why infant baptism

[Knight]

Is anyone else tired of this topic???

 

[Jon_]

Is anyone else tired of this topic???

Ah, this is not Knight's favorite topic. C'mere ya big lug.

Hey, I know! Let's go over to Soteriology and make fun of the Arminians!!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[edie19]

Is anyone else tired of this topic???

actually, no (baptism is one of my favorite topics) - but out of respect for those who are tired of it, I'll refrain from additional posts on this topic.

edie

 

[edie19]

Ah, this is not Knight's favorite topic. C'mere ya big lug.

Hey, I know! Let's go over to Soteriology and make fun of the Arminians!!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Sweetie,

That sounds like a fine idea - but one question first. Are there Arminian police? I want to be prepared ahead of time if I'm going to be reprimanded.

edie

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Bleh, I misread what was originally posted. That's what happens when I read too fast, which is frequent. No, I don't disagree with Question 161. What tripped me up was the "effectual means of salvation," after which I missed the tie-in, which of course is that the sacraments are meaningless without the work of Christ and the Holy Ghost in them. Of course, the Larger Catechism does not say the sacraments are effectual means to salvation in themselves (or even necessary for the same), but that Christ and the Holy Spirit work through them. What I was objecting to is sacramentarianism, but that is not at all what the catechism expresses.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I wasn't sure.

Is anyone else tired of this topic???

Not me. I'm one of those recent credo to paedo converts that Jon mentioned.

 

[lmnop9876]

Founder of the Church of Satan.

thanks. I knew that, I just couldn't remember exactly who the person was at the time. I should have just googled it

 

[edie19]

Okay, well one is free to think what he will. I just see a great many difficulties for him to surmount if he confirms historic Reformed Covenant Theology because paedobaptism is almost completely integrated into Typology and the proper understanding of who is included in the covenant of grace. I'm thinking that he's probably not quite as covenantal as you might think; otherwise, you too would be baptizing babies.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

OK - here's David's explanation (and to my mind it makes sense and conforms to covenantal theology).

1) Covenant theology states that there was a covenant made first between the Father and the Son. This was a pre-temporal covenant. You may recall that in some of my sermons I have referred to the "Pactum salutis." The Father gave to the Son the elect to save. This He did at the cross.

2) This eternal covenant stands behind the several historical covenants. While there are many covenants, ultimately there is but one promise (Eph 2:12). This was first made with Abraham (really to Adam and Eve in the garden) before he was circumcised (recall the early sermons that I did in Galatians 3) and so the covenant made with the nation of Israel was a temporary and external covenant until the Seed should come.

3) The Old Covenant (OC) anticipates the New at several places. Why? Because the promises were made to Abraham and his Seed, that is Christ and all those and only those that are united to Him by faith alone.

4) When the OC anticipates the NC it speaks of it as a better covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 7:22; 8:6) What makes this covenant better than the first? Here is the Jeremiah passages:

Jer 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD," when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Note:

a. this covenant is *not like* the previous covenant. There is dis-continuity.
b. God writes the law, that is all 10 commandments on the heart of all those in the NC. This is part of regeneration (Eze 11:19-20; 36:25-27).
c. there will be covenant oneness: "I will be their God, and they shall be My people" All those in the NC will have God as their God. Again, recall the elect given by the Father and then promised to Abraham (please see Romans 9:6-16 with John 1:12-13) This covenant oneness entails:
i. there is no need of teachers in the NC. That is, there is no need for those that would instruct others to "know the LORD", because every (from the least to the greatest) NC believer *will* know God (John 17:3).
ii. all NC people have their sins are forgiven.

How does baptism relate. Here is what the WMC (a paedobaptist confession) says of baptism:

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

To this (except the language of sealing) Reformed Baptist say AMEN! Notice that this statement blends perfectly with what is said about the NC. Regeneration (a new heart). Remission of sins. Engrafting into Christ. Newness of life. These are all true of NC believers. Full stop. At this point the WMC and the LBC are in full agreement.

The mark (baptism) of the NC belongs only to those that share in the above realities. So, unless one is willing to say (like Rome) that baptism communicates these graces, baptism is for the elect sons (seed) of Abraham the believer.
​

Also:
http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html

Now I know I told Knight that I'd stop posting in this thread - but I did want to share the above explanation (since I had previously said I would). But now, I'll probably stop posting here (until I change my mind again).

edie

 

[Knight]

Ah, this is not Knight's favorite topic. C'mere ya big lug.

Hey, I know! Let's go over to Soteriology and make fun of the Arminians!!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

Cute....

Seriously, we go round and round on this and get precicely nowhere. Scholars and theologians smarter than you or I (or anyone else on this thread.... no offense) have debated and discussed this for a long, long time and made exactly the same progress we have.

None.


Anyway, post away if you like. It really makes no difference to me. Though it does seem that there are far more important things to discuss....

 

[mlqurgw]

If I might impose myself a little here; The historic Baptist view of Baptism and the Lord's supper is not that they are sacraments but that they are ordinances. I believe the difference lies in believing in whether grace is imparted in the acts. I do hold to a belief that God is a covenant God and see all the other external, temporal covenants as as outworking, if you will, of the Covenant of Grace. I do not hold to Covenant Theology as it has been historically upheld and that is what makes me not Reformed. I believe some may have termed it modified covenantal. As far as infant baptism goes, I don't see the connection with circumcision and baptism. I am familiar with the argument from Col. but just don't see it.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Once understood for what it is, a sign only, objections should disappear. Even in the case of adult baptism there is no guarantee that the heart has been regenerated, is there? Adult baptism following rebirth is a public confession of faith, and infant baptism is a public confession of the parents faith, not the infant's.

I would only add, that an infant baptism is not only a public confessio of the parent's faith and their commitment to raise that child in the grace and admonition of the Lord, but also is a public confession on the part of the congregation to be committed to the raising, nurturing the child's spiritual welfare, teaching of that child in the grace and admonition of the Lord.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Cute....

Seriously, we go round and round on this and get precicely nowhere. Scholars and theologians smarter than you or I (or anyone else on this thread.... no offense) have debated and discussed this for a long, long time and made exactly the same progress we have.

None.


Anyway, post away if you like. It really makes no difference to me. Though it does seem that there are far more important things to discuss....

I can understand this, but I think the real benefit might not be so much for the participants in the debate, but rather more for those who watch it. I have had much benefit from reading and listening to debates on baptism by great scholars/theologians, and also by everyday folk, especially online. Don't you debate Arminians online for the same reason?

 

[Imblessed]

I sent you a PM.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

jon,

I didn't get the pm....could you resend it?

 

[Bob Moore]

actually, no (baptism is one of my favorite topics) - but out of respect for those who are tired of it, I'll refrain from additional posts on this topic.

edie

Allow me to suggest that those who are "tired of it' are free to move on to other things. It may not be the case here, but that sort of complaint frequently is better translated as "I can't refute you, so please shut up".