|Joshua,
I was giving you examples of where they were looking at the conduct of these persons in reference to whether or not their was evidence of the indwelling spirit, not for their baptism.
What I meant before was, after the apostles were gone from the first century and signs of the apostles ceased. I believe it would be more difficult and might take some time to see what was easily seen in Acts 10:43-47

43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

They saw it. it was instantly visible. Not so today.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Your point doesn't apply to the conversation at hand. We're talking about withholding baptism from children who profess/confess faith. Both you and Michael have said this is a wise thing. I'm still trying to get where you have biblical support for this.

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I'm talking about withholding baptism. Not observing the fruit of a person (or lack thereof).
What of Simon the Magician? Did they miss him? Do you suppose everyone the Apostles baptized was regenerate?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I am not sure you are asking the right question here? Were baptisms which were performed by the apostles and church fathers always correct? Could they have done something they regretted? Peter did some things he later regretted. Even doctrinally. So could they have regretted they baptized Simon the magician. I am not sure that Simon didn't just have a lapse into sin and greed because he pleads with Peter to pray for him.

If a child's profession/confession meets up with their life, by george go ahead and baptize.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

That's the whole point, Randy. Plus you have to define 'correct'. Since we can't have final knowledge of a person's election, I think it presumptious to put some kind of waiting period that can't be substantiated by scripture.
They "could have", but the text doesn't tell us that. Furthermore, they fault his confession on HIM, not their discernment (or lack thereof) of his profession.
But the text doesn't tell us why he asks Peter. Is it out of slavish fear, or genuine repentance? We don't know.
And just how long do you observe to see if it "meets up with their life" before letting them be baptized? 2 months? A year? What if they have "a lapse into sin" during this time? Does this mean their profession wasn't real, thus you withhold baptism, and now even wait for another profession/confession...but this time hope it's a "credible" one?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I think there are some culturally significant factors that are being overlooked here.

Historically, and geographically, it is dangerous to be identified as a Christian. That, in and of itself, it a major deterrent to being baptized. Here it can easily be a social "blessing," so to speak. If my friends are doing it, then I want to also. It's just what we do. Say a prayer and be baptized. After all, how many have you baptized this year? Because of these factors baptism has become muddled in many circles within our country, and I'm sure many other countries.
In China to be baptized can be your warrant for arrest. If you are Jewish then you can be considered dead by your family. If you are from a Muslim family you can be killed, beaten or ostracized. If you're in a Catholic family you can be disowned. Etc. But if you're a typical American family you might get a certificate and party for being baptized.
In most of the world there can be difficult ramifications if one is baptized. That, in and of itself, is a deterrent to false professions resulting in the baptism of the unregenerate. Of course it's not fool proof. But it is a factor. Here there is no such deterrent. It's socially acceptable, and encouraged in many circles. It makes one need to consider baptism from a slightly different perspective. This is the challenge we face when children are involved. The last thing we want is to give them a false sense of security, as if baptism was some sort of magical spell or something.
Case in point - A friend just returned from Croatia. A young girl, about 14, has professed that she believes what is being taught, but she refuses to receive Christ. When asked why, she said her parents, Catholic, would not allow it and would kick her out of her family. We simply don't have to face this sort of pressure here. For her, to be baptized would be to become an orphan.

Another consideration is that baptism is an essential part of the Gospel. We divorce it for some reason, as though it is parenthetical. We want to get to sin, guilt, the cross and forgiveness, but often forget to identify Christ with the one we're witnessing to, and identify him with Christ. Does baptism portray this or not? If so, then why do we not weave it into our evangelistic efforts so that this confusion is less likely? I hadn't thought about that until just recently when a missionary friend of mine said that this is what they do. In doing so the one being witnessed to will have a clear understanding of the commitment being made by their profession through baptism.

Finally, it seems that the wrong question comes up repeatedly in regard to credo/paedo. Paedos agree that new believers should be baptized, so they see no fault in the Baptist position of baptizing believers. They take issue with us not baptizing infants. We have nothing to defend. We practice believers baptism, which all agree on. The claimant says that infant baptism is Scriptural. The burden of proof falls 100% in their lab to prove, incontrovertibly, that Scripture clearly teaches infant baptism. If they cannot then their is no debate. If they can then there is no debate. From our perspective they're still looking for a few good verses.

Well, it's late and I'm tired too. I hope my musing made sense.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

There are no good reasons for a baptist to withhold baptism from a child who professes faith.

Adults are often more coy and able to hide their true heart.

Children belive what their parents tell them. I mean, they even believe in Santa Clause. They honestly and truly do - if that's what they've been taught. None of us would say that they don't believe in Santa. But, when it comes to Jesus, we say that they cannot believe this. But why not? God made them to function properly when they believe and listen to their parents (this is expecially helpful when we tell them not to drink bleach!).

Given my view of warrant and knowledge, I don't see any reason to say that a child who has been taught by their parents that they are a sinner, that they need Jesus as their only hope in life and death, doesn't really believe that. Now, the only thing lacking is a big emotional experience where they walk down the isle and prostrate themselve's, "prooving" that they are probably on eof the elect.

Lastly, it's the example of the Bible - immediate baptisms, that is. I see no warrant to include all these speculations about people in the times of the Apostles being really sincere. In fact, this should undermine the profession = probable election argument all the more. In the time when professors were supposed to have made the most credible of professions, apostacy and turning away seemed rampant! After all look at Hebrews. Look at Paul pointing out how many have forsaken him. I can keep going.

The point is, I see no warrant to withhold baptism from someone who professes. In fact, to do so really undermines the Baptist's other argument from Scriptural examples i.e., "everyine who was baptized repented and believed." To use this as normative, but not the other -immediate baptisms - smacks of arbitrariness.

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

The idea that my child was able to have a "valid" conversion at a young age but that it was better to "wait" to give them baptism was always a major cog in my theological wheel as a former credobaptist. I knew all the "reasonable" and "pragmatic" reasons why they should wait....but the reality was that I was looking for adult like faith in a child - when God Himself uses a child's faith as the example of what adults should possess! That was a serious chastisement to me. I was teaching my child that adult like faith was not only the goal but the bar for my child - who was obviously unable to reach that as a child! I was teaching them that the the church would only "validate" (through baptism) adult faith. To me, that was teaching that my child was not worthy of the kingdom YET....

__________________
*~Dawn~*
Reformation Fellowship OPC, CA

This is really the crux of the matter. It is not working faith that justifies, but receiving faith.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Paul - as a Baptist, I concur. I would be in agreement with a statement made by Bruce:

If the profession is credible (meaning that the profession displays satisfactory evidence of being real) then baptism should be administered without undue delay. I would apply this rule to believing children and adults as I see no material difference in the work of faith in anyone who believes.

That still leaves us with an inherent credo-paedo disagreement, and I am at peace with that. But it seems, at least to you and I, that we have an agreement on not withholding baptism to a child who has made a credible profession.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

We are agreed. And, we both disagree with credobaptists Mark Dever and Charles Spurgeon! For Dever's view, read his chapter in "Believer's Baptism" edited by Schreiner and Wright.

But, just to be fair, both you and I agree with eachother about the proper subjects of Lord's Table and disagree with Paedobaptists G.I. Williamson and Vern Poythress!

Anyway, Bill, it looks like we only have about 2.5-3 yrs. to whittle away at before you become a paedo! :-)

__________________
Regards,

P.M.
PCA
Suffix

Funny Paul....I was gonna say the same thing to you?

I may disagree with Dever and Spurgeon, but I believe I am faithul to the 1689 LBC.

Peace, brother!

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Does anyone have any new thoughts concerning the subject matter of this thread?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

I haven't read the whole thread, but I see this controversy among Baptists as being similar to the issue of young child (not necessarily paedocommunion) issue among Presbyterians, where there is increasingly a move to accept "age appropriate" professions from young children and admit them to the table. Some of those advocating this, like Raymond, are doing it to get as close to paedocommunion as their church permits and others are opposed to paedocommunion. Likewise, some baptists like Paige Patterson and Mark Dever have referred to the increasingly popular practice of baptising pre-schoolers and kindergardeners as essentially late stage paedobaptism.

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church
Mandeville, LA

"Faith alone saves, but it is a faith that works." - S. Lewis Johnson

I'm still curious as to what biblically qualifies as a credible profession of faith.

Also:

Where is there biblical substantiation to wait a certain amount of time when someone does give a 'credible' profession? That's very subjective, IMHO (without biblical substantiation, I mean).

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box