvific state of the family. How will you decide on baptisms without knowing this information? I'd think the angel would've qualified it if it were so significant as to need qualification.

The problem isn't so much the technical silence, but silent assumptions on situations which constantly invite the question. Why mention children in Acts 2:39? Why would Paul include "whole-household-ly" talking with the jailer, why not just make the case one-by-one? Why would Lydia's entire household be a significant question? And how about Stephanus' household?

Households seem to be rather significant, significant enough to mention. Why wouldn't exclusions of members of the household be correspondingly significant enough to mention?

In covenant with Abraham, a primary element within that covenant, as it was understood at the time, was the familial relationship of the participants in the covenant to Abraham.

Yes. This familial relationship is widened in the New Covenant to include the families of the Gentiles. Yet "even though it is only a man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or adds conditions to it." Gal 3:15 But do you really think the Abrahamic Covenant is familial, and the New Covenant is not? That the Abrahamic Covenant is nonspiritual, and the New Covenant is spiritual?

The further revelation in the NT shows us clearly that participation in the covenant is spiritual. The true seed of Abraham are now understood to be those that are in Christ. Prior to this further revelation, it made sense that the children of Abraham's physical seed received the sign and seal. However, now that we have learned that the "children of the promise" are those who have faith in Christ, it would seem more consistent with the intent of the ordinance to administer the sign and seal upon the true seed of Abraham.

Hm, to my understanding the people of God have always been those who are in covenant with the God of their Redemption. That was true to Abraham, and true to Paul. Did God write a different faith on Abraham's heart? Did he give Moses' faith a different Law than he gave us?

God spoke the Abrahamic Covenant directly to Abraham (Gen 17). There's no presumption what He said. It included applying the sign of faith on infants and even to those who ultimately would not inherit the promises. The sign didn't guarantee their inheritance. It provided something else: an explicit declaration of God to be the God of Abraham's offspring. He could do it then. And He can do it now.

There're two parties involved in a Covenant: God and men. To neglect what either is saying would be to break Covenant, right?

Your statement regarding "modern individualism" is unfounded and therefore unwarranted. If there is something in my response that indicates a bent toward individualism, please direct my attention to it.

I'm sorry, I see how that sounded like an accusation. I meant more generally, "It seems like modern individualism has decided the proper subjects of baptism." I don't mean particularly you, but more generally in the culture. If you look at the trends of post-faith ideas on baptism, their popularity rises in direct correlation to the idea of individual freedoms through John Locke, for instance. Baptism after belief is not the majority view in Christianity, be it present or historic. The uniform view of all orthodox churches emerging from the Apostolic period was accepting of infant baptism.

 

[heymikey80]

Good points Mike. I am reading this article which I think makes some pretty good arguments against Paedobaptism from a covenantal stand point. http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

The writer seems to be making the same general argument you're making.

There are clearly distinctions between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant which the author highlights and relies upon to distinguish circumcision from baptism.

aL

Well, one of the more prevalent responses to the article above is here:

http://reformed.org/sacramentology/horne_welty_response.html

I guess the real question for me is whether any of the distinctions are truly significant enough to deny the type of action God commanded in the prior covenant.

 

[msortwell]

heymikey80,

I'm pretty sure that I made it clear that (IMO) paedobaptism cannot be proven to be in error based upon the Scriptures. Yet much of your post is seeking to subtantiate the paedobaptist view. Working from logic and taking advantage of some silence in the Scriptures, and incorporating some seemingly sound insights that ARE obtained from the Scriptures I believe a case can be made for infant baptism.

I will try to find the time to address some of your points specifically, focusing my response upon why I retain my belief that the Believer's Baptism by immersion can be more solidly supported from the text. But like the paedobaptist view, the argument is not without its own weaknesses.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[TubaFour]

Bump!