Some thoughts on baptism and covenant

[Cajun Huguenot]

I guess my biggest hang-up with infant baptism at this point is that I believe you can be baptised as an infant but then later reject Christianity in your life - which indicates to me an absense of salvation - particularly in the case of the non-elect. The question here is ultimately - do we want to bestow the sacrament of baptism to the unregenerate?

I'm sorry but a person cannot communicate his or her own salvation (being chosen) as an infant. So couldn't we as parents be playing a type of spiritual roulete when we have our infants baptised? Although we hope and pray diligently for the best - we have no way of knowing the true calling of our children until they are older. Which brings me to my next point - that since we don't know the status of our infants eternally why do we assume them to be saved and have them baptised? It seems more logical to me that the sacrament of baptism should be the choice of the individual and not his or her parents.

Now - I do not reject infant baptism - for those who are truly saved. In fact I fully accept it. I believe the sacramant holds the same meaning for both infants and adults - and I certainly do not believe it is an essential to salvation (as the Westminster Confession confirms). To the infant who is baptised and is unregenerate however - it means nothing and is useless - and I have issues when it comes to dispensing the sacraments to the unsaved, wheather it be communion or baptism.

I'm still studying the issue - so I do not completely have my mind made up on the issue - but you can see how I am currently leaning.

Good morning Behe's Boy,

Circumcision marked one out as being in covenant with God. It was a sacrament of the Old Covenant. It was also a sign of FAITH as paul makes clear in Romans. Still God had Abraham apply this sign of faith to ALL the males in his household.

We know for a fact that Esau rejected the Lord, yet he too had recieved the sign of faith and covenant membership.

IT is God who makes the standard for His Sacraments and not us. God's promiseS and His signs have always been to "you and to your children." I find it interesting that so many Christians (INCLUDING MYSELF AT ONE TIME) think that at the very time that God is dramatically expanding His Kingdom and Covenant people (bringing in all nations) that at that very same time, God removes the Children of His People from the Covenant and withdraws the sign of Covenant membership from them.

I know what you are saying above. I struggled with these very same issues twenty years ago. I hope you will look at the issue in the light of God's covenant and His covenant promises.

I still have seven more point counter points to put on the other thread. I hope this and perhaps those will help you in your struggle.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Cajun -

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where circumcision is specifically mentioned in conjunction with Baptism?

I can understand how you would make the comparrison - but I don't think the two are ever interrelated at any point in the New Testament. Maybe I am wrong on this - which is why I'm asking for the reference.

I'm thinking you should post those other seven counterpoints - QUICK!

 

[theseed]

The sign of being in God's Covenant is a renewed heart, not baptism. You can only enter God's Covenant of Grace thorugh regeneration. Baptism is a proclamation of faith and obediance to Christ. In The Book of Acts, everbody who is ever baptized, always makes a profession of faith first.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

The sign of being in God's Covenant is a renewed heart, not baptism. You can only enter God's Covenant of Grace thorugh regeneration. Baptism is a proclamation of faith and obediance to Christ. In The Book of Acts, everbody who is ever baptized, always makes a profession of faith first.

That is certainly the Baptist position. I don't think it is the biblical position. If I did I would still be a Baptist.

TheSeed, you must assume that every individual in the household baptisms mentioned in Scripture, had made a profession of faith. This is easy to do if we begin our understanding of household in Acts and not in Genesis.
This is what seperates Baptist Calvinists from other Calvinists.

We believe we must understand the New Covenant from Genesis onward this naturally leads us to paedobaptism. Our dear Baptist brethren begin their understanding of this in the New Testament, which naturally leads to believers baptism only.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[theseed]

TheSeed, you must assume that every individual in the household baptisms mentioned in Scripture, had made a profession of faith. This is easy to do if we begin our understanding of household in Acts and not in Genesis.
This is what seperates Baptist Calvinists from other Calvinists.

I've not said anything about Genesis. I am basing my claims on Acts. Why do you provide some Scripture that supports your position, and I will explain why it does not?

We believe we must understand the New Covenant from Genesis onward this naturally leads us to paedobaptism. Our dear Baptist brethren begin their understanding of this in the New Testament, which naturally leads to believers baptism only.

Malone starts from the Old Testament, and thoroughly explains why the Baptist position is the most Biblical one. But, you wouldn't know that unless you read the material I gave you.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I've not said anything about Genesis. I am basing my claims on Acts. Why do you provide some Scripture that supports your position, and I will explain why it does not?

Malone starts from the Old Testament, and thoroughly explains why the Baptist position is the most Biblical one. But, you wouldn't know that unless you read the material I gave you.

Hello Again,

I think you will find that I give plenty of Scriptural support for what I wrote, both here and the thread to CoffeeSwirl. Calvinistic Baptists and Reformed Christians have disagreed on how these things are understood for several hundred years now.

I read Malone a number of years ago ( I think I mentioned that to you) as well as Reisingers Abraham's Four Seeds. I think they are wrong. There are very fine Christians on both sides of this divide.

I hope you have read the lead article to this thread and the one to CoffeeSwirl. We may or may not change one anothers views but we can atleast understand where the other is coming from.

You wrote "Why do[n't] you provide some Scripture that supports your position, and I will explain why it does not?" I think I have already in he lead article. You may start there and tell me why you think I am mistaking.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[AndOne]

Good morning Behe's Boy,

Circumcision marked one out as being in covenant with God. It was a sacrament of the Old Covenant. It was also a sign of FAITH as paul makes clear in Romans. Still God had Abraham apply this sign of faith to ALL the males in his household.

We know for a fact that Esau rejected the Lord, yet he too had recieved the sign of faith and covenant membership.

IT is God who makes the standard for His Sacraments and not us. God's promiseS and His signs have always been to "you and to your children." I find it interesting that so many Christians (INCLUDING MYSELF AT ONE TIME) think that at the very time that God is dramatically expanding His Kingdom and Covenant people (bringing in all nations) that at that very same time, God removes the Children of His People from the Covenant and withdraws the sign of Covenant membership from them.

I hate to be redunant since I made this same response on the other thread - but I am putting it here in response to the above quote as well. Take your pick as to which thread you want to reply on:

I think its a mistake to put infant Baptism on par with Circumcission. That appears to be what you are doing, Cajun - at least from looking at the first three points of MrWonder and your subsequent rebuttals.

In Galations Chapter 5 Paul puts circumcission within the context of the law (contrary to the statement that it is a sign of faith) and specifically speaks out against it as it pertains to justification. For this reason alone any relationship between Baptism and Circumcission should be shunned. Since Gal 5:3-4 makes it clear that the man who receives circumcission is under obligation to the whole law and in essence severs any relationship with Christ.

I respectfully disagree that infant baptism is a correct act on the basis of it being an extension or other form of the covenant of circumcission. It is just too close to putting ourselves (or our kids) back under the obligation to obey the law for justification - rather than Christ. Its an argument for infant Baptism I wouldn't make.

 

[theseed]

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (Rom 2:28-3:3)

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

What is the circumcision of Christ? It is a renewed heart, it is being quickened by the Holy Spirit to life everlasting. Therefore, Baptism does not correlated to circumcision of the flesh, but circumcision of the heart.

“

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Paul here is showing that if a spouse becomes a believer, then there marriage is legitimate. This is why they don't have to be divorced. So, such children and spouses are holy for the sake of Marriage, but not for the sake of entering God's Covenant of Grace.

The only other use of akatharta in the New Testament in reference to a person is in Acts 10:28. There Peter told Cornelius, not yet a believer in Christ, that God had instructed him to consider no man akatharta. Although Cornelius was a God-fearer and might be called "holy" for the sake of the fathers (Rom. 11:16),

http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

​

 

[Knight]

I believe that ordinarily it is an essential part of Salvation. Now I mustsay but, and the "but" here is tied to the word "ordinarily" In the Westminster Confession of Faith's (WCF) section on baptism we read:
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

We see something related to your question WCF XXV:2. Here we read:
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.

All those in the church have been baptised. If you are not baptised, than you are not a member of Christ Church. And this alone is where salvation is found (ordinarily). There can be, and there have been exceptions to this rule, but I think they are rare. The Thief of the Cross comes to mind as the first of these exceptions.

So, must some one recieve water baptism? There are rare and limited circumstances where the believers may come to Christ, and not receive this important sacrament before they die, but I think it is rare indeed.

I hope I have answered the question.

Dominus Vobiscum,
Kenith

I did not ask if you believed baptism is essential.

I asked if you believe infant baptism to be essential. Ie: Must Christians believe and practice this.

 

[Beoga]

Good discussions - and one very relavant for myself - as I have a baby on the way - due date = 9 February!

congratulations!!!!!
7 days after my bday, february is a great month!

gosh, i hate challenging topics that i dont get and i have no time to research and understand!
thanks guys for providing information, now i get to look at both sides of the issue

 

[Beoga]

cajun-
i was baptised when i was seven, i might have been saved, i might not have, i dont honestly know. lets say i wasnt, does my baptism still count?

 

[AndOne]

cajun-
i was baptised when i was seven, i might have been saved, i might not have, i dont honestly know. lets say i wasnt, does my baptism still count?

Hiya littleapologist (and thanks for the congrats earlier) - I know you addressed this to Cajun but I wanted to jump in and re-iterate the question - since one of my sons was baptised at the age of six!

I guess one reply would be that it would count if you are one of the elect and not so if not. Which leads me back to my origonal concern with infant baptism - (see my first post on this thread).

I'm still very undecided on the subject personally - though as stated before I think its a very bad idea to connect the sacrament of Baptism to the covenant of circumcission - (see my second post on this thread).

 

[theseed]

Hello Magi,

Most Baptist I know (and I was one myself for about 16 years) do not see baptism as a covenant act or as a sacrament. I'm glad to know you see it differently than most. I assume it is because you are a Calvinistic Baptist.

You said "I view it as a covenant, and as a covenant that is fundamentally different from that of the old testament." That pretty much explains why you are not a paedobaptist. We disagree. We can discuss that if you like.

I disagree with your last paragraph. I am not in the Zwinglian wing of Reformed thinking. When it comes to the Sacraments I favour Calvin's position.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

I've also known Baptists who consider Baptism to be a sacrament (in the Protestant sense) and a eucharist (Or The Eucharist).

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hey Folks,

I see there as been a good deal of traffic here since my last post on this thread. I was busy Saturday and my wife and I attended a Mardi Gras (Krew) Ball last night and I just haven’t had a chance to get back here (I gave more detail on my blog).

Behe’s Boy- Circumcision and baptism are tied together in Col. 2: 11,12.

Knight- I do believe that it is right and proper to baptise all children of believers, but even though I believe my Baptist brethren are in error, God is still merciful and remembers His covenant even though my Baptist brethren misunderstand this important teaching. 1 Cor 7 says that the children of just one believing spouse is holy/a saint. If the Father were a pagan he may not let the child be baptised, but God will keep His promise.

Seed - Ultimately God’s Covenant people have always been those with a "circumcised heart." This is not new to the New Testament.
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.. (Deut. 10:16)

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live (Deut. 30:6)

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench [it], because of the evil of your doings. (Jer. 4:4)

Like most things about the Bible, this is not a new Concept that only appears in the New Testament. God’s people in the Old Covenant were to have circumcised hearts too. His people who did not have circumcised hearts were "not My people." This has always been true.

I think that covers some (though not all) of the points y’all brought up. I do hope to address them all here or on the other thread as I am able.

I notice that Seed points to Acts (Which is a wonderful book) and in doing so he makes my point. He begins his understanding of baptism starting with Acts. I think that is a mistake. Baptism is as old as the Covenant with Moses. In Heb. 9:10 we read of the various "washings" (Gk: baptismos) of the Old Covenant. Remember the Pharisees did not ask John the Baptiser "What are you doing?" because they knew what he was doing. They wanted to know by "what authority" was he baptising.

Baptism has replaced circumcision as the sign that God’s people must receive to be seen as His people outwardly in the world. No Baptist Church that I know will give Communion to an unbaptised person. Why? Because Communion is for the People of God and only baptised persons are outwardly seen as the people of God. We all know that not all Baptised people are saved. This is true whether you believe in believers "only" or paedobaptism. But most all Churches see Baptism as placing you (outwardly) as a member of God’s people, thats why they only allow baptised peoples receive Communion.

I have those seven post to add to the CoffeeSwirl thread. I think I will place some of them when I finish this one.

This is getting a bit long so I will stop here and try to address other items later.

Dominus Vobiscum,

Kenith

 

[TheMagi]

Circumcision and baptism are tied together in Col. 2: 11,12.

Linked but not the same:

11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

This verse doesn't say baptism is a 'new circumcision' - if anything, it may say that both the burial through baptism and the raising in christ through faith are 'circumcision'. This links together baptism and faith, into a single whole, which could be used to support the baptist position quite easily.

Magi

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Linked but not the same:

This verse doesn't say baptism is a 'new circumcision' - if anything, it may say that both the burial through baptism and the raising in christ through faith are 'circumcision'. This links together baptism and faith, into a single whole, which could be used to support the baptist position quite easily.

Magi

Hello Magi,

I was asked if they are ever linked in the New Testament. They are. The verse is not a stand alone argument for the paedobaptist position. It has "a" part in the discussion.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[TheMagi]

Ok - sorry! I had thought that the original argument (which to be honest, I can't remember, and I don't have time to check...) made it matter somehow!

Magi