Why the Children of Believers Ought to be Baptized

[mama2one]

we'll sign child up next yr for Baptism class for Sunday school participants

 

[Tree of Life]

If Abraham's covenant was the CG, under a different administration, then that means all the members of Genesis 17 would have Jeremiah 31:33. If infants are in the CG, they would have Jeremiah 31:33 and verse 34 (forgiveness of their sins). The passage isn't a command, it is a promise to the members of that particular covenant.

Yes. All who are regenerate saved persons from any era are New Covenant believers. There were New Covenant believers in the Old Testament era.

Yes, Abraham was promised righteousness in his seed, but this referred to another covenant of a different substance, instead of the same covenant administered another way.

Paul and Genesis says that Abraham was actually counted righteous, not only promised righteousness.

 

[Tree of Life]

No, because you’re arguing that baptism is covenantel without faith, like circumcision was for old Israel, but that’s not true.

Circumcision was accompanied by faith in the OT. Any adult wanting to join the covenant had to have faith. Abraham had faith and so did gentiles after him who converted.

Show me one scripture of an unbeliever getting baptized, ever anywhere in scripture.

Acts 10 and Acts 16 in the case of household baptisms.

 

[Dave-W]

There is no New Testament command to not baptize children and to exclude them from the covenant.

That presupposes children of Christians are already IN the covenant, rather than having to choose the covenant for themselves. But the image of the 2 olive trees in Romans 11 shows that to be false. THey are born on the wild tree of destruction and can only be cut off and grafted in once they make profession of faith in our Lord and voluntarily submit to the New Covenant.

I realize that leaves the question of what happens to children who die before doing that. All I can say to that is the scripture leaves that undefined.

 

[Jonaitis]

Yes. All who are regenerate saved persons from any era are New Covenant believers. There were New Covenant believers in the Old Testament era.

Agreed!

Paul and Genesis says that Abraham was actually counted righteous, not only promised righteousness.

Agreed!

I found nothing in this post wrong, but you didn't address my position.

 

[Dave-W]

Acts 10 and Acts 16 in the case of household baptisms.

Huge assumption that there were people in the household that did NOT believe and repent.

 

[Tree of Life]

Agreed!



Agreed!

I found nothing in this post wrong, but you didn't address my position.

Where do you see the disconnect?

 

[Tree of Life]

Huge assumption that there were people in the household that did NOT believe and repent.

This assumption is not all that big considering what oikos meant in the first century.

 

[Jonaitis]

Where do you see the disconnect?

...that the substance of Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are different in substance. Hebrews deals with the discontinuity between the OC and the NC, one referred merely to temporal promises to Israel and the other eternal promises to the Church. I affirm that Abraham, and all the saints of the OT, were of the CG, but the CG was only in promise form spoken of in the various covenants of the OT, which they are given the title "covenants of promise" in Ephesians 2. Look, I got to head to church, I want you to actually read this link.

 

[Tree of Life]

...that the substance of Genesis 17 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 are different in substance.

Since Jesus Christ is the substance of both, I don't see how they are different in substance. They are certainly different in administration. In believing in the promises and shadows, Abraham and Israel believed in Christ the substance.

Hebrews deals with the discontinuity between the OC and the NC, one referred merely to temporal promises to Israel and the other eternal promises to the Church. I affirm that Abraham, and all the saints of the OT, were of the CG, but the CG was only in promise form spoken of in the various covenants of the OT, which they are given the title "covenants of promise" in Ephesians 2. Look, I got to head to church, I want you to actually read this link.

There is not 100% continuity to be sure. The shadows of the OT are certainly discontinuous in the NT. The sign of covenant inclusion changes from circumcision to baptism. May we agree that baptism is a sign of covenant inclusion like circumcision in the OT?

 

[Tree of Life]

That presupposes children of Christians are already IN the covenant, rather than having to choose the covenant for themselves. But the image of the 2 olive trees in Romans 11 shows that to be false.

The children of believers are supposed to be in the covenant in the OT. Since gentiles are grafted into the same covenant per Romans 11, why should not their children be included as well?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Roman Catholics teach that children should be baptized so that they might be justified and regenerated from an early age in baptism.

Baptists teach that children should not be baptized because baptism is reserved only for those who are able to make a credible profession of faith and who are already justified and regenerated.

Both are wrong.

The apostles taught that the children of believers are to be baptized for covenantal reasons. This reasoning is rooted in Old Testament revelation and would be particularly understandable for a Jewish audience. But as the church grew beyond the bounds of Judaism into Gentile lands, the practice of infant baptism was retained, yet it gradually became unmoored from its covenantal framework. Pagan ideas crept into the church and began to influence thinking on baptism and baptism gradually became more magical as the church headed into the medieval era. The Reformation recovered the covenantal setting of baptism. Here's the proper rationale:

1. The Covenant in the OT and in the NT is essentially one, although administered differently. This is to say that both Abraham and the NT believer are in the same covenant of grace. Both Abraham and the NT believer are saved by Jesus Christ - by grace through faith. Jesus fulfills the promises given to Abraham rather than introducing something altogether new.
   
   
2. The children of believers were included in the OT administration of the covenant of grace. Not only Abraham but also his children were given the mark of circumcision and recognized as members of the covenant community. Circumcision was a sign and seal of faith but was not necessarily accompanied by faith in the one circumcised. All in Israel were called to circumcise their hearts.
   
   
3. There is an explicit connection made between circumcision and baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. Paul says that the one who has been baptized has been circumcised.
   
   
4. There is no New Testament command to not baptize children and to exclude them from the covenant. Since the NT administration continues the covenant that God began in the OT, and since in the OT the children of believers were included in the covenant, one would assume that the children of believers should also be included in the NT administration of the covenant. If they were not to be included and given the sign of inclusion, then one would think that the apostles would have explicitly said: "Don't baptize children like you circumcised them in previous times!" But there is no such command. Within a covenantal context, the silence is very telling.

I am not so sure you understand what the "New Covenant" is. It replaces the old Mosaic Covenant that was a type and shadow of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and fulfilled by Him. We have been Rebirth into the New Covenant which is the Body of Christ, in Him. Children being water baptized into this covenant is not scriptural.

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

[Tree of Life]

I am not so sure you understand what the "New Covenant" is. It replaces the old Mosaic Covenant that was a type and shadow of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and fulfilled by Him. We have been Rebirth into the New Covenant which is the Body of Christ, in Him. Children being water baptized into this covenant is not scriptural.

"I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

It actually fulfills the Old Covenant rather than replacing it.

The Bible speaks in terms of a mighty tree which God cuts down, then a shoot of new life springs from that same tree. God didn't plant a different tree in the New Covenant. He caused life to sprout up again from a dead tree stump.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It actually fulfills the Old Covenant rather than replacing it.

The Bible speaks in terms of a mighty tree which God cuts down, then a shoot of new life springs from that same tree. God didn't plant a different tree in the New Covenant. He caused life to sprout up again from a dead tree stump.

Yes I said that through Christ. If your going to mix the old and new. May as well learn what you need to do.
https://havurahshirhadash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mitzvot1.pdf

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It actually fulfills the Old Covenant rather than replacing it.

The Bible speaks in terms of a mighty tree which God cuts down, then a shoot of new life springs from that same tree. God didn't plant a different tree in the New Covenant. He caused life to sprout up again from a dead tree stump.

This may be an interesting read for you.
On the Origins of Tevilah (Ritual Immersion) - TheTorah.com

 

[Dave-W]

All who are regenerate saved persons from any era are New Covenant believers. There were New Covenant believers in the Old Testament era.

That is a false teaching. It flies in the face of Hebrews 8.

 

[Dave-W]

The children of believers are supposed to be in the covenant in the OT. Since gentiles are grafted into the same covenant per Romans 11, why should not their children be included as well?

Because that is NOT how scripture shows the New Covenant to work.

And it most Definitely is NOT the “same Covenant.”

 

[Dave-W]

The apostles taught that the children of believers are to be baptized for covenantal reasons.

Do you have chapter and verse on that?

 

[Tree of Life]

That is a false teaching. It flies in the face of Hebrews 8.

Naw. What's false about it? OT believers were not regenerate or forgiven of their sins?

 

[Tree of Life]

Because that is NOT how scripture shows the New Covenant to work.

And it most Definitely is NOT the “same Covenant.”

Were OT believers saved in a different way than through Christ?