Thread: Household salvation -- Split from Credobaptism and Raising Families

Taylor Ortwell's thread "Credobaptism and Raising Families" generated some excellent discussion. Towards the end of the thread the subject of children of believers being more likely to be saved than children of unbelievers was was brought up. See -- HERE. Responses were provided HERE and HERE. I believe the discussion will prove profitable if opened up for all to participate.

In the thread "What difference does Baptism make since Credo-Baptists train their children?" Cesar (discipulo) attached a sermon preached by Charles Spurgeon on household baptism from a credo perspective. Thanks go to Cesar for sourcing this wonderful message. Spurgeon certainly had no paedo inclinations. If anyone is confused as to his position on baptism consider this quote from his sermon titled, "Household Salvation."

If you have come to the cross, and all your hope is placed there, then come and declare that you are Christ's. Touch not the ordinance till you believe in Jesus Christ: it may work you mighty mischief if you do. The sacramentarianism, which is so rampant in this age, is of all lies I think most deadly, and you encourage sacramentarianism if you give a Christian ordinance to an unconverted person. Touch it not, then, until you are saved. Until you are believers, ordinances are not for you, and it is a sacrilege for you to intrude yourselves into them."

The answers I provided to Rich's question in the "Credobaptism and raising families" thread left something to be desired. I stand by the intent of what I said, but certainly could have acquitted myself better in the manner in which I expressed my thoughts. I defer to Spurgeon on the matter. Regarding household salvation Spurgeon writes:

"Far oftener, however, it happens that the God who is the God of Abraham becomes the God of Sarah, and then of Isaac, and then of Jacob, and though grace does not run in the blood, and regeneration is not of blood nor of birth, yet doth it very frequently - I was about to say almost always - happen that God, by means of one of a household, draws the rest to himself. He calls an individual, and then uses him to be sort of a spiritual decoy to bring the rest of the family into the gospel net."

The question was asked, "Is this the historical Baptist position?" I answer honestly, I don't know. Is Spurgeon historical enough? Spurgeon cites the 17th century Baptist, John Bunyan, and his work, "Pilgrims Progress" as a treatise on how household salvation takes place. First Christian, then followed some time later by his wife Christiana and his children; all these come to faith, albeit at different times and in different ways, but all through the same means -- the hearing of the gospel.

It seems that God does work through families in calling sinners to repentance. Indeed, Spurgeon writes:

"We rejoice to think of whole families enclosed within the lines of electing grace, and entire households, redeemed by blood, devoting themselves to the service of the God of love."

But while Spurgeon believed God works his grace in believing families, it was not consummated until the sinner believed.

Obviously there is going to be a measure of agreement and disagreement among credos and paedos re: household salvation. The issue has been laid out. The only thing missing is discussion.

Bill,

If you have come to the cross, and all your hope is placed there, then come and declare that you are Christ's. Touch not the ordinance till you believe in Jesus Christ: it may work you mighty mischief if you do. The sacramentarianism, which is so rampant in this age, is of all lies I think most deadly, and you encourage sacramentarianism if you give a Christian ordinance to an unconverted person. Touch it not, then, until you are saved. Until you are believers, ordinances are not for you, and it is a sacrilege for you to intrude yourselves into them."

This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.

The question was asked, "Is this the historical Baptist position?" I answer honestly, I don't know. Is Spurgeon historical enough? Spurgeon cites the 17th century Baptist, John Bunyan, and his work, "Pilgrims Progress" as a treatise on how household salvation takes place. First Christian, then followed some time later by his wife Christiana and his children; all these come to faith, albeit at different times and in different ways, but all through the same means -- the hearing of the gospel.

I might be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, Bunyan had all of his children baptized, and their baptismal certificates were found in his house. I recall hearing this from my old Baptist pastor, Bill Downing, in one of his sermons. Can anyone verify this?

ANYwho, just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Bill,

This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.

Adam, Spurgeon would not have confused the physical nature of the OC with the spiritual nature of the NC. The sign of the OC was not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sign. It was applied to all males who were part of the covenant people of God (Israel). While Spurgeon does not specifically mention paedo baptism in the quote cited, other opinions of his leave no doubt as to his position. Consider this quote from the same sermon:

"We have a few such men, full of the Holy Ghost, but, alas, we have too many other converts, who are rather tinctured with grace, than saturated with it, and to whom sprinkling is a very significant ordinance, for it would appear they never received anything but a sprinkling of grace."

It seems Spurgeon is saying that there are those who were baptized as infants who, through their baptism, received their full of grace, for their life shows no evidence at all of faith. He wasn't calling paedobaptism a means of grace, but rather, a deficient form of grace because it wasn't met with belief.

I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households. James White in the Shisko debate repeats a pretty popular argument that Christ practically promises that relatives will end up having to hate each other within a family to prove that there is no familial connection with election and that each person in the NC comes one at a time.

I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His means flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.

I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Bill,

This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.

Adam, Spurgeon would not have confused the physical nature of the OC with the spiritual nature of the NC. The sign of the OC was not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sign. It was applied to all males who were part of the covenant people of God (Israel).

Bill,

This is perhaps a main point of contention. I don't think that the N.T. writers regarded the OC as physical, and the NC as spiritual; I think that is a distinction that Scripture does not make. For instance, Moses preached the gospel to the Israelites in the wilderness, and forsook the riches of Egypt for Christ. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. By faith, David subdued kingdoms, turned the armies of the enemy to flight. Paul cites the faith of such saints as confirming the central tenants of his gospel in Romans 4. Clearly, the OC is not carnal.

Also, the NC is more physical than you may realize. God promises that we will own the whole earth, and that the wicked will be dispossessed. We are pilgrims and strangers, and are also heirs of all things with Christ. We have been promised the whole earth and all nations will serve our King. Peace on earth. God is still the God of families and households; this didn't change in the NC, and is nowhere spelled out. To the contrary, every time we read about families in Acts and the epistles (for example) we read about them believing together, being baptized together, serving the Lord together, bringing children up in Christ, that our children are numbered among the holy people, that they are part of those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam

Rich,

First -- please understand that this is a subject I am actively working through. My arguments are not intended to be water tight on this specific issue.

I don't believe there is any doubt that God works through families. Gen. 3:15 introduces the first familial connection of the parents progeny being in covenant with God. The "seed of woman" in Gen. 3:15 is the Messiah Himself, so obviously there was no need for Him to be saved. But the precedent was set that salvation would come from this family line.

Deut. 5:7 introduces the command to teach the word of the Lord to "your sons." I hold firmly to Spurgeon's view that "grace does not run in the blood." We can argue about whether a child is/is not a disciple, but it's clear that the word of God was to be taught. I would argue that when the word is met with belief, then the child is able to appropriate the spiritual truth the word contains (1 Cor. 2:14,15; 1 John 2:21).

Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?

-----Added 1/1/2009 at 11:32:03 EST-----

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Bill,

This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.

Adam, Spurgeon would not have confused the physical nature of the OC with the spiritual nature of the NC. The sign of the OC was not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sign. It was applied to all males who were part of the covenant people of God (Israel).

Bill,

This is perhaps a main point of contention. I don't think that the N.T. writers regarded the OC as physical, and the NC as spiritual; I think that is a distinction that Scripture does not make. For instance, Moses preached the gospel to the Israelites in the wilderness, and forsook the riches of Egypt for Christ. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. By faith, David subdued kingdoms, turned the armies of the enemy to flight. Paul cites the faith of such saints as confirming the central tenants of his gospel in Romans 4. Clearly, the OC is not carnal.

Also, the NC is more physical than you may realize. God promises that we will own the whole earth, and that the wicked will be dispossessed. We are pilgrims and strangers, and are also heirs of all things with Christ. We have been promised the whole earth and all nations will serve our King. Peace on earth. God is still the God of families and households; this didn't change in the NC, and is nowhere spelled out. To the contrary, every time we read about families in Acts and the epistles (for example) we read about them believing together, being baptized together, serving the Lord together, bringing children up in Christ, that our children are numbered among the holy people, that they are part of those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam

Adam, I appreciate your view of the NC but won't go too in-depth as to the credo-paedo distinctions of the NC, other than to point you to Galatians 3:7, 16, 29 as to the spiritual seed (not the physical seed). We can certainly bog ourselves down with a myriad of rabbit trails and I'd like to see if we can stay on topic.

Originally Posted by Herald

Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?

Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

I thought Douglas Kelly made a great point in Systematic Theology II on the RTS iTunes. He noted that he often goes to some Churches and hears all about what the ordinances are not (thinking of the Lord's Supper) but then the minister stops and never explains what it is. It seems that Baptists are really good at saying what their children are not and not very good at fleshing out what that "blessing" consists of when it comes time to give account for it.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Originally Posted by Herald

Adam, I appreciate your view of the NC but won't go too in-depth as to the credo-paedo distinctions of the NC, other than to point you to Galatians 3:7, 16, 29 as to the spiritual seed (not the physical seed). We can certainly bog ourselves down with a myriad of rabbit trails and I'd like to see if we can stay on topic.

Bill,

Thanks! Indeed, there is a myriad of points to discuss. However, I believe that the fundamental questions of NC vs. OC etc. determine how one answers the household salvation question. Also, I think that Galatians 3:7, 16, and 29 were true in the OC as well, to which purpose Paul states that Isaac, at 8 days was a child of promise (Gal. 4:28). But again, not to derail the thread.

Cheers,

Adam

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Thanks for sharing this...I have often avoided reading certain books on eschatology because I was already a Calvinist and I knew those tricky Reformed folk are just too dang smart and would dupe me into becoming an Amiller and I would have to start "not taking the Bible literally," like I did with historic premill And, of course, I was right...I am now about 99% converted to amill.

I feel similiar about the baptism issue, and I am working on breaking down the walls I have in place. If God wants me to be a Paedo, I will...that is yet to be ascertained though. Tradition has very thick walls.

Originally Posted by Hilasmos

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Thanks for sharing this...I have often avoided reading certain books on eschatology because I was already a Calvinist and I knew those tricky Reformed folk are just too dang smart and would dupe me into becoming an Amiller and I would have to start "not taking the Bible literally," like I did with historic premill And, of course, I was right...I am now about 99% converted to amill.

I feel similiar about the baptism issue, and I am working on breaking down the walls I have in place. If God wants me to be a Paedo, I will...that is yet to be ascertained though. Tradition has very thick walls.

Will, interestingly enough my baptismal position has solidified, not weakened, even though my eschatology has been in flux. My counsel to you is to proceed cautiously when dealing with baptism. I am sure my paedo brethren will agree. It's a major shift and you want to make sure you have thought it out well. You don't want to be going back and forth.

I understand I can’t and probably don’t speak for all RBs, but I do not see any inconsistency between a Baptist position and believing that God still blesses households in the NT and that the children of believers are privy to special blessings from God. Or, to put it very, very crudely, the children of believers are more “likely” to be elect.

While I will admit in some ways I am still working things out, at present I would even go so far as to say that I think the way Christians in both testaments treat their children is exactly the same. There is no change. In both testaments there were children born to godly parents who turned out not to truly be children of God in a spiritual sense. But in both testaments there was the general, not absolute expectation that if parents performed their duties diligently, their children could be raised to fear the Lord. I believe Col 3:21 and Eph 6:4, which Joe Johnson quoted in the other thread, are enough to show us that the particular blessings and promises associated with the children of believers apply equally in the NT.

Adam wrote in an earlier post:

If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside?

I would answer that the very fact that the sacrament has changed for circumcision to water baptism (if you hold to a relationship between the two, which at the moment I do not), shows that there has been a change in the sign. And if God wants to change the ordinances of his church, there is no reason why that would disadvantage the children of NT believers. The fact that our children today are not baptised, if it is God who has chosen to deny them baptism – for now, is no more disadvantageous to them than being denied the Lord’s Supper until they believe, or than for a female child in the OT to be denied circumcision.

Originally Posted by Herald

Adam, I appreciate your view of the NC but won't go too in-depth as to the credo-paedo distinctions of the NC, other than to point you to Galatians 3:7, 16, 29 as to the spiritual seed (not the physical seed). We can certainly bog ourselves down with a myriad of rabbit trails and I'd like to see if we can stay on topic.

Agreed that we should stay in the topic, but to be consistent with the Whole Counsel of God, we must recognize this topic is not independent from Covenant and Sacrament hermeneutics.

Originally Posted by satz

I would answer that the very fact that the sacrament has changed for circumcision to water baptism (if you hold to a relationship between the two, which at the moment I do not), shows that there has been a change in the sign. And if God wants to change the ordinances of his church, there is no reason why that would disadvantage the children of NT believers. The fact that our children today are not baptised, if it is God who has chosen to deny them baptism – for now, is no more disadvantageous to them than being denied the Lord’s Supper until they believe, or than for a female child in the OT to be denied circumcision.

Satz, for the reason mentioned above, I encourage you and all of us, to also read the other Split from the thread by Taylor Otwell, started with a relevant question of Pergamum, one that is in fact closely tied with this topic, «What difference does Baptism make since Credo-Baptists train their children?» and the answers posted there by Semper Fidelis (Rich)

What difference does Baptism make since Credo-Baptists train their children?

This is a very interesting thread, there are several theological areas where I have come to believe that my initial (possibly culterally based) convictions are not in fact biblical.

I am not in any way suggesting that these issues are necessarily linked or indeed form a trend but for me issues such as free will, external membership of the covenant of grace and household salvation have forced me to adopt an initially counter intuitive position that I now come to realise from continued study do have a very strong internal logic, specifically from a monergistic viewpoint.

The reformed position is best able to tackle such issues because of the centrality of systematic theology that forces such issues to be addressed in their proper biblical context. One of the problems with paedobaptism is that all too often it is defended outside a theologically systematic context and becomes what is in essence a tradition. Now Baptists have been around in numbers for a few hundred years they are starting to fall into the same trap.

It is always encouraging when these great questions are looked at in there proper context, no matter which conclusioin is eventually reached.

Originally Posted by discipulo

Agreed that we should stay in the topic, but to be consistent with the Whole Counsel of God, we must recognize this topic is not independent from Covenant and Sacrament hermeneutics.

Cesar, you bring up a good point, but in threads of this nature too many sidebar discussions tend to derail the thread. That's one of the inherent problems with baptism and baptism-related threads. In regards to baptism, The Presbyterian view of the sacrament is summarized in the phrase, "The sign applied to a promise yet", whereas the Baptist phrase is, "The sign applied to a promise kept." Presbyterians apply the covenant sign to a child believing he will come to faith. Baptists apply the sign upon a credible profession believing the individual has come to faith. Both camps will readily confess that their respective views of the sign does not guarantee salvation. There are reprobates in the Presbyterian camp and false professions in the Baptist camp. These reprobations do not negate the significance of the sign, nor its proper application. They simply underscore the reality that the hidden things belong to God.

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Amen, Bill!

I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Amen, Bill!

I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.

I get it! The Baptism threads tend to "go off the deep end".

It is a Baptist inside joke...

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Amen, Bill!

I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.

Ivan, I've decided to take a more vigorous role in moderating baptism threads. There is no reason for good folks such as yourself to feel put off by the explosive nature of this topic. There is much profit in dialog of goodwill over matters that greatly effect the church of Christ. This does mean baptism forums are necessarily a gentle place. Civility does not mean emasculation. There are times (and rightly so) when a point needs to be hammered home, not gently tapped. That's acceptable so long as it is not done with malicious intent. Participants also need to cite sources and back up imperatives and declarations. In short, considering the historic gravity of the topic, it should be treated with a serious mind and charitable heart.

Originally Posted by KMK

Originally Posted by Ivan

Originally Posted by Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much semper reformanda in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.

Amen, Bill!

I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.

I get it! The Baptism threads tend to "go off the deep end".

It is a Baptist inside joke...

Originally Posted by Herald

Cesar, you bring up a good point, but in threads of this nature too many sidebar discussions tend to derail the thread.

Absolutely, that’s why I encourage to follow the other threads that are related. Actually we had already started some sharing on this topic on a former debate, but it developed on a broader band, so to speak, and it was difficult to focus. So I would like to re post some sources here.

On Household salvation, I find very helpful the commentary on Luke 19 by

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) Puritan Pastor and a member of the Westminster Assembly

When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth his covenant to Zaccheus family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' vs. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, then salvation had come unto him and them all, because they all were sons of Abraham by birth (if Jews) as well as he. So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth, so now being converted, is therefore called a 'son of Abraham' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son (which is the point I allege this for), to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham, whose house at the first giving of that covenant, even children and all, were circumcised and saved upon that ground, Christ intending now he should go in to eat with him, to convert his household also.

emphasis mine

Cesar, with deference to Thomas Goodwin, there is no consensus that Zaccheus was a Gentile. Goodwin writes, about Zaccheus' ethnicity:

So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth...

But Gill writes:

So that this man, as appears by his name, was a Jew, though some have thought him to have been a Gentile {c}, perhaps because of his employment: but it does not follow from thence; for there were Jews that were publicans, as Levi, or Matthew, afterwards one of Christ's disciples; and also in Jewish writings, mention is made, as of yrkn okwm, "a stranger", or "a Gentile publican" {d}, so likewise of larvy okwm, "an Israelite publican" {e}; and such an one was Zacchaeus...

Matthew Henry comments:

Who, and what, this Zaccheus was. His name bespeaks him a Jew. Zaccai was a common name among the Jews...

The passage changes emphasis if Zaccheus is a Jew. Why?

Luke 19:9-10 9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost."

Christ came to the nation of Israel, "to seek and to save that which is lost." His ministry, while accented with encounters with Gentiles, was predominantly focused on the nation of Israel, "that which is lost." It was not until Acts 10 that a seismic shift took place in the will of the Father towards the Gentiles.

Henry continues:

This day is salvation come to this house. Now that he is converted he is in effect saved, saved from his sins, from the guilt of them, from the power of them; all the benefits of salvation are his. Christ is come to his house, and, where Christ comes, he brings salvation along with him. He is, and will be, the Author of eternal salvation to all that own him as Zaccheus did. Yet this is not all. Salvation this day comes to his house. (1.) When Zaccheus becomes a convert, he will be, more than he had been, a blessing to his house. He will bring the means of grace and salvation to his house, for he is a son of Abraham indeed now, and therefore, like Abraham, will teach his household to keep the way of the Lord. He that is greedy of gain troubles his own house, and brings a curse upon it (Hab. ii. 9), but he that is charitable to the poor does a kindness to his own house, and brings a blessing upon it and salvation to it, temporal at least, Ps. cxii. 3. (2.) When Zaccheus is brought to Christ himself his family also become related to Christ, and his children are admitted members of his church, and so salvation comes to his house, for that he is a son of Abraham, and therefore interested in God's covenant with Abraham, that blessing of Abraham which comes upon the publicans, upon the Gentiles, through faith, that God will be a God to them and to their children; and therefore, when he believes, salvation comes to his house, as the gaoler's to whom it was said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, Acts xvi. 31. Zaccheus is by birth a son of Abraham, but, being a publican, he was deemed a heathen; they are put upon a level, Matt. xviii. 17. And as such the Jews were shy of conversing with him, and expected Christ should be so; but he shows that, being a true penitent, he is become rectus in curia--upright in court, as good a son of Abraham as if he had never been an publican, which therefore ought not to be mentioned against him.

Obviously I depart with Henry on the visible church admission of Zaccheus' children, but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by blood relation. What Zaccheus did, as a good son of Abraham, was to realize the purpose for which the sign of circumcision was intended: he believed. His belief made him not just a physical son of Abraham, but a spiritual son; a good son of Abraham. Salvation came to his house because Zaccheus was now able to proclaim the spiritual message of the covenant to his family.

Herald you said:

but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by blood relation.

Why would he point out that salvation was not by blood relation?

Did someone believe that was the case?

Originally Posted by WDG

Herald you said:

but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by blood relation.

Why would he point out that salvation was not by blood relation?

Did someone believe that was the case?

Have you read the entire thread, especially the quotes from Spurgeon's sermon? It was mentioned earlier in the thread so it was germane to the conversation.

Originally Posted by WDG

Why would he point out that salvation was not by blood relation?
Did someone believe that was the case?

Not at all, and imo we should also avoid discussing baptismal regeneration, presumptive or dormant regeneration, either.

imho opinion it is also important not to mix any kind of prognosis concerning the Household, that would imply any conditionality.

We are mostly trying to understand the promises of God to the Household of Believers.

Imo the children of believers are in the Covenant and should receive the Sacrament of Baptism, its sign and seal.

But concerning the thing signified, we must maintain that the Eternal Election of God is Unconditional and according to His Sovereign Decree.

So the condition of faith is joined to the promise; for those who are baptized do not receive what is promised and sealed by baptism unless they have faith, so that without faith the promise is not ratified, and baptism is of no profit.

Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

Originally Posted by Herald

but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by blood relation. What Zaccheus did, as a good son of Abraham, was to realize the purpose for which the sign of circumcision was intended: he believed. His belief made him not just a physical son of Abraham, but a spiritual son; a good son of Abraham. Salvation came to his house because Zaccheus was not able to proclaim the spiritual message of the covenant to his family.

Thank you, that is very interesting and yes it seems that Goodwin attempt to relate a gentilical grafting in the Olive Tree, so to speak, may not specifically apply here.

Nonetheless, I think Luke 19 has strong implications to this topic.

Actually, concerning the Gentiles, and specifically the Household and the Kerygma, we have a passage in Scripture that I find very meaningful.

And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household. Acts 11:13-14 emphasis mine

Cesar,

Acts 11:13-14 13 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'

We are left to conclude one of two things: A) All of Cornelius' household would be saved. B) The gospel (rhema, lit. 'word') was being presented by which those who would hear and believe (by faith), in this case Cornelius and his household, would be saved.

Exegetically the latter seems to hold sway. Not, "all your household will be saved" definitive, but "speak words to you by which you will be saved" -- IOW the means of how you shall be saved.

Apart from the text there could be some Apostolic revelation by which Peter was able to declare to Cornelius that he and his household were going to be saved that night. If that was the case it does not seem to be normative for the rest of the New Testament. I'm not denying that God works through believing families, but we cannot claim that whole households will be saved. That is not our call. How then would we explain goats and sheep coming from the same family? Either the command is firm or the principle is firm. The principle being that God works through families as a customary means of calling His elect, but not exclusively.

I must say that the only clarifying view is in to realize a hermeneutic continuity in the different administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

formulation of Genesis 17:7

And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Seed also offspring or descendants

Our faith must be in God and His Word, not in our own faith, decision to raise our children or in the belief of our household, that would be a deadly shift.

We must accept the Sovereignty of God’s Decrees according to His Will. We must remain depending upon God’s Grace alone.

He is free to place a Esau in our household. Hard as it may be, even then, all things would work together for the good of His Elect.

But if that would be the norm, God would not had given us such Promise.

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. Acts 16:31 NASB

According Romans 3 or 5 all children are born in sin in their adamic fallen nature.
But are all children to be seen equal until they profess faith?
That is terribly close to Arminian prognosis.
That’s exactly why the Canons of Dort have 1 . 17

Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended,
godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy .

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 1 Corinthians 7:14

So if we deny the sanctification of the children of believers, their place in the Covenant and their separation to be part of the Visible Church (Ekklesia is very important here from ek out kaleo called ), we wouldn't take seriously the Promise of God and we would introduce a discontinuity and a fracture in Redemptive History. When in fact the historia salutis is progressive but is always very coherent

Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, 'On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, a lamb for each household. Exodus 12:3 NASB

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us 1 Corinthians 5:7 KJV

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself Acts 2:39 ESV

emphasis mine

Thoughts:

The fact that the children of believers may be holy and blessed in some sense, and are not to be treated in exactly the same manner as the children of unbelievers, does not automatically mean that they are to be baptised.

Isn't it simply a manner of looking at who God says is to be baptised?

So proving that there is a principle of household salvation in scripture, which I would agree with in general, does not prove that there is a principle of household baptism.

Cesar,

This exchange has been profitable. It's shed light on some areas of agreement, but has also underscored our basic covenantal differences. I'm content to have engaged in this discussion so that we more fully articulated our agreements and disagreements. You probably shouldn't have posted that Spurgeon sermon! I've used it as fuel for the fire. But I'm happy to call you "brother" and appreciate your irenic approach to the argument.

Originally Posted by satz

Thoughts:

The fact that the children of believers may be holy and blessed in some sense, and are not to be treated in exactly the same manner as the children of unbelievers, does not automatically mean that they are to be baptised.

I firmly believe the children of believers are in the Covenant and should be Baptized.

Imo that is clear because of that continuity, the Apostle Paul can therefore «inter relate» Circumcision and Baptism mentioning both administrations of the Covenant of Grace.


For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 10:1-4

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ Colossians 2:11 See also Romans 4

XI As Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8), so He has always declared the same grace to His church and sealed it by the sacraments. This is the reason why with respect to the internal matter
Paul ascribes the sacraments of the New Testament to believers under the Old (1 Cor. 10:1-3); and in turn the sacraments of the Old to believers under the New (Col. 2:11; 1 Cor. 5:7).

Francis Turretin - Institutes in Elentic Theology – The Sacraments - 1st question – XI emphasis mine

Thanks, Cesar.

I would not use the particular phase “in the covenant”, I would agree that there is continuity between OT and NT, and that continuity extends to blessings and favor and God shows upon the children of believers.

However, that does not automatically, or logically mean that children ought to be baptized.

Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made without hands, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.

Baptism is found and introduced in the NT so we go to the NT to determine the rules for baptism. Child training and raising up children in the fear of the Lord are found in both testaments so we do look at the OT for rules and guidance on that matter.

Originally Posted by satz

I would not use the particular phase “in the covenant”, I would agree that there is continuity between OT and NT, and that continuity extends to blessings and favor and God shows upon the children of believers.

However, that does not automatically, or logically mean that children ought to be baptized.
(...)

Baptism is found and introduced in the NT so we go to the NT to determine the rules for baptism. Child training and raising up children in the fear of the Lord are found in both testaments so we do look at the OT for rules and guidance on that matter.

Thank you too. Well the way I see it is

In the Jewish context where all the household was in the Covenant, with all the bonds of love and confidence that it brought, such a radical change would have to be thoroughly addressed by the Apostles.

But in fact Peter addressing the men of Judea confirms and reassures them that the promise is for you and your children Acts 2:39

So he is exactly stating that the Promise for the Household remains unchanged.

Like Joel Beeke writes

How could a converted Jew regard the New Covenant as better Covenant, if now his children were to be excluded from God’ dealings with his people no longer receiving a sign of God’s covenant promise? (Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism page 58)

So if believing parents were not supposed to have their children baptized, like they would immediately and naturally understand, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or Commandment preventing infant baptism?

Because the Covenant of Grace, as being inclusive of the Household, is so central and continuous
throughout Redemptive History and in all Covenant Dispensations,

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence
prepared an ark for the salvation of his household (Hebrews 11:7).

the Apostles mention and even emphasize the Sacrament of Baptism for the Household.

The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
And after she was baptized, and her household as well (Acts 16:14-15).

And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately
he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:33)

In the same passage, a Household baptism is even clearly differentiated

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas 1 Corinthians 1:16

from individual Baptisms, that surely also occurred in certain cases, like the Ethiopian in Acts 8

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius 1 Corinthians 1:14
(considering Gaius, since Crispus Household is mentioned in Acts 18:8)

So imho the implications in favour of the Baptism administration to the Children of Believers are very clear.

.

Originally Posted by satz

Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made without hands, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.

The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.

Acts 2:38-39 8 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely nothing to do with applying the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).

Originally Posted by Herald

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

Originally Posted by Herald

Acts 2:38-39 8 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely nothing to do with applying the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).

Imo I see Acts 2:39 as a condensed Covenant proclamation – certainly the Men of Judea would recognize it - please see the parallel with Genesis 17:7

For the promise is for you and your children Acts 2:39

I will establish My Covenant between Me and you and your descendants Genesis 17:7

A Covenant Proclamation Peter reinforces in Acts 3:25

Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with your fathers,
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Acts 3:25

The word for families comes from patria and pater also fathers, meaning paternal descendants, the fathers and the children

I have made a Covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I will establish
your seed forever and build up your throne to all generations. Psalm 89:3-4

Imo the context of the Kerygma in Acts 2 is actually the Covenant of Grace in the Historia Salutis
where the Household is never absent, like Peter would later recall

he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household. Acts 11:14

As B. B. Warfield bluntly stated in the Polemics of Infant Baptism – link below to the complete article

The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.

The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by Herald

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to God's elect is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by Herald

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If it sounds Arminian, there is not much you can do about it. What exactly in Bill's statement do you disagree with? Is it his choice of the word 'results'?

Edit: Sorry, I cross-posted with Bill.

It is possible that the word "for" doesn't imply "results" but glosses as "on account of."

Originally Posted by Herald

Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to God's elect is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.

Originally Posted by Hilasmos

It is possible that the word "for" doesn't imply "results" but glosses as "on account of."

Actually Joel Beeke states that those dismissing the covenantal argument
ibid page 60 emphasis mine

by harking back to verse 38, arguing that since Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized," baptism may only follow repentance. Since infants are not yet able to repent, they ought not to be baptized. To such reasoning we would posit three responses.

First, the word "and" between "repent" and "be baptized" is a coordinate and not a causal conjunction. That is to say, although both things are true, there is not necessarily a causal connection between them. "Repent" and "be baptized" are two coordinate commands. Acts 2:38 does not say that we are to be baptized because we have repented, nor does it imply that it is wrong to baptize someone who has not repented.

Second, the causal conjunction "for" at the beginning of verse 39 indicates that verse 38 is part of a larger thought that is concluded in verse 39. Attempting to understand repentance and baptism in verse 38 without examining verse 39, therefore, is refusing to listen to the whole text. The word. "for" in verse 39 indicates that that verse is giving the reason why we are to repent and be baptized, namely, "for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off." In other words, those who have received God's promise of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are qualified to be baptized, and, Peter clearly says, that includes them and their children.

Third, an argument against infant baptism from Acts 2:38 is also an argument against infant salvation. If infants cannot be baptized because they are incapable of repentance and faith, then they cannot be saved for the same reason. The use of such verses as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to argue that repentance and faith are required for baptism also argues that repentance and faith are required for salvation, thereby consigning all infants incapable of repentance and faith to perdition.

Herman Bavinck on Reformed Dogmatics vol. 4 page 510 (chapter the Reformation and Baptism)
also related chapters Infant Baptism and the Validity of Infant Baptism pages 521-532

states very clearly that the Reformers, in times of great debate and pursue for doctrinal clarity away from Romanism,

for the validity of Infant Baptism they (the Reformers n.a.)
unanimously appealed to Scripture, specifically to its teaching concerning the Covenant of Grace.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His means flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.

I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.

I haven't seen any confrere put forward the premise in your last sentence, but somebody may have so implied. But that is clearly not a biblical position and I for one disavow it.
And unless a Baptist had done your research either on the PB or in the wider Baptist community, it would not be posible to come to a belief of the relative rate of election in Baptist homes. Since you are the first I have found quantifying the matter in 15 years within a Baptist community, I don't think that many Baptists would even have the data to arrive at your conclusion.