Why the Children of Believers Ought to be Baptized

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
No, I do not believe that to be a valid baptism. Everywhere in scripture you see the 2 listed together, baptism is ALWAYS preceded by repentance. Can a baby repent?

Ok so a Jewish convert can baptize their babies and that baptism is valid. But a gentile convert cannot baptize their babies. Your view is sounding stranger and stranger. Doesn't it sound strange to you once we tease it out to this point?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
That is speculation, which is dangerous.

Jesus himself said that the Scriptures are about him (John 5:39). Paul says that Christ is the substance of the Old Testament shadows (Colossians 2:17). What's speculative about what I've said?
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus himself said that the Scriptures are about him (John 5:39). Paul says that Christ is the substance of the Old Testament shadows (Colossians 2:17). What's speculative about what I've said?
You Asked about Abraham And Moses. What they thought.

THAT is speculative.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Your view is sounding stranger and stranger.
I am sure that to you it does seem strange. Calvinist and Messianic doctrines are very far apart. Wesleyan Arminian is closer, but still not a perfect fit.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You said it was speculative to say that the OT Scriptures are about Christ.
I did not say that At all.

Either you worded your post poorly or I misread it.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I did not say that At all.

Either you worded your post poorly or I misread it.

Let's rewind.

You say that OT believers could not have been saved by Christ because they didn't know him by name.
I demonstrated how Jesus taught that they did indeed know him. Jesus said that Moses wrote of him and Abraham saw him and rejoiced.

After that the conversation deteriorated as you accused me of speculation.

So how is it that OT believers were not saved by Christ, especially in light of Jesus' words?
 
Upvote 0

Sola1517

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
Jun 27, 2016
574
200
29
Don't ask
✟20,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
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.
Mmhmm. Okay...
  1. What is a covenant?
  2. Is a covenant made on an individual basis with the elect?
  3. How is the covenant established?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
What is a covenant?

A bond in blood sovereignly administered.

Is a covenant made on an individual basis with the elect?

The covenant is made with Jesus Christ and all who are in him. There are both individual and corporate aspects.

How is the covenant established?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. But I would say it is established by the blood of Christ.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sola1517

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
Jun 27, 2016
574
200
29
Don't ask
✟20,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
A bond in blood sovereignly administered.
Okay.
The covenant is made with Jesus Christ and all who are in him. There are both individual and corporate aspects.
Sorry if my wording is weird.

I'm not sure I understand how in this new covenant we can have a corporate aspect. Israel was an actual nation, whereas the elect today, although not all Israel was in fact regenerated, are from all nations. So the old covenant was corporate, and the new is individual.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. But I would say it is established by the blood of Christ.
Jesus created the new covenant, but how does that covenant get applied to the individuals within the elect?
 
Upvote 0

marineimaging

Texas Baptist now living in Colorado
Jul 14, 2014
1,449
1,228
Ward, Colorado
Visit site
✟90,207.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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 believe that if you continue your studies you will understand more about baptism so that just calling everybody wrong - is just wrong in and of itself. In the past I had opportunity to believe both ways until I began to understand that our God is far more intelligent than any human on earth. Even more wise than Solomon, more capable than Moses, more faithful than Daniel or David. The bottom line is that God knows our hearts and He knows and embraces us with the integrity of our souls. I know that the door to Heaven eternal is through Jesus. Not by virtue of any ritual or practice. Our salvation lies in our love and desire to know the way, the truth, and the life. Now, show us where the way, the truth, and the life is through any device other than that of belief in Jesus, the Christ and I will listen.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Sorry if my wording is weird.

I'm not sure I understand how in this new covenant we can have a corporate aspect. Israel was an actual nation, whereas the elect today, although not all Israel was in fact regenerated, are from all nations. So the old covenant was corporate, and the new is individual.

I disagree. Jesus saves a church and creates a spiritual nation, a kingdom of priests as Peter says. This body of elect forms a visible society on earth which includes both regenerate and non-regenerate people.

Jesus created the new covenant, but how does that covenant get applied to the individuals within the elect?

By the Holy Spirit working whensoever he wills. Baptized people become members of the covenant in an external sense. They become members of the visible church. But only the elect become members of the covenant in the truest sense.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,526
✟320,837.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
Actually in Catholicism there's a corporate aspect to salvation as well as an individual one. We suffer and pray and stand in for others. Love of neighbor is the motivation. Whole households could ultimately be saved by a believer's actions -Acts 16:33. And the baptized one is still obligated if and when they reach the age of accountability to walk in their baptismal vows, to believe on their own. Meanwhile it's said that the faith of the community stands in for the infant, baptism being known as "the sacrament of faith" as it constitutes both obedience to Jesus's command and the first formal public confession of faith. But nowhere does one gain entrance into heaven simply because they happen to be in the right crowd as your theory seems to assert.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sola1517

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
Jun 27, 2016
574
200
29
Don't ask
✟20,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I disagree. Jesus saves a church and creates a spiritual nation, a kingdom of priests as Peter says.
True.
This body of elect forms a visible society on earth which includes both regenerate and non-regenerate people.
Mmm. So what make one a member of Christ's body?
By the Holy Spirit working whensoever he wills. Baptized people become members of the covenant in an external sense. They become members of the visible church. But only the elect become members of the covenant in the truest sense.
And why would I give people a false assurance about their covenant status?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Mmm. So what make one a member of Christ's body?

Faith and baptism. Baptism alone makes a person a member only in an external sense. Jesus taught that there would be many who are in him who bear no fruit and will be cut off (John 15). Faith makes us members of Christ in the fullest sense.

And why would I give people a false assurance about their covenant status?
You wouldn't. The children of believers have a special covenant status. This doesn't mean they are certainly saved, but it does mean, as Paul says, that they are holy and they are called to repent and believe (1 Corinthians 7:14).
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It was believed early on. But I would suggest that this is a result of pagan influences and not biblical influences.
I do not think pagan had a theology of regeneration; no second birth for them just the Elysian Fields or doom in Hades. Maybe some exotic religions had a notion like that 'rebirth' but not for infants, just for initiates. Where do you get these ideas?
 
Upvote 0

Sola1517

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)
Jun 27, 2016
574
200
29
Don't ask
✟20,250.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Faith and baptism. Baptism alone makes a person a member only in an external sense. Jesus taught that there would be many who are in him who bear no fruit and will be cut off (John 15). Faith makes us members of Christ in the fullest sense.
But if regeneration precedes faith how can a non-regenerate be a member of that? Perseverance of the Saints ought to be a contradiction to the idea that people will be cut off after they are truly members of Christ's church.
You wouldn't. The children of believers have a special covenant status. This doesn't mean they are certainly saved, but it does mean, as Paul says, that they are holy and they are called to repent and believe (1 Corinthians 7:14).
You see, I think that means that a person's character can change even without their heart changing spiritually. I wouldn't call those people holy because holiness is a quality that means set apart unto God. If those people are not regenerated then how can they be holy?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I do not think pagan had a theology of regeneration; no second birth for them just the Elysian Fields or doom in Hades. Maybe some exotic religions had a notion like that 'rebirth' but not for infants, just for initiates. Where do you get these ideas?

Peter Leithart has written several articles arguing for this point. His most robust essay can be found in this anthology. He relies on the work of several other scholars who have demonstrated pagan connections to baptismal regeneration. Apparently the idea of conversion and renewal was actually pretty important in certain forms of paganism. I don't have the book on hand now so I can't reference the scholars he depends upon, but I can look it up later tonight.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
But if regeneration precedes faith how can a non-regenerate be a member of that? Perseverance of the Saints ought to be a contradiction to the idea that people will be cut off after they are truly members of Christ's church.

Regeneration does precede faith. So in that sense the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ and faith is the immediate result or evidence of this union. But it's also possible to be united to Christ and members of his church in an external sense. We all know people who are members of the church for a season but later fall away. They were not truly regenerate, but they were truly members of the church for a brief time.

You see, I think that means that a person's character can change even without their heart changing spiritually. I wouldn't call those people holy because holiness is a quality that means set apart unto God. If those people are not regenerated then how can they be holy?

There are several ways that the Bible uses "holy". One can be holy in a certain sense and yet not holy in another sense. The children of believers are holy in that they are born into believing homes, subject to Bible teaching, subject to godly discipline, and in that way set apart from other children.
 
Upvote 0