Give me one positive command to baptize infants please - Page 2

PuritanCovenanter · #41 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Hendrikus Stander and Johannes Louw are not "paedo baptist theologians." They are credo baptists who live and work in South Africa, and are members in a paedo-baptist Reformed denomination of that part of the world.

Randy, it wouldn't be fair to call you a paedobaptist believer, just because you once were a (convinced credo-) member of a PCA church, and say that your stuff proves how open-minded some paedos can be.

I was told these guys were paedo's by someone I trust. I will check it out more thoroughly. I was also a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. I never ever held to a paedo position and everyone has known that. I have always made that known. My point wasn't that they were open minded but that they were historical.

I will get back on this and go back and retract every instance I said this after I truly find out. Sorry If I am incorrect.

Jim_Johnston · #42 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.
Thanks, brother.

Jason, I covered that, as well as the ambigous use of the word "command." You would first have to clear this up. Depending on how commands are considered, we can (a) easily provide a command (as I did in my debate, for example) or (b) you would be forced to hold to absurd conclusions like (i) the Bible doesn't command people not to do abortions, (ii) the Bible doesn't command me in particular to repent, (iii) etc.

Jim_Johnston · #43 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Matthew 28 teaches baptism of disciples within the nations.
Acts only records baptisms of those who had professed faith in Christ. Yes some were false professions like Simon, but all were professions none the less. Even if children are assumed to be baptized when whole households are baptized, there is no credible exegetical reason to assume that those were not believing children.
Romans 6 refers to the fact that those who are baptized are dead to sin and alive to God, set free from the bondage of the old self. That can only refer to believers.

1) Matt 28 teaches to disciple the nations, by baptizing and teaching. You're making the "them" refer to a "verb." How is your interpretation grammatically proper.

2) To say that Acts only records Baptisms of those who professed faith is to beg the question.

And, to say that if there were children in the household, there is no credible reason to assume that they were not believeing, i.e., professing faith as well, is to make an unargued assertion.

3) Romans 6 refers to all those in Ch. 5 who asked if they could keep sinning because of Grace. Paul nenver meant to imply that every single person in the world really was dead to sin (baptismal regeneration) and Paul never implied that he *assumed* this either. Romans 6 is about introspection anyway, not us judging our neighbor as to whether they have died to sin.

So, I don't quite think you have a case.

Jim_Johnston · #44 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

In Acts 10:57-48, Peter asked an important question, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who had received the Holy Spirit?" The obvious answer was no. But what if Peter had asked, "Can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people who have not received the Holy Spirit?"?

Why not the unbelieving spouse of 1 Cor. 7? Maybe we should baptize them since the unbelieving spouse hasn't denied Christ or rejected their spouse's faith -- they just haven't made a profession yet.

Jason, you're arguing fallaciously:

You're taking what is found in Acts:

(*) All who have received the spirit were baptized

And trying to make it be used to support this logically disctinct proposition:

(**) Only those who have received the Spirit may be baptized

Not only have I shown your view about conversion as interchangable with baptism to be false in my first post in this thread, your move is logically unwarranted. Logic and Scripture may both be used together. If one has a true Scriptural position, it won't rest on making illigical moves. So, there is a difference between (*) and (**). You've demonstrated (*) but not (**). We are asking you to demonstrate (**). So far you're trying to make that demonstration via invalid inference. Like this:

(*') All those who have been president of the USA have been white males.

(**') Only those who are white males may be president of the USA.

See the error in your reasoning?

Jim_Johnston · #45 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Bruce, still waiting. Use either the OT or NT, narrative or whatever else you wish.

Jason, still waiting for you to be clear and precise in your language. If commands can be given by inferences, then we have no problem what so ever. To act this cocky, while ignoring obvious defeaters for your position, only serves to undermine your credibility as a cautious thinker who wants an honest discussion.

Jim_Johnston · #46 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Galatians 3:27 says that if you have been baptized into Christ then you have put on Christ. That can only be true of regenerate people. The assumption is being made by Paul that you are regenerate based on you profession of faith. But neither the Biblical writers nor paedo's assume that the infant is regenerate.

This, as Baptist Ben Witherington III says, is talking about spirit baptism. I proved that a disctinction existed in the minds of the authors of Scripture in my first post in this thread.

Second, and then just after that he tells the "regenerate" people the above he tells them

4:11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

5:7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth?

Indeed, why talk to "regenerate" people this way:

Heb. 3:12-14 (along with other warning passages in Hebrews) is emphatically clear that we might ultimately fall away, and so thus we need to daily encourage one another to continue in belief. Paul calls this the “good fight of faith” in 1 Tim. 6:12 and exhorts Timothy to “take hold of the eternal life” (6:12) and to “hold faith” (1:19), because some had already “made shipwreck of their faith” (1:20), and some have “abandoned their former faith” (5:12), and others have “swerved from the faith” (6:21). This is why he exhorts Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (4:16) This is why so often Paul and other Scriptural authors do not boldly assure their readers of their personal sharing in Christ, rather they hold out before them their duty to persevere. See all the conditional statements in the following statements: Col. 1:23–”if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and stedfast,…”; 1 Cor. 15:2–”by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you–unless you believed in vain”; Heb. 3:6–”and we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope”; Heb. 3:14–”we share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end”; John 8:31–”if you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples”; Mark 13:13–”the one who endures to the end will be saved”; 2 Tim. 2:12–”if we endure, we will also reign with him”; Rom. 8:13–”if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”; Gal. 6:9–”in due season we will reap [eternal life (see 6:8)], if we do not give up”; Heb. 12:14–”holiness without which no one will see the Lord”; James 2:26 (with 14)–”faith apart from works is dead” and “can that faith save him?”

Some baptists say that these are merely a “means” God uses to keep his elect in the covenant. Well, this is not the universal position because reformed baptists like Roger Nicole, and Wayne Grudem, among others, disagree with it. But, even if these passages are a means of perseverance for the elect, and thus hypothetical warnings for them, since it is read to the entire church, and since there are some non-elect in these churches, what purpose do these warnings serve for them? Indeed, even though non-elect cannot repent and believe the gospel, the gospel call is still a sincere and well-meant offer for them. Are these warnings real warnings for everyone they are read to? Furthermore, why would we take these warnings seriously if we viewed ourselves as regenerate? Since it is impossible for a regenerate to apostatize, why should he take the warnings seriously? I mean, since it is possible that fire could shoot out of our eyes, how serious would we take someone who told us to watch out(!) and make sure we didn’t burn our house down? How much less serious should we take a warning about something that is impossible for us to do? We wouldn’t take serious a warning sign in the middle of the Sahara Dessert which read “Keep off the Grass!”, would we?

Jim_Johnston · #47 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

New Covenant baptism is not the same as circumcision.
If you go there, you are opening yourself up to loads of inconsistencies that have been documented already.

Define "the same." Paedos don't think that we use knives to baptize people. So, we have never thought that they were "the same."

Let's quote credo-baptist Paul Jewett though:

Quote:

“If anyone will look a little more deeply beneath the surface, he will perceive that the Old Testament is clearly concerned with the theological and ethical meaning of circumcision, which, as elaborated in the New, lies to close to that of baptism to be depreciated. […] This ethical and theological meaning, as the New Testament interprets circumcision, is not lost but taken up in the meaning of baptism (p. 86).

Paul describes the Ephesians as uncircumcised in the spiritual sense, that, prior to their conversion, they were apart from Christ. But if to be apart from Christ is to be spiritually uncircumcised, ‘alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise,’ then to be in Christ must be to possess those blessings which circumcision in the flesh was no less certainly the sign of in the Old Testament than is baptism in the New. …[O]ne can hardly doubt that baptism has the same essential significance [as circumcision] for Christians in the New Testament (p. 87-88).

[T]he only conclusion that we can reach is that the two signs, as outward rites, symbolize the same inner reality in Paul’s thinking. Thus circumcision may fairly be said to be the Old Testament counterpart of Christian baptism” (p. 89).

Jim_Johnston · #48 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

And by the way, it is in that very same passage that Paul confirms that the circumcision of Gen. 17 is meaningless in the New Covenant. So you must find a new verse to support your paedobaptism.

Meaningless for salvation... yes, we agree. Paul was correcting the misuse of circumcision. Let's note what he also says:

Romans 2:28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

What! Paul just said that infants received a sign that was not merely outward and spiritual!!!! In fact, did Jews believe that they had all been truly circumcized? With the above, Paul decimates almost every point you've made about "true baptism" and it not being "given to children."

This wasn't new teaching. This was the way it was always supposed to be.

Jim_Johnston · #49 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Rich, Simon was assumed to be regenerate based upon his confession, thus he was baptized. Then they found out they had made a mistake. This neither caused the church to stop baptizing professors for fear of further mistakes. Nor did it cause the church to just baptize everyone that associated with them. In fact, Peter said that Simon was had no part in the Covenant community even though he was baptized!!! Hmmm. I thought baptism gave you entrance into the covenant community so that you could be brought to faith.

Actually, no, you're wrong. Simon was given the sign of covenant inclusion. If he was believed to be regenerate, then why did the apostles have to go there and baptize them all with the spirit? They could have sat all comfy in their homes back in Jerusalem. I mean, when they were leaving and their wife asked, "Where are you going?" And they said, "Philip baptized some people with water and so we're going to baptize them with the Spirit." Wouldn't the wife have responded the same way Schreiner et al respond: "What, you mean there's a difference?" I can hear her now, "He's been baptized, don't you assume him to be regenerate? Paull said all Baptized have died with sin. Paul said all baptized have been clothed with Christ. You're confusing my theology hubby!" {note: Yes, I know Romans and Galations wasn't written in the time of Acts 8}

Wannabee · #50 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 11:03 AM

Thanks Bruce,

Good comments. You seem to have completely understood my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Joe (brother),
I did try to emphasize, but I tried not to SHOUT!

And I think, except for that part about church history {early, late, whenever; its about interpreting the evidence in front of us; like creationist and evolutionist, the raw data is indeterminative of anything} that I agree with your basic closing comment: I don't have a nice, neat, single "verse" for my position. Where is your verse? We each have exegetical arguments. The bit about eisegesis, and pitting systematics against exegesis is something out of the liberal playbook; you can do better than those assertions.

In regard to systematic vs. exegesis, I didn't say that. We rely on systematics and it is a vital part of our interpretation. My point was the clarity of believers baptism vs. the challenges of infant baptism. One is so simply taught in Scripture that, as you have admitted, there is no need to dig into it. It's "uninteresting." No systematics are really needed. The doctrine is deaper than surface level and conducive to systematic study. But the practice does not need systematic study to understand it. This is not so with infant baptism; again, as you had noted. As for the hermeneutical application of history to support your claim, you'll have to hash that out with other presbies. I've heard some admit to it, but don't need to stand on that hill.

I'm curious about something; If circumcision is the same as baptism then why don't you baptise by the 8th day?

As for Andrew's question, go ahead and keep circumcising.

Obviously, Paul had something to say about this. This brings up another question, if circumcision is the same as baptism, then why did Paul have Timothy circumcised? If your claim is true then his circumcision is extremely superfluous.

Rich - great comments on Abraham. You'll find my understanding less dispensational than you think, but more than you're comfortable with. But the circumcision made without hands (try baptizing without hands

) is the circumcision of the heart. Again, it's ALL of God. From this point of view infant baptism introduces a human element in the plan of salvation through works. This is why I see so much of a problem in this statement of yours; "Parents are still aided by God in the conversion of the Elect." Though there is a nuance of what you say that I agree with, I could never state this. Parents are a means by which God converts children, absolutely. But your statement seems to turn His sovereignty in election into a rite we can exercise. And your word for administration, unless I misunderstood something, is the same as dispensation.

The Galatians passage is helpful in that it pictures baptism in the Spirit. One must be baptized into Christ before one receives the baptism of Christ. The second is a picture of the first. And the first makes one of the seed of Abraham. I hope that's not too anti-dispensational.

Judas is not a good example - if he was baptized (and I assume he was) then it was by the baptism of John. This is not the same as the baptism of Jesus.

Also, Rich, at what age would you put a rebellious child out of the church? I found this comment intriguing.

Again, we will get back to the attempt to prove that circumcision equals baptism. Not wanting to steer this thread, but perhaps it would be good to rehash this. Methinks that it will result in an impass and, again, we'll depart thinking the other simply doesn't get it and won't let Scripture speak for itself. This brings up another interesting thought - if, as I (and others) claim, circumcision does not equal baptism, then the paedo understanding of infant baptism completely unravels. Thus, you have to hold on to it or your theological basis begins to fall apart. This brings up another important question - If Covenant Theology, as some assert, necessarily arrives at infant baptism, is infant baptism a result of CT, or is it the cause. In other words, was a CT perspective the result of a presupposition of infant baptism? I don't have the historical knowledge to know for sure. But, from what I have studied, it is a valid question.

44jason · #51 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 12:29 PM

Manata, out of respect to the Moderators and to keep my promise that I would not continue to converse with you if you did not change your tone, I am not going to respond to your many comments above. Out of courtesy, I wanted to remind you of this so that you did not think I could not answer your questions.

I hate that it has to be this way with you. But your tone has shed bad light on me that I do not desire or deserve.

Jim_Johnston · #52 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 12:50 PM

Jason (notice I refer to you by your first name),

I'm not writing for you. I'm writing to show others how we can deal with your questions. I'm not bothered if you don't respond. I've had no tone other than to defend myself against public misrepresentations and false acusations about my position. It's too bad that correcting someone's false accusations is called, "a bad tone."

Furthermore, in the above comments can you cite where my "tone" was bad? You said you wouldn't converse with my if I didn't "change my tone." This implies that my above "tone" (btw, don't know how one deciphers "tone" from reading "words") is in need of change. Would you care to substantiate your charges from what I've said above? Since you've just accused me of having a "bad tone" in this thread, and since this board does not tolerate false accusations, I'd appreciate you substantiating your charges. If not, then it does appear that you're not responding because of the substance, rather than the tone, of my comments. I may be off, though. I'm sinful just like the next guy. So, where in my above comments was my "tone" so bad that it was in need of "chang?" Again, you mad an accusation, I'm asking you to substantiate your accusation.

44jason · #53 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 12:55 PM

Paul,
All I will say is the Moderators opinion about this matters more to me right now than your continued taunts.
Sincerely,

Jim_Johnston · #54 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Paul,
All I will say is the Moderators opinion about this matters more to me right now than your continued taunts.
Sincerely,

The above was not a "taunt." You accused someone. Do you belive that you should not substantiate this? I will not let you falsely accuse me. I'm sorry if I gave you the opinion that you could make false allegations against me and not have me respond.

44jason · #55 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 01:11 PM

Again, I am trying here guys. Please note.

Paul, Nowhere above are any "allegations" much less "false allegations." But with that little important fact said, I will respond to you at FIDE-O out of respect for the moderators here who feel uncomfortable with this "back-and-forth."

Jim_Johnston · #56 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Again, I am trying here guys. Please note.

Paul, Nowhere above are any "allegations" much less "false allegations." But with that little important fact said, I will respond to you at FIDE-O out of respect for the moderators here who feel uncomfortable with this "back-and-forth."

Trying what? I'm not doing anything.

Now, Jason, you said this:

Quote:

Manata, out of respect to the Moderators and to keep my promise that I would not continue to converse with you if you did not change your tone, I am not going to respond to your many comments above.

This, as we all can see, logically implies that my above "tone" is in need of "changing." This is why you won't "respond" to my "above comments." Thus, if my "tone" was "changed" then you would reply to my "above comments." Therefore, you are not responding to what I said in this thread because of my "tone." If the 'tone" was "changed" then you would "respond," but, since my "tone" is "not changed" you are, therefore, not going to respond.

Jason, you seem to confuse attacks on your position, and what you say, as attacks on your person. Please don't take things so personally. Just so you know, I call a spade a spade. If you state that my position is X, when it is not, then I cry foul. That's not a personal attack against you. Try to differentiate the two.

JM · #57 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44jason

Randy, thanks.
Bruce, I like concise comments -- yours are the best! Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.

You said:

Quote:

Just as you must accept that my Scripture-stance is that it most positively IS commanded.

Give me one, please. Thanks.

{ADMIN Note: The debate thread is long enough. Moving to a new thread to discuss in detail.}

Two pages and not one verse yet.

mangum · #58 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Two pages and not one verse yet.

The verse is to be found right after the one that says baptism is to be given to adult professed believers only.

I don't know the chapter and verse off hand but its in the same chapter that says that with the appearance of the Messiah, God has now cursed children and has cut them off and cast them aside to be accounted with the philistine children. They are now his enemies.

...around there or so.

non dignus · #59 (**permalink**) 08-27-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Two pages and not one verse yet.

Acts 2:14;38,39

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying , "Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem.....

....Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him."