My search into Padeobaptism

[kevken]

Was there "slave or greek... male or female" in God's process of election and salvation in the past?

No, not in the "process of salvation and election" but yes in order of the male "equipment" with receiving circumcision.

Were females excluded from God's grace in the Abrahamic covenant?

Covenentally No, because they were born into a believing home.

What about servants, relatives and employees? Why do you fail to baptize them when the Scriptures relating to circumcision directly command them to be circumcised? Did you have friends over for Easter dinner? Why didn't you baptize them?

YOu are quite hung up on this argument as evidenced by your previous posts. Here are passages you quoted before.
Gen 17:12 -13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
The simple distinction you are not making is that the Jew OWNED the slave, he did not employ a slave. A Christian who owns a business does not own his employees. When a slave was owned the Scriptures have laws that govern the lives of slaves under a Jew. (Also, don't forget about the book of Philemon). And yes the slave received circumcision.

Exodus 12:48
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it."
I don't understand your problem here. Let's apply this to the Lord's Table since it is an extension of the Passover. If an UNbeliever wanted to come and celebrate the Lord's Table with me he would have to profess faith and belief in Christ and bow to His Lordship. He would then receive baptism THEN he could come to my table to celebrate the Lord's Table. Notice the order above "let his males be circumsized, and THEN let him come near to celebrate it." According to the Scriptures a Jew could not arbitrarily circumsize a non-Jew. The non-Jew would have to believe in Yahweh, be circumsized, then he could partake of the Passover.
My argument still stands.

Your second sentence is a partial one, what are you trying to say? Remember that in era in question not only children were "within a family" but so were the immediate family members as well, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles AS well as servants... yet we never see Paedobaptists causing their immediate family to be baptized apart from and expression of faith even though this logic would demand it.

Untrue my church (and many churches) had a household baptism last month. YOu need to remove your word "never."

Where in Scripture is baptism called the "sign of the covenant"?

They both signify essentially the same thing. IF you like I can reference multiple equalities.

I agree, but one could also say that the teaching of paedobaptism has led to errors of its own.

You are right but the variable is not with the doctrine, it is with sinful man.

But in the Lord's table is the only symbolic thing in the New Testament Scripture directly called "the new covenant" or a sign thereof. Christ, in giving the cup called it the "blood of the new covenant". So here we have one clear, direct correlation between covenant symbology, yet it is witheld from infants until they profess faith?
On what basis do you baptise infants but refuse them the one thing the Christ calls "the new covenant"?

LIke I said that is a string for another debate; this is on baptism. Personally I am not convinced that we should withhold the cup from the young, but let's remain on the issue at hand.

The evidence is staggering... as I've already documented and you failed to reply to. You baptise infants on the basis that im Old Testament infants were circumcised... but you FAIL to baptise your other family members, employees and visitors who share meals with you. Why?

Already answered above. Evidence that is even more staggering is the 2000 years of history that back up infant baptism and only about 400 years to back up believers only baptism. (I was raised Southern Baptist, became a Reformed Baptist, then a Presbyterian.)

It is best said that there is no command, commendation nor suggestion that infants be baptized anywhere in the New Testament. The entire belief therefore is based on the partial importation of signs and theory from the Old Testament and the Old Covenant into the new.

As noted above your claim is inaccurate and misunderstood.

It is quite a different thing to present an exegettical case for the Trinity than to present a case for infant baptism. It is evident from Scripture that the three parts of the Godhead are co-equal etc. Whereas it is not evident from Scripture that any infant was ever baptized.

You are making a distinction without a difference. The fact remains that you are coming to the doctrine of the Trinity from implication and we come the doctrine of baptism including infants from implication. You demand that there be an explicit reference from the New Testament to order us to baptize infants yet you are arbitrarily inconsistent with your own demands when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity (among others). YOu have to show me that infants of believers should not be included within the covenent of the Lord anymore. I need an explicit statement from you telling me that infants are no longer to receive the sign of the covenent (again, it is understood to be a sign of the covenent from implication. I will be happy to discuss this reality in future posts if you wish).

The "arbitrary"-ness I was referring to was the arbitrary way in which paedobaptists apply Old Testament rituals to New Testament ceremonies. Paedobaptists abritrarly baptise infants but not employees etc.

Again, answered above.

 

[~Heavens_Bride~]

kevken,

I see you were raised baptist. What lead you to change your views on infant baptism?

TIA

 

[Lockheed]

No, not in the "process of salvation and election" but yes in order of the male "equipment" with receiving circumcision.

Again, let's review your logic and why we're here:

We don't baptize only sons because with the New Covenent it is larger and more inclusive than the previous covenents. "there is neither slave nor greek, neither male nor female...in Christ." Therefore, we baptize our daughters also.

You say the "New Covenent it is larger and more inclusive than the previous covenents", and yet now you say that there were no "male or female" in God's process of election and salvation in the past."

You say the New Covenant is "larger and more inclusive", therefore it would either seem that a) in the past women were not saved or b) the New Covenant was saving people prior to its expression in Christ.

Here is the arbitrariness I was talking about. You arbitrarily include portions of the Covenant of circumcision while ignoring others on the basis that the "New Covenent it is larger and more inclusive", yet you so tie the "New Covenant" to circumcision (through baptism) as to expect that infants are to be baptized.

If in the New Covenant females are included, what does that say about the covenant wherein circumcision was the sign? On what basis do you make these claims?!

There is neither a command to baptize female infants nor male ones. None-the-less, you arbitrarily ignore the direct command to baptize on the eighth day. Why?

Were females excluded from God's grace in the Abrahamic covenant?

Covenentally No, because they were born into a believing home.

Believing home? What did 'belief' have to do with it? IIRC, every offspring of Abraham, regardless of belief (Esau, Ishmael etc) were circumcised, it had nothing to do with the individual's belief (as you would have to admit given your belief in paedobaptism.)

So... on what basis were females saved in the Abrahamic era?

What about servants, relatives and employees? Why do you fail to baptize them when the Scriptures relating to circumcision directly command them to be circumcised? Did you have friends over for Easter dinner? Why didn't you baptize them?

YOu are quite hung up on this argument as evidenced by your previous posts. Here are passages you quoted before.
Gen 17:12 -13 "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant."
The simple distinction you are not making is that the Jew OWNED the slave, he did not employ a slave.

There's no "hang up", I'm pointing out a main problem with the paedobaptist position wherein they arbitrarily import parts of the Old Covenant into the New.

Slaves in the OT were of both types, owned and paid. Either way, they were to be circumcised regardless of faith. Therefore, there is no excuse for you not demanding that your servants, slaves, or employees be baptized. Slaves could earn their way out of a household, none-the-less, yet they were still to be baptized.

A Christian who owns a business does not own his employees. When a slave was owned the Scriptures have laws that govern the lives of slaves under a Jew. (Also, don't forget about the book of Philemon). And yes the slave received circumcision.

Therefore, if in a society wherein slavery of some form was legal, would you not therefore, by the reading of the commands relating to circumcision, still be required to baptize your slaves and/or servants?

People today still have "servants", should they baptize them? If not, why not?

Exodus 12:48
"But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it."
I don't understand your problem here. Let's apply this to the Lord's Table since it is an extension of the Passover.

The passover feast was simply that, the passover feast. The closest representation we have to it today is not the Lord's Supper, but rather an Easter dinner.

That said, if you wish to take it the direction you have, the problem still remains, you would have to simply baptize unbelieving visitors in order to allow them to partake communion. If you're going to properly import the sign of Circumcision as it applies to baptism. Hense, you ignore one command while adopting the other.

If an UNbeliever wanted to come and celebrate the Lord's Table with me he would have to profess faith and belief in Christ and bow to His Lordship.

There's no mention of that in the Exodus passage, is there? You're changing the rules to suit your belief. Either apply the Laws relating to circumcision consistently or admit that the connection to infant baptism is arbitrary.

He would then receive baptism THEN he could come to my table to celebrate the Lord's Table. Notice the order above "let his males be circumsized, and THEN let him come near to celebrate it." According to the Scriptures a Jew could not arbitrarily circumsize a non-Jew.

It happened all the time, remember all the males of a household, including servants and slaves were to be circumcised.

The non-Jew would have to believe in Yahweh, be circumsized, then he could partake of the Passover. My argument still stands.

This is language you've imported into the text which is not there. Your argument therefore is invalid.

Your second sentence is a partial one, what are you trying to say? Remember that in era in question not only children were "within a family" but so were the immediate family members as well, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles AS well as servants... yet we never see Paedobaptists causing their immediate family to be baptized apart from and expression of faith even though this logic would demand it.

Untrue my church (and many churches) had a household baptism last month. YOu need to remove your word "never."

I see, so your whole family is baptized, including the unbelievers? If not, why not? If you reply "well the NT states that believers are the proper subjects of baptism", then your entire argument falls.

Where in Scripture is baptism called the "sign of the covenant"?

They both signify essentially the same thing. IF you like I can reference multiple equalities.

You failed to answer the question, and you response is telling. The fact is, no where in Scripture is baptism called the "sign of the covenant", correct?

The rampant individualism in the church today (not only in Baptist circles) is clearly hurting the church.

I agree, but one could also say that the teaching of paedobaptism has led to errors of its own.

You are right but the variable is not with the doctrine, it is with sinful man.

Then the likewise can be said of the use of this argument against the Baptist viewpoint. Let us not therefore engage in genetic fallacy, but rather practice "sola Scriptura".

But in the Lord's table is the only symbolic thing in the New Testament Scripture directly called "the new covenant" or a sign thereof. Christ, in giving the cup called it the "blood of the new covenant". So here we have one clear, direct correlation between covenant symbology, yet it is witheld from infants until they profess faith?

On what basis do you baptise infants but refuse them the one thing the Christ calls "the new covenant"?

LIke I said that is a string for another debate; this is on baptism. Personally I am not convinced that we should withhold the cup from the young, but let's remain on the issue at hand.

No! For this is THE HEART of the debate! You baptise infants on the basis that it is "the sign of the covenant" and yet NO WHERE in Scripture is it called such and YET you deny the one thing that Christ DOES called "the New Covenant" to them. This IS the issue, the arbitrary nature of paedobaptist eisegesis.

"Any argument for infant baptism is an argument against infant baptism, as they are abritrary in so many ways." They are clearly not arbitrary for reasons given above. You need to bring more evidence for an argument to be arbitrary.

Already answered above. Evidence that is even more staggering is the 2000 years of history that back up infant baptism and only about 400 years to back up believers only baptism. (I was raised Southern Baptist, became a Reformed Baptist, then a Presbyterian.)

An argument from history is not in any way a proof for a practice. For centuries Arians ran the church, for centuries people prayed to the saints, for centuries Gnostics took over churchies, just because a practice is historical it doesn't make it Biblical. The BIBLE promotes "believers baptism" from the book of Matthew throughout, herein lies our debate, not in what did the Romanists do, or what did Jerome do, but what does the Bible teach. Hence, semper reformanda!

It is best said that there is no command, commendation nor suggestion that infants be baptized anywhere in the New Testament. The entire belief therefore is based on the partial importation of signs and theory from the Old Testament and the Old Covenant into the new.

As noted above your claim is inaccurate and misunderstood.

To the contrary! You admittedmy claim to be vaild, there is no command, commendation nor suggestion that infants be baptized anywhere in the New Testament.

It is quite a different thing to present an exegettical case for the Trinity than to present a case for infant baptism. It is evident from Scripture that the three parts of the Godhead are co-equal etc. Whereas it is not evident from Scripture that any infant was ever baptized.

You are making a distinction without a difference. The fact remains that you are coming to the doctrine of the Trinity from implicationand we come the doctrine of baptism including infants from implication.

Implication which I have shown to be false on the premise that the paedobaptist only partially follows their own beliefs.

You demand that there be an explicit reference from the New Testament to order us to baptize infants

No, I don't, I've simply noted that there is none as a further evidence to support my complete claim. The "there is not mention of the trinity in Scripture" defense is most often used by other groups holding non-reformed views, especially Roman Catholics who liken it to Immaculate Conception. It is therefore an overused and unconvincing argument in this debate. Surely if one is to seperate themselves from others on the basis that the others refuse infant baptism, they'll have something more substantial (or at least would consistently follow the logic of their own claims).

yet you are arbitrarily inconsistent with your own demands when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity (among others). YOu have to show me that infants of believers should not be included within the covenent of the Lord anymore. I need an explicit statement from you telling me that infants are no longer to receive the sign of the covenent (again, it is understood to be a sign of the covenent from implication. I will be happy to discuss this reality in future posts if you wish).

The "arbitrary"-ness I was referring to was the arbitrary way in which paedobaptists apply Old Testament rituals to New Testament ceremonies. Paedobaptists abritrarly baptise infants but not employees etc.

Again, answered above.

Brushed aside, perhaps, but not "answered".

I'd truly, truly, love for infant baptism to be true. I'd love to join as a member the church I'm currently attending, yet to do so would be for me to go against my conscience and what the Bible states about baptism. I longed that Lutheranism be correct yet in discussion with Lutherans I found that their views on justification (specifically the universalistic nature thereof) were wholly unfounded.

Likewise when I talk to paedobaptists they quote Scripture partially to defend the practice, they talk about circumcision all the while ignoring the consequences of what they believe. You have, for now, only followed in kind.

As the pastor I spoke with last week said, "yes, we're inconsistent...".

 

[kevken]

Quoting everything again will become very difficult to read so I will try too answer your objections without quoting your previous post.

I believe your objection to many things concerning daughters, slaves, etc...and baptism would be answered if you could be convinced that baptism and circumcision represent the same thing. I will write on that later and a couple of objections now. I don't have much time right now to write.

One can make the conclusion that infant daughters ought to be baptized if we believe that Lydia was a female and if you can be convinced that baptism and circumcision point to the same thing. Just because 2 men have different names does not take away the fact that they are both men. Baptism and circumcision point to the same thing. Just because there is not a verse that says baptism is a sign and seal of the covenent does not exclude the fact that it is.

Belief had EVERYTHING to do with EVERYTHING including circumcision (even though the belief may have not begun until 1 day later or 20 years later). HOwever, now your question relates specifically to circumcision. Yes God demanded the circumsicion of infants, even those He knew would not ultimately follow Him. But His command still stands.

The post at hand is not about salavation but on who is to be baptized. You and I would agree (I hope) that any person throughout history is saved from God's wrath by believing upon Him and having faith in His words (as it relates to Christ however shadowed it was at the beginning of redemptive history). Are you a dispensationalist? If you are then the debate on this topic needs to end and we need to discuss covenental theology vs dispensationalism. We are not going to get ANYWHERE on this topic if you subscibe to a completely diverse view of Scripture where the church of the OT is essentially different from the NT church.

Again, slaves were owned by a Jew whether they were bought or paid. Those that were compensated in some manner (such as their work would pay off a debt) were called endentured servants; and by being endentured they were owned for a certain period of time. And yes, since they were owned they became part of that housefold and God commanded that they be circumsized. YOur analogy is false when you equalize an employee with a slave or endentured servant. If we lived in a third world country where we OWNED a servant that met that biblical definition we SHOULD have him/her baptized. If I owned a business and had employees, obviously I would not baptize them because they do not fit the bibilical definition of a slave or endentured servant.

Concerning the passover celebration (which I am convinced is replaced by the Lord's Table, but that is irrelevant for this discussion), you seem to be mistaking what some Jews may have done in defiance of what God commanded that they do. I don't doubt that Jews without biblical reason at various times circumsized foreigners and the foreigners became part of the camp and partook of the passover. But the answer to your question is a question; did God command the Jews to just circumsize any FOREIGNER or non-Jew before they became a believer in the God that delivered the Jews from bondage?

If the answer is no then the non-Jew had to believe on the Lord and then he would be circumsized then celebrate he could celebrate the passover feast.

If the answer is yes the the Jews simply disobeyed Gods commands.

Baptism is not called a "sign of the covenent" by name but it is implied because it points to the same thing as circumcision. (Again I will cover this later, it is getting late here).

For the sake of staying on baptism, I will grant that the young should receive the elements of the Lord's Table. So let's continue with baptism please.

I agree that even if every person in history performed a particular practice it does not make it right. Only the word of God makes it correct and right. With that agreed upon, it can not and should not be ignored that it is helpful to look and learn from redemptive history as you have already pointed out that you have done.

No, I don't, I've simply noted that there is none as a further evidence to support my complete claim. The "there is not mention of the trinity in Scripture" defense is most often used by other groups holding non-reformed views, especially Roman Catholics who liken it to Immaculate Conception. It is therefore an overused and unconvincing argument in this debate. Surely if one is to seperate themselves from others on the basis that the others refuse infant baptism, they'll have something more substantial (or at least would consistently follow the logic of their own claims).

"...you are arbitrarily inconsistent with your own demands when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity (among others). YOu have to show me that children of believers should not be included within the covenent of the Lord anymore. I need an explicit statement from you telling me that infants of believers are no longer to receive" a sign that points to a clean heart.

I have rephrased my last post in order to clarify. Your response to this was not an answer. It was essentially that Roman Catholics use this argument and it is overused therefore I will not answer.

I have spoken with a baptist pastor and he said "yes we have a glorious inconsistency" with baptism.

 

[Lockheed]

Quoting everything again makes sure nothing is left out. I find that when people do not quote the posts they're replying to they generally aren't concerned with providing a thorough response. I'm not accusing you of that, however, I will quote you so as to show to others reading the thread what I'm replying to.

One can make the conclusion that infant daughters ought to be baptized if we believe that Lydia was a female and if you can be convinced that baptism and circumcision point to the same thing.

There is the rub, isn't it? Does baptism "point to the same thing" as circumcision?

The Bible states that circumcision was a "seal of the righteousness Abraham had while uncircumcised", is it your position then that baptism is a seal of the righteousness Abraham had while uncircumcised"? Keep in mind that Scripture never once changes circumcision's focus from God's promise to Abraham to the individual taking receiving the sign. Therefore, if you believe as you claim here, that circumcision and baptism "point to the same thing", what would be the purpose of being baptized? Are we now baptized as a "seal of the righteousness Abraham had while uncircumcised"?

That's what it was a seal of, that is what it was a seal of for Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael and so forth, it was a sign and seal of God's promise to Abraham, a "seal of the righteousness Abraham had while uncircumcised".

Just because 2 men have different names does not take away the fact that they are both men.

Apples/oranges. We have yet to establish that baptism and circumcision "point to the same thing" much less explain how, if they do point to the same thing, they are now given in completely different and even contrary manners. Herein lies the weakness of the Paedobaptist position, and something you continue to brush away.

If baptism and circumcision "point to the same thing", how can the laws relating to one be only partially applied to the other?

Just because there is not a verse that says baptism is a sign and seal of the covenent does not exclude the fact that it is.

To the contrary, the fact of the matter is that there are in fact signs and seals of the New Covenant mentioned in Scripture. The blood of Christ, given to believers in the Lord's Supper is called "the blood of the New Covenant", in fact it is the only thing in Scripture referred to in such manner, baptism never is and yet, as I've been pointing out and you keep side-stepping, paedobaptists refuse to give the one thing to their infants that Christ does directly connect to the New Covenant! Secondly, the indwelling Holy Spirit is specifically refered to in Scripture as being the "seal", yet no where is baptism given the same status.

So here we have two things, clearly identified in Scripture as being either the New Covenant or a seal thereof and yet Paedobaptists continually refer to something not once mentioned in Scripture as either a sign or a seal of the New Covenant as exactly that.



Yet, when asked about this inconsistancy, the reply is usually "well... the Bible says one has to examine themself prior to partaking the cup...", yet when similar verses are noted about baptism, where is the consistency? Not found.

1 Pet 3:21 "Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"


Act 2:38 "Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Matt 3:6 "and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins"

​

Biblical baptism therefore requires as much personal introspection as the Supper.

Yes God demanded the circumsicion of infants, even those He knew would not ultimately follow Him. But His command still stands.

Yes, and yet Paedobaptists are quick to quote Acts 2:39 in defense of their belief: "For the promise is for you and your children..."

"Aha!" They cry ""for you and your children", see?!? It's covenantal baptism right there!"

Yet they usually fail to quote the rest of the verse: "...and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

Therefore, if a paedobaptist were to be consistent with their interpretation of the Scriptures and properly apply it as they imply they do they would baptize "all who are far off", regardless of their individual faith in Christ, just as you admitted was done in circumcision.

You and I would agree (I hope) that any person throughout history is saved from God's wrath by believing upon Him and having faith in His words...

I certainly hope we would agree, and yet here again is the paedobaptist inconsistancy. Why should one accept the Presbyterian position of infant baptism over the Lutheran view? Both rely on the same verses and concepts... yet one believes it is the water itself that has efficacy and the other does not. Rather than accepting the Scriptures which show the pattern of faith and then baptism ie: "he believed and was baptized", they reject the text of Scripture for appeals to the Old Covenant symbols and types which Paul himself links not to Christ but to Moses and the Law.

If you believe that "throughout history is saved from God's wrath by believing upon Him", why was the sign of circumcision given only to males and not to females and why then is baptism given to all?

Are you a dispensationalist? If you are then the debate on this topic needs to end and we need to discuss covenental theology vs dispensationalism. We are not going to get ANYWHERE on this topic if you subscibe to a completely diverse view of Scripture where the church of the OT is essentially different from the NT church.

It should be perfectly clear that I am no dispensationalist, in fact, it is not I who am attempting to suggest that there was a different pattern in the OT than the New! Recall your own words:

We don't baptize only sons because with the New Covenent it is larger and more inclusive than the previous covenents. "there is neither slave nor greek, neither male nor female...in Christ." Therefore, we baptize our daughters also.

The semi-dispensationalistic view was brought up by you. It is the Reformed Baptist belief that while God's plan of salvation included all who were elect of God throughout history, the sign of the promise made to Abraham and its subsequent application in the Old Covenant economy is only loosely tied to baptism symbolically and the Laws relating to circumcision do not apply to Baptism as it is not an Old Covenant ceremony but "appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Therefore, where the Paedobaptist sees "discontinuity" between the Old and New Covenants in relation to the signs and seals, the Baptist sees that the signs and seals were fulfilled in-toto in Christ and our supernatural regeneration by the Holy Spirit, an "inward spiritual fact which baptism by water signifies" (which language is used even by the Westminister Shorter Caechism.) This then is the Biblical pattern: "believed and was baptized" and "repent and be baptized", Paedobaptists go one step further, however, making it a "seal" thereof, which is an unscriptural addition to the rite and then applying it to infants on the basis of the Old Covenant rite which Paul is certain to sever in Galatians.

The OT saints then are most certainly one with the believers of the New Testament, and likewise the unbelievers of the Old are similar to the unbelivers in the New, in both cases the "tares among wheat" analogy holds, yet this in no way contradict the pattern set forth for baptism in New Testament Scripture of "making disciples" first and then baptizing them.

Again, slaves were owned by a Jew whether they were bought or paid. Those that were compensated in some manner (such as their work would pay off a debt) were called endentured servants; and by being endentured they were owned for a certain period of time. And yes, since they were owned they became part of that housefold and God commanded that they be circumsized. YOur analogy is false when you equalize an employee with a slave or endentured servant. If we lived in a third world country where we OWNED a servant that met that biblical definition we SHOULD have him/her baptized. If I owned a business and had employees, obviously I would not baptize them because they do not fit the bibilical definition of a slave or endentured servant.

This is your distinction, however, I propose that this distinction is not found in Scripture. What exegesis can you provide to prove that non-endentured servants were not to be circumcised?

I'm glad to see that you're at least attempting to be consistent with the text as to baptizing slaves and endentured servants... so why don't you also baptize on the eight day as God commands?

Concerning the passover celebration (which I am convinced is replaced by the Lord's Table, but that is irrelevant for this discussion), you seem to be mistaking what some Jews may have done in defiance of what God commanded that they do. I don't doubt that Jews without biblical reason at various times circumsized foreigners and the foreigners became part of the camp and partook of the passover. But the answer to your question is a question; did God command the Jews to just circumsize any FOREIGNER or non-Jew before they became a believer in the God that delivered the Jews from bondage?

If the answer is no then the non-Jew had to believe on the Lord and then he would be circumsized then celebrate he could celebrate the passover feast.

Why is it irrelevant for this discussion? It is the basis of your claim, why therefore not back it up?

God commands the Jews to baptize those foriegners who partake of the Passover feast with them. There is no discussion of whether or not the foriegners become belivers or not. Please provide exegesis one way or the other.

Keep in mind, however, given your belief that the Passover meal is equal to the Supper, Paedos baptise and then refuse the meal to their own children, funny eh?

For the sake of staying on baptism, I will grant that the young should receive the elements of the Lord's Table. So let's continue with baptism please.

Do you grant this on the basis for the sake of argument or because you believe it? If it is for the sake of argument, then I dare say don't stand here, but explain to us all why the one thing Christ personally identifies with the New Covenant is refused to children, if it is because you believe it, then I congratulate you on being consistent.

Skipping ahead:

"...you are arbitrarily inconsistent with your own demands when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity (among others). YOu have to show me that children of believers should not be included within the covenent of the Lord anymore. I need an explicit statement from you telling me that infants of believers are no longer to receive" a sign that points to a clean heart.

I have rephrased my last post in order to clarify. Your response to this was not an answer. It was essentially that Roman Catholics use this argument and it is overused therefore I will not answer.

Here's the problem... I've never said, nor do I believe that children are not "included with in the covenant". This is a strawman argument and a red-herring intended to draw attention away from the actual arguments I've presented. God saves whom He wills through the power of His word and the work of His Holy Spirit, and not because of the human application of a sign. Hence, as we've both already agreed even women were saved in the Old Testament!

The explicit statements of repentance and/or discipleship occuring prior to one's baptism are throughout the New Testatment, the paedobaptist however has to create a direct and yet inconsistent connection to circumcision by which to make baptism applicable to those who cannot verbally "repent" or "appeal to God for a good conscience."

I again express what I posted previously for clarity and ask you to reply without resulting to strawmen.

As I stated it is a tactic of the Roman Catholics to note that the "Trinity isn't found in Scripture and yet it is true", but this in no way supports their claims of Papal infallibility nor the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Why shouldn't I believe their claims when you use the same methods?

 

[Antman_05]

If Padeobaptism is so right why is it that in the order of things Baptism comes 2nd after ppl repent?
And how can we be riased with Chirst if we haven't the ablity to belive on him for salvation ?

Rom 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father; even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Mat 28:19 Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mar 16:15 And He said to them, Go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to all the creation.16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned.

i'm just asking as these are things ppl have asked me

 

[cygnusx1]

Good... we can debate each other, but when non-Reformed folks show up we have to pat them on the head?

............ I asked a Reformed Baptist (Strict Baptists in England are from a group known as "Gospel Standard Baptists" ) Pastor about the annual Banner of Truth Conference .........

"Does the subject of infant Baptism ever come up " ?

"No , they have ministers from all over the country and the Calvinist Baptists sit down one side and the infant Baptists sit down the other , they NEVER debate or discuss it"


Now on one side , a wise move ................... perhaps .

But on the other side , how sad !

I am still a Calvinist Baptist , my friend has changed into an infant Baptist , and I am not convinced by the arguements for infant Baptism.

Certainly I believe God is interested in Families ..........
Abraham .... Isaac ......... Jacob

The best book I have read is ............. I better not say , someone might go off on one

 

[Lockheed]

I am still a Calvinist Baptist , my friend has changed into an infant Baptist , and I am not convinced by the arguements for infant Baptism.

Again, for the record let me explain... As strongly as I choose to debate infant baptism, I'm currently attending an OPC and dearly love the people there and especially the pastor. I've chosen to attend this church even though there are some 'reformed baptist' churches in the area firstly because I despise NCT and secondly because the legalism and uber-pietism therein.

The best book I have read is ............. I better not say , someone might go off on one

I'd love to have other resources, PM me?

 

[Lockheed]

If Padeobaptism is so right why is it that in the order of things Baptism comes 2nd after ppl repent?

Well, keep in mind that the Paedobaptist will not deny 'believer's baptism' when it comes to adult converts. Thus they view the Scriptures wherein adults are baptised with no difficulty. They believe that because the federal head of the household believes, it thereby is an extension of the covenant family of God. The would still hope to see the children in that family come to a profession of faith in Christ, but the emphasis is not on an individual's experience but on the family. I think this is a good focus, however, we can all point to people who were baptized as infants and either never heard the good news or their family left the church prior to their coming to faith.

I think this is a valid argument when one notes that except in one occasion where "household" baptisms are mentioned in Scripture the fact that the household "believed" is also mentioned. Thus the suggestion that the household baptisms included non-believing infants is undone. As I've argued, however, it would seem that if the Paedobaptist arguments are correct, household baptisms would not only include infants, but would have to include servants, slaves, and non-believing relatives that live in the household.

kevken stated that his church recently had a 'household baptism' but surely it was a modern nuclear-family not an extended family (with servants and slaves) as was in the era of the Apostles. I've never, ever, heard of non-believers being baptized just because they were part of a household. Consider that, if the Paedobaptist arguments are correct, teenage children would also have to be included in any 'household baptism' even if they did not personally believe.

And how can we be riased with Chirst if we haven't the ablity to belive on him for salvation ?

This suggests that Paedobaptists don't raise their children to believe in God. I think this is a strawman argument. A stronger case can be made from the fact that so many are baptized today and later show no evidence of having new hearts and the indwelling Spirit.

Logically, I believe, if one was to carry Paedobaptism to its logical extent, they would have to accept the 'Federal Vision' theology wherein baptism places one in the New Covenant and then requires them to fulfill the conditions thereof.

i'm just asking as these are things ppl have asked me

Perhaps someone will explain further.

 

[Antman_05]

Thanks man

 

[TheMagi]

I, too, have been reading considerably on this issue - mostly paedobaptist books; despite coming very near to being convinced, I am not, and continue to hold with adult baptism.

My reason is simply this: we can prove nothing on solely NT evidence. It all comes down, as has been said, to the relationship between baptism and circumcision, which is quite explicit.
Circumcision was applied to all (as long as they were male) who fell under the terms of the old covenant. Baptism should do the same.
Paul is clear that believer's children are sanctified in some way - but he does not suggest anything specific.
One does not enter into the new covenant until one believes. Presumably people think I go wrong at this point? If so, please enlighten me!

re. the phillipian jailer etc. : a - possibly irreverent - thought.
It may be that Paul and Silas baptised children in his household. It may also be that they did wrong. We know that they, like us, were sinners. It may be that the early church was preserved from such error - but it may also be that it contained error from the first moment men preached it, and that we are shielded from this by the God's inspiration of the word, which transmitted to us what they did that was right, and what that was wrong.

Magi

 

[AndOne]

One does not enter into the new covenant until one believes. Presumably people think I go wrong at this point? If so, please enlighten me!

You might want to take into consideration that even many adults who receive Baptism after their "conversion" will later fall away. So the same line of reasoning can apply to those folks as to infants who are baptized and then grow up to later reject the faith.

The actual sacrament of baptism does nothing for us as believers but simply to symbolize our adoption into the covenant - or more precisely the church.

I would recommend re-reading my eight points (though I have more now) with that in mind. They show why children of believers should be included in this - and not just the newly professed believer.

 

[AngylBelle]

I really appreciate the reseach that you put into this subject Behe's Boy, for I am a believer in infant baptism, but up until recently, it was out of tradition.

After I started dating my Baptist boyfriend, I was introduced to the idea of "being saved" and "reborn." I honestly had never heard these terms before, neither in my family, nor in church. Infant baptism came up as a result of that discussion.

I asked my mom later why it is that she chose to have me baptized as an infant. Her response was that it was her way of giving me to God. Later in life I could keep my faith or reject it, but until that time it was her duty as a parent to see that I grew up in God's grace. Whether or not her reasoning is theological, I do not know, but I view it as a precious gift that she allowed to be bestowed upon me.

Fortunately, I have never not known Jesus, therefore have never required to be "saved" which I suppose in some minds means needing a re-baptism. In my opinion, I am "reborn" in Jesus with every prayer, communion and declaration of faith I make, and being baptized as an infant does not hinder my walk or relationship with Christ. God knows all things. I don't think He cares at what age you are baptized. I feel all He cares about is that you know His love and abide by it. If you come to Christ late, by all means be baptized as an adult. I see neither way as being more correct than the other.

(BTW Behe's Boy, Congrats on your baby girl...Jenna is a strong and willful name...I hope it does your daughter the same justice it has done me.)

 

[AndOne]

I really appreciate the reseach that you put into this subject Behe's Boy, for I am a believer in infant baptism, but up until recently, it was out of tradition.

Thanks for your post - I'm very glad to have been of some help to you. If you guys (your BF and you) are really getting into some heated discussions about this I would suggest you go to www.monergism.com and take a look on the baptism page there. Just go to the left side of the screen and under the topic list scroll down until you hit the section on baptism. You will come across a vast number of articles that look at the topic from both sides of the issue and it might help the two of you resolve some differences.

One thing to keep in mind though - all those articles - wheather for or against padeobaptism are written by Reformed Christians. Your BF may not fall into that category. You might want to see where he stands on the points of grace - which in my opinion is much more important to a blossoming relationship of a Christian couple than baptism is. Just a thought....

Anyway - God bless and thanks again for the post - it was encouraging to read....

Dave

 

[kevken]

The New Testament identifies believing synagogues as churches. James identifies the two in his letter. If a man in filthy rags comes into your synagogue (Jas. 2:2), don't do thus and such. And if anyone there is sick, let him call for the elders of the church (Jas. 5:14). Now when Paul came to Jerusalem (where many of these believing synagogues were), he went out of his way to reassure everybody that he was not teaching Jews to discontinue circumcising their infants. This means, in the short form, that there were New Testament churches that had infant members. A circumcised infant in a believing synagogue was a member of that church. Now if Jewish churches/synagogues had infant members, on what grounds could we exclude infants from membership in Gentile churches? We could not exclude them. But we could say that circumcision was not required for them, because the sign and seal of the covenant was in the process of being changed to baptism. "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek . . . And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:27-29).

The question for our baptistic brethren is this. Are you prepared to maintain that an infant brought to your congregation (formally and covenantally excluded) is in the same position as an infant brought to a believing synagogue in Jerusalem in AD 52? Not only would the believing synagogue not exclude such an infant, I believe that they would have difficulty even comprehending the concept of excluding the infants. And if there was such a generation-long uproar over the inclusion of the Gentiles, what would the commotion have been if the apostles really were teaching the Jews that not only must you start admitting the Gentile adults, but you must start excluding your own children? I have trouble believing that this would not have caused the Mother of all Theological Controversies. But there is not a word about such a controversy in the New Testament.

 

[AngylBelle]

*bump*

Just adding this wonderful thread back to my subscription!

 

[cygnusx1]

............ I asked a Reformed Baptist (Strict Baptists in England are from a group known as "Gospel Standard Baptists" ) Pastor about the annual Banner of Truth Conference .........

​

"Does the subject of infant Baptism ever come up " ?​

​

"No , they have ministers from all over the country and the Calvinist Baptists sit down one side and the infant Baptists sit down the other , they NEVER debate or discuss it"​

​

​

Now on one side , a wise move ................... perhaps .​

​

But on the other side , how sad !​

​

I am still a Calvinist Baptist , my friend has changed into an infant Baptist , and I am not convinced by the arguements for infant Baptism.​

​

Certainly I believe God is interested in Families ..........​

Abraham .... Isaac ......... Jacob ​

​

The best book I have read is ............. I better not say , someone might go off on one ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

I'd love to have other resources, PM me?​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Should infants be Baptised ? by T.E. Watson ​

​

​

​

"this book contains a comprehensive examination of every text of scripture relating to the subject of baptism , with special reference to those used as prooftexts for infant baptism . Also the historical evidence of the first two centuries of the Christian era is thoroughly surveyed.​

Next the author presents a detailed criticism of each of the arguements used by Protestants in favour of infant Baptism .​

Mr. Watson skillfully marshals nearly 200 quotations from over sixty noted infant-baptist authors , to the effect that every arguement used by Christians of that persuasion is refuted by others of THE SAME OPINION ."​

​

 

[Knight]

For another view on this topic...

http://faith.propadeutic.com/baptism.html

 

[heymikey80]

On my own, I was a believer-baptist quite awhile. What convinced me was taking a closer look at another sign of faith (Rom 4:11). It's not simply "tolerated" on infants. God commanded it on infants (Gen 17:12). It's actually the silence of the New Testament that's so convincing to me. God commanded the sign of faith on infants at one time. On what basis could we deny it's appropriate at this time?

Entry into the New Covenant is effectively when God vows to be your God. When a relationship is begun between you and God, then a covenant exists between you.

Baptism is that entry. This is God's signature on the covenant with the one baptized. If you deny Him after setting up that covenant, the end is worse than the beginning (Hebrews 6:4-6). Teachers in the New Covenant are constantly warning you there's a right & wrong arrangement in this covenant, but you can definitely be in covenant with God, and not trust Him. Scary to think, but true.

Heb 4:1-2
"Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."

If we grow up in this covenant, we shall be explicitly in God's charge during this time. We're relying on God's vow to be the God of our children, in helping them to find Him.

 

[heymikey80]

Keep in mind that Scripture never once changes circumcision's focus from God's promise to Abraham to the individual taking receiving the sign.

Hm, surprising to hear that! Rm 2:28-29 comes to mind:
"For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."


The parallels are more striking.

Slaves in the OT were of both types, owned and paid. Either way, they were to be circumcised regardless of faith. Therefore, there is no excuse for you not demanding that your servants, slaves, or employees be baptized. Slaves could earn their way out of a household, none-the-less, yet they were still to be baptized.

In both cases servants were *not* separate families. In modern times the servant does not inherit the household goods. The servant is not treated as a legal minor of the household. The servant may break employment ties arbitrarily and do whatever he wants.

Not so in ancient Rome.

As long as you're willing to adopt the servant as a legal minor, then sure, that servant should also be baptized as part of your household.