Thread: How does a Paedobaptist relate the teaching of John 1:12-13 to infant baptism?

In John 1:12-13, we read the following:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (ESV).

Here John appears to identify the legal members of New Covenant community in contrast with the legal members of the Old Covenant community. Verse 13 seems to imply the contrast. Under the Old Covenant one could legally belong to the community of the tekna Theou by natural birth, which is described variously in verse 13 (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). Under the New Covenant, however, one is conferred the "right" (exousia), that is, the legal status of covenant child by means of faith.

To a Baptist like myself, this passage appears to support a Credobaptist view of New Covenant membership rather than a Paedobaptist view. With the Paedobaptist I acknowledge that nonbelievers do actually enter the New Covenant community via false profession. These may later apostatize from the faith and be excommunicated from the New Covenant community (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:19).

But if we take the teaching of John 1:12-13 seriously, it would seem to suggest that such false professors and/or apostates were members of the New Covenant community de facto (as a matter of fact) rather than de jure (as a matter of right). And if this is so, then can we assert that individuals who make no credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ, that is, who have not "received him" or "believed in his name, have legal access to New Covenant member status? In simpler langauge, how can the teaching of John 1:12-13 be made to support Paedobaptism?

Cordially yours,

Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure, but I would assume that the Reformed Paedobaptist would say that the already/not yet distinction might apply here. In other words, ultimately, only those who persevere to the end are really the children of God, regardless of their baptism, profession, etc. But, again, I'm not sure as to exactly what one might say in response.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure...

I'm sure its been discussed on the PB before, but I couldn't find anything. My guess would be they'd say that the passage doesn't address the question of who should be baptized. The question being addressed would be how is a person born again. Salvation is not of man, but its of God.

Originally Posted by Joshua

Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure, but I would assume that the Reformed Paedobaptist would say that the already/not yet distinction might apply here. In other words, ultimately, only those who persevere to the end are really the children of God, regardless of their baptism, profession, etc. But, again, I'm not sure as to exactly what one might say in response.

Thanks, Joshua. I affirm the "already/not yet" tension introduced by Christ's first coming. In fact, unlike some of my Credobaptist brothers, I'm willing to apply that tension in some sense to the New Covenant community and promises of Jeremiah 31:31-34. So I would conceptualize the development of God's creation/redemption program as follows (hopefully, I'm not oversimplifying things):

1. The universal covenants (Adamic and Noachic) legally embrace all men, regenerate and unregenerate.
2. The Jewish covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) legally embrace the seed of Abraham and Gentile proselytes (whether regenerate or non-regenerate).
3. The New Covenant legally embraces those who are believers (John 1:12), that is, who are born again (John 1:13). Nevertheless, the blessings of the New Covenant community are not fully realized by every member since some are false professors and members de facto rather than de jure.
4. In the age to come, this "discrepancy" will be eliminated. All de factomemberswill also be de jure members.

Of course, an acknowledgement of the "already/not yet" tension still begs two questions: (1) does the reality of an already/not yet tension in the New Testament provide the church warrant to introduce members into the New Covenant community legally when they give no evidence of a credible profession of faith and regeneration? (2) more importantly for this thread, does John 1:12-13 introduce or accomodate the already/not yet tension?

Regarding the second question, John consistently uses the aorist tense with the finite verbs. While this tense does not always signify past time, it seems to signify past time in this context. According to verse 11, Christ "came [elthen; past tense] to his own (i.e., the Jewish people) and his own did not recieve [parelabon; past tense] him." John seems to be alluding not to a rejection that takes place in general (gnomic use of aorist) but to a past event (or complex of past events) with which his readers were well-aquainted, namely, the Jewish rejection of the incarnate presentation of their Messiah.

Verse 12 begins with an adversative, signalling the other side of the past-event coin. Not every Gentile or Jew rejected Christ during his earthly ministry: "But to all who did receive [elabon; past tense] him, who are believing [tois pisteuousin; present particle, indicating that the past volitional act of receiving continues into the present] in his name, [God] gave [edoken; past tense] the right to become [genesthai; aorist infinite, signifying, "of persons or things that enter into a new condition," (Freiberg)] the children of God."

It's important to note the the divine act of legal conferral ("he gave the right") is tied not to the present participle ("who are believing") but to initial human response of faith ("To all who received"). Consequently, it would seem tenuous, at least to me, to accord the aorists of John 1:12 a merely gnomic sense and to introduce the eschatological "already/not yet" tension into this text.

Unlike the prophet Jeremiah, the apostle John seems to refer not to what God will do (confer a legal right should a person persevere in faith) but to what God had already done with respect to individuals who had responded positively to the Messiah, whether Jew or Gentile. God conferred the legal right to become a member of the New Covenant community upon a discreet act of faith, which in turn sprang from a regenerated heart (v. 13). If this is God's modus operandi, shouldn't it also be the modus operandi of the church? Shouldn't we make a credible profession of faith prerequisite for the legal conferral of New Covenant member status?

Its interesting that you bring this up. I think it links up very nicely with the Jeremiah 31 passage that describes the NC as being regeneration. His Law is written on their hearts, they all know Him, and their sins are forgiven are all descriptors of the NC in Jer. 31. The very language of Jer 31 excludes creating a pure corralation between the two covenants because the New is an improvement of the old since the old was breakable. The NC is entered by regeneration not baptism (ie baptism should NOT be treated exactly like circumcision) and is unbreakable. Jeremiah 31 excludes the ideas of inward and outward Israel in the NC, and covenant breaking as well.

Originally Posted by blhowes

Originally Posted by Joshua

Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure...

I'm sure its been discussed on the PB before, but I couldn't find anything. My guess would be they'd say that the passage doesn't address the question of who should be baptized. The question being addressed would be how is a person born again. Salvation is not of man, but its of God.

Thanks for the input, Bob. I agree that baptism is not explicitly addressed. It does appear, however, that the text addresses one's legal right to become a part of the tekna Theou, which elsewhere seems to refer to God's covenant children (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). Since baptism is commonly viewed as the rite of entrance into this covenantal community, it's administration would seem to be connected with two prerequisites: (1) a human response of faith (v. 12), which is indicative of (2) a divine work of saving grace (v. 13).

What makes you think that this is specifically teaching on NT visible Church membership?

I take the passage as drawing a distinction between those who reject and those who receive...neither of which an infant can do

Originally Posted by larryjf

What makes you think that this is specifically teaching on NT visible Church membership?

Hello, Larry. Thanks for your input. I confess that at this point I'm assuming that tekna theou in John 1:12-13 is referring to the visible community of God's covenant children in keeping with other passages that refer to God's covenant children (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4; cf. John 11:52; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 10). The concept of "legal right" (exousia) seems to be covenantal in nature. I presently feel more inclined to suppose that the apostle John has in view tangible examples of historical individuals (both Jew and Greek) who made credible professions of faith (signifying a divine work of grace, v. 13) and therefore were granted the legal privilege of joining "the children of God," namely, the New Covenant community. It seems less likely that John is speaking of abstract, invisible realities when his referents appear to be, as I argued above, historical events.

I take the passage as drawing a distinction between those who reject and those who receive...neither of which an infant can do

I agree that infants are unable to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That is one reason I've wondered whether such have legal warrant from God to be joined to the New Covenant "children of God." But I appreciate that others may not view this passages as problematic for infant baptism and church membership.

Hello Dr. Gonzalez:

First, I do not see any passage here that forbids an infant into the New Covenant. You will have to show me clear Scriptural proof that such is the case.

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

Consider Abraham, who was saved by Grace through faith, had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects. His children were also considered members as well.

Now, we come down to New Testament times, and what do we have? We have both Jews and Gentiles being accepted into the New Covenant by the very same faith that Abraham had, Rom. 4:1-4. Is it necessary for the Bible to reiterate that the children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant when God has said so in the past? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Do we have any direct command from God that children in the New Testament do not receive the same rights and priviledges that the children in the Old Testament received? I would be interested to see such a passage in the Scriptures.

Do we have any indirect evidence that the children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant in the New Testament? Yes we do. I am sure you are aware of all of the disputed passages on this matter, Acts 2:39ff, 1 Cor. 7:14, 10:1-5, etc...

Paedobaptism is established by the fact that God included the children of believers in the New Covenant in the Old Testament. This inclusion has not been recinded by any passage in the New Testament that I have ever read, but it is established by the "indirect" passages in the NT that have been cited by Paedobaptists in prior posts.

As such, it appears to Paedobaptists that the Credobaptist position is arguing in a void.

Grace and Peace

-Rob

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Hello, Larry. Thanks for your input. I confess that at this point I'm assuming that tekna theou in John 1:12-13 is referring to the visible community of God's covenant children in keeping with other passages that refer to God's covenant children (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4; cf. John 11:52; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 10). The concept of "legal right" (exousia) seems to be covenantal in nature. I presently feel more inclined to suppose that the apostle John has in view tangible examples of historical individuals (both Jew and Greek) who made credible professions of faith (signifying a divine work of grace, v. 13) and therefore were granted the legal privilege of joining "the children of God," namely, the New Covenant community. It seems less likely that John is speaking of abstract, invisible realities when his referents appear to be, as I argued above, historical events.

He may be speaking of tangible examples, but i doubt he is speaking of infants. The whole scenario is set up around two alternatives: rejecting or receiving. Since an infant can do neither it would be quite a stretch to think that he was including them.

I mean...if i said that some folks at church drove cars while others drove motorcycles you wouldn't presume that the children of the church were included as those who were driving.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

I agree that infants are unable to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That is one reason I've wondered whether such have legal warrant from God to be joined to the New Covenant "children of God." But I appreciate that others may not view this passages as problematic for infant baptism and church membership.

But they are also unable to reject Christ, and since those are the only two types of people that are spoken of in this passage...well you know the rest.

I'll try to address the OP, and if I miss something germane that has been added in the follow-up posts, please simply bring it back in.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

In John 1:12-13, we read the following:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (ESV).

Here John appears to identify the legal members of New Covenant community in contrast with the legal members of the Old Covenant community. Verse 13 seems to imply the contrast. Under the Old Covenant one could legally belong to the community of the tekna Theou by natural birth, which is described variously in verse 13 (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). Under the New Covenant, however, one is conferred the "right" (exousia), that is, the legal status of covenant child by means of faith.

To a Baptist like myself, this passage appears to support a Credobaptist view of New Covenant membership rather than a Paedobaptist view. With the Paedobaptist I acknowledge that nonbelievers do actually enter the New Covenant community via false profession. These may later apostatize from the faith and be excommunicated from the New Covenant community (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:19).

But if we take the teaching of John 1:12-13 seriously, it would seem to suggest that such false professors and/or apostates were members of the New Covenant community de facto (as a matter of fact) rather than de jure (as a matter of right). And if this is so, then can we assert that individuals who make no credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ, that is, who have not "received him" or "believed in his name, have legal access to New Covenant member status? In simpler langauge, how can the teaching of John 1:12-13 be made to support Paedobaptism?

Cordially yours,

Dr. G.,
It seems to me that you are making the de facto the basis for the de jure, and not vice versa, as I believe it should be.

He came unto his own [people], and his own received him not. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:11-13

I think also the prior verse needs to be included, for the sake of completeness.

The implication of v11 is that "his own" were, considered at large, only superficially his, which accounts for their general rejection of him. As a whole, they had a legal connection (via the Mosaic covenant), which was sufficient to establish a true relationship, but not necessarily one from the heart. They were "the children of God" in the legal sense. But, I would argue they were NOT such members de facto. The factual is predicated upon the legal.

They were de facto members of the covenant if it was considered alone, and without regard to the Abrahamic covenant, and without regard for any spiritual significance at the heart of it. If Sinai was treated, IOW, strictly as a covenant of works, at all points according to its externals.

However, when the Mosaic economy is considered as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it is viewed in its fundamental aspect. The "in fact" relation of the CoG is one that is established on a promise, on a legal relation that is formed by faith. The "legal" identity implies one's a) liability to judgment, and b) expectation of blessing. The "in fact" identity determines the nature of such consequences and prospect for continuation of the factual relation.


According to v12 there were those who did receive him, and while the Gentiles must be regarded as being grafted into this group, in the first place it seems to me that this has to be taken as a subset of the "his own" legally speaking, of the previous verse. Thus, it seems as though John is here saying what Paul elsewhere expresses as "not all who are of Israel are Israel." (Rom. 9:6)

There were those who were "his own" in a better sense than the purely legal. And this was demonstrated by their "believing on his name," the further description. And to these receivers he gave the right, the authorization to become "the children of God." This is certainly indicative of a newly formed covenant relation that abolishes the previous administration. When Messiah comes, it is not so that he may fit into the strictures of the Mosaic covenant (although for the purposes of his saving work, he condescendingly does so). But in the fulfillment of the OT hope, that Law must be replaced, and a new covenant instituted.


The question, it seems to me, as Dr. G. has framed it, thus asks whether the language of v13 sets the parameters of identification for those who may be properly called (under any present circumstances) the new "children of God." Does the language "children born NOT of a, b, & c [naturally], but of God [spiritually]," teach that in the New Covenant anyone born according to a natural manner is precluded from the right to be called a "child of God"?

This does not appear to me to follow from the plain language. He gave the NEW right to the OLD designation (which was confined to a special sense of the words) to those who did not follow the general rejection of him, the "his own" who had remaining to them the most tenuous of all claims to the designation (but who of all mankind had the best reason to be so identified in the special sense).

Previously, there were those who claimed the "right," and who based their "legal" claim purely on an external covenant arrangement which (if the facts were all known and brought out for examination) they had forfeited. They based this claim on their national and religious affiliation (a symbiotic affair).

It just doesn't follow logically that simply because ALL those who received him also received a new right to such a designation in the special sense, that ONLY those who received him received that designation, and there are no other classifications (such as the as-yet-not-rejecting seed of such receivers) who may be so called in one sense or another.

The "children NOT..." description in v13 is reserved to describe whatever "legal" claims were being abandoned (or not-asserted) by those who received him. Their reception was the whole basis for their new right.

What needs to be contrasted in this case is this right being granted on the basis of "faith", versus the Siniatic "right" being granted on the basis of the people's confession

Exo 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient."

The first Christians were the foundations of a new "children" for a new era, who were nevertheless in continuity with the "internal" Israel of old, and before them with all the sons of Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, who trusted in the promises.

Finally, it should be noted once again that we do not find the inclusion of children in the outward administration of the CoG to be Mosaic in origin. No, but it is Abrahamic in origin. It is part of the fundamental promise of God, and not of the legal superadditions of the Mosaic administration, which (according to Paul) cannot disannul (Gal. 3:17).


Anyway, that's how I would address the logical and the theological questions, from the paedo-baptist standpoint.

Blessings,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

In John 1:12-13, we read the following:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (ESV).

This was true in the Old Covenant; this is nothing new. All who received Christ in the Old Covenant times were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. This is nothing new.

Generally, when we find the Pharisees or Jews condemned in the New Testament, we assume that it's drawing some kind of major difference between the OC and the NC. This is not the case. Rather, it is simply condemning a perversion of the OC, and not the OC itself. By the by, the prophets in the OC did the same thing. Jeremiah 31 is a perfect example of the prophets (albeit backhandedly) upbrading the Jews for their covenant breaking.

Cheers,

Excellent Bruce.

Bob, let me also point out something else. The irony in every post where a Baptist poses the "...how can this apply to infants..." question is that it becomes a reflective question that Baptists ought to be asking themselves of those they baptize.

On the one hand, are you implying that faith requires mental acuity? What, precisely, does a man bring to the equation of faith that requires a certain level of mental faculties for the individual to believe in God? Is God able to save the simple much less the infant? What are we to make of the passages that state that some prophets were said to believe from the womb? It is always fascinating to see Baptists get into discussions about what age a person can be baptized as if man is the arbiter of when a person can have faith and that, truly, we can see where the wind blows contra John 3.

On the other hand, you have a real problem of applying this verse to anyone on the basis of what you seem to be insisting with respect to what believe means regardless of mental acuity. What kind of belief do you reckon gives a man the right to be called a son of God? I think we would both agree that it is a true faith born from above. I assume you're not telling me that a mere profession is in view here. Correct? If so, then we're talking about the Elect.

Where you make an unwarranted leap at this point is assuming that you have any way to administer the ideal (the elect chosen in the Covenant of Redemption) in the setting of the Church (the Covenant of Grace).

This is the proverbial elephant sitting in the Credo-Baptist living room. On the one hand, a credo-Baptists wants to insist that the New Covenant consists of an ideal community (the Elect) but then believes from that warrant this equates to the baptism of professors. I've never seen a demonstration that the two are connected in credo-Baptist theology - the argument for an elect NC only demonstrates that only the elect are in the NC but the argument for professors only baptism cannot be established on this. The issue of New Covenant membership is completely divorced from the actual decision to baptize as it must be in a Credo-Baptist system that insists that the New Covenant consists of the elect alone.

You really don't establish a credo-Baptist position by appealing to an elect New Covenant membership. At best you divorce Church membership from New Covenant membership (which you successfully achieve in your view of the ordinances) but you do not establish that baptism must be administered to professors alone on the basis of evangelical faith.

Thus, I would ask you: How do you relate the baptism of professors to John 1:12-13 if you believe this passage is teaching that the New Covenant membership and administration are to be ideal according to this passage? That is to say, on the basis of this passage, if a man presents himself to you for baptism then how will this passage inform your decision to baptize a flesh and blood person whose heart only God knows?

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Hello Dr. Gonzalez:First, I do not see any passage here that forbids an infant into the New Covenant. You will have to show me clear Scriptural proof that such is the case.

Greetings, Rob. A pleasure to meet you. I agree that this text does not by itself forbid infant baptism. It does positively teach that legal warrant for membership in the New Covenant community is no longer predicated on one's blood ties to Abraham (v. 13) but on one's faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). So it does provide positive warrant for believer baptism. Of course, the mere absence of a prohibition against infant baptism is not warrant for the practice according to the RPW. Hence, you offer some positive arguments below.

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

Consider Abraham, who was saved by Grace through faith, had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects. His children were also considered members as well.

I'm not well-versed in Paedo/Credo polemics, so I must confess that your assertion "Abraham was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects" is new to me. I do view Abraham as a precursor or exemplar of a member of the New Covenant in that his circumcision served as a sign (i.e., outward symbol of an inward reality) and a seal (i.e., a badge of authenticity) of the righteousness that he had by faith before he had been circumcised. Hence, the sacrament of circumcision for Abraham functioned like the sacrament of baptism for the New Covenant believer--it pointed backwards to salvific realities already realized in Abraham's experience (regeneration and justification). I was not aware that Abraham was a member of the historical New Covenant community, which, at the time of the prophets who lived long after the patriarch, was represented as something future (Jer. 31). Moreover, since baptism and the Lord's Supper are the New Covenant sacraments and since Abraham partook of neither, I find it difficult to affirm that he "was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects." But perhaps I'm reading too much into your statement. Feel free to clarify.

Now, we come down to New Testament times, and what do we have? We have both Jews and Gentiles being accepted into the New Covenant by the very same faith that Abraham had, Rom. 4:1-4. Is it necessary for the Bible to reiterate that the children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant when God has said so in the past? Maybe yes, maybe no.

I think I can agree with this. I tithe even though "tithing" is not explicitly commanded in the NT. I believe musical instrumentation in the public worship of God is appropriate under the NT even though I find no specific reference to instruments in NT corporate worship.

Do we have any direct command from God that children in the New Testament do not receive the same rights and priviledges that the children in the Old Testament received? I would be interested to see such a passage in the Scriptures.

Interesting question. But before I address it, I might need your help. Can you identify precisely the rights and privileges which a circumcised infant under the Old Covenant could claim? If I'm not mistaken, God had promised Abraham and his physical seed the Land of Canaan and many temporal blessings (conditioned, of course, on their fidelity to the covenant). I'm not aware of any Reformed pastor or theologian who believes the right and privilege of dwelling in Canaan (or Palestine) and enjoying the temporal blessings outlined in the Old Covenant transfer automatically to the children of believers in the New Testament. Perhaps you have other specific rights and privileges in view. Could you clarify?

Do we have any indirect evidence that the children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant in the New Testament? Yes we do. I am sure you are aware of all of the disputed passages on this matter, Acts 2:39ff, 1 Cor. 7:14, 10:1-5, etc...

Yes, I'm aware of these passages and that they are disputed. The fact that they are disputed and that I haven't found clearer unambiguous warrant for infant baptism is what has given me pause.

Paedobaptism is established by the fact that God included the children of believers in the New Covenant in the Old Testament. This inclusion has not been recinded by any passage in the New Testament that I have ever read, but it is established by the "indirect" passages in the NT that have been cited by Paedobaptists in prior posts.

The first sentence is giving me a little trouble. But it may be that this is a new argument I haven't heard before. You state that the practice of baptizing infants "is established by the fact that God included the children of believers in the New Covenant [and here's the part that seems confusing to me] in the Old Testament." Are you referring to prophecy? How did God include the children of New Covenant believers, who lived A.D., "in the Old Testament"? I guess I can't address the rest of your argument until I have a better idea precisely what you're seeking to communicate in the first sentence. Pardon me if I'm not as familiar with the common arguments in the Paedo/Credo polemics.

As such, it appears to Paedobaptists that the Credobaptist position is arguing in a void.

I'm sorry Paedobaptists feel that way about those of us who are Credobaptists. I don't feel that way about my Paedobaptist brothers. They seem to attempt to argue Scriptural and theological arguments for their position.

Do you think, perhaps, you might be making an overstatement? In other words, Credobaptists can marshall lots of evidence for believer baptism--evidence which Paedobaptists themselves affirm. Second, Credobaptists do not find a specific command to baptize infants in either Testament. (That would certainly help both sides!). Third, Credobaptists see a shift in redemptive history in which the seed of Abraham is no longer physical but spiritual (Gal. 3:28-29). The text of which this thread is concerned seems to suggest as much. The ones upon whom God now confers legal covenant status are no longer such as are merely born naturally into the family of God but supernaturally via regeneration (v. 13) the evidence of which is faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). Is the term "void," i.e., empty, a fair characterization? Perhaps the term "inadequate" or "inconclusive" might be more charitable.

But I recognize there's more to it. So I won't oversimplify the matter. Thanks for your time, Rob, and I look forward to any clarifying remarks that can help be better understand your position.

Grace to you,

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

To a Baptist like myself, this passage appears to support a Credobaptist view of New Covenant membership rather than a Paedobaptist view.

The passage teaches nothing concerning "baptism," the sign, but is concerned with the grace, or what is signified. Paedobaptists teach that the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe. Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.

Hello, Bruce. Nice to meet you. Thanks for the lengthy response. You've given me so much to think about, I'm not sure where to begin. I guess I'll try to work my way through your argument point by point the best I'm able.

[quote=Contra_Mundum;469638]

Dr. G.,
It seems to me that you are making the de facto the basis for the de jure, and not vice versa, as I believe it should be.

He came unto his own [people], and his own received him not. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 1:11-13 I think also the prior verse needs to be included, for the sake of completeness.

Thanks for pointing out the need to keep the preceding context in view. Actually, I'm inclined to follow the editors of the UBS Greek NT and include verse 10 as well. So the "all who did receive him" would, in my present view, include a subgroup of believers from two larger groups designated "the world" (v. 10) and "his own" (v. 11), i.e., Gentiles and Jews.

The implication of v11 is that "his own" were, considered at large, only superficially his, which accounts for their general rejection of him. As a whole, they had a legal connection (via the Mosaic covenant), which was sufficient to establish a true relationship, but not necessarily one from the heart. They were "the children of God" in the legal sense. But, I would argue they were NOT such members de facto. The factual is predicated upon the legal.

Well, I'm finding your reasoning a little hard to follow, but it's likely my unfamiliarity with the finer points of the Paedo/Credo debate. From my understanding of Scripture (and correct me if I'm wrong), individuals gained the legal right (exousia) to be included within the Old Covenant community via blood-ties to Abraham or by becoming proselytes. In either case, circumcision became the entrance rite for the males. This made them "the children of God" both de facto and de jure (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). If you'll note the passages I've referenced, it doesn't appear that they're referring to a remnant within the nation that was constituted of only regenerate people. Rather, it seems that the entire nation, whether born again or not, is constituted God's son or his children under the Old Covenant.

They were de facto members of the covenant if it was considered alone, and without regard to the Abrahamic covenant, and without regard for any spiritual significance at the heart of it. If Sinai was treated, IOW, strictly as a covenant of works, at all points according to its externals.

However, when the Mosaic economy is considered as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it is viewed in its fundamental aspect. The "in fact" relation of the CoG is one that is established on a promise, on a legal relation that is formed by faith. The "legal" identity implies one's a) liability to judgment, and b) expectation of blessing. The "in fact" identity determines the nature of such consequences and prospect for continuation of the factual relation.

I guess here is where I feel confused with some of your language. I believe that back of each postlapsarian historical covenant of God there lies a singular paradigm of redemption, which has been commonly called "the covenant of grace." But legal warrant for membership in both the Abrahamic and Mosaic communities appears to have been via one's blood-ties to Abraham and circumcision. In addition, one had to profess agreement to the stipulations of the Sinai treaty. So, I've always understood that every circumcised Jew had a legal right to be part of the Old Covenant community unless he was excommunicated. But this is not to say that everyone in the Old Covenant community was de facto a genuine believer and thus de jure an heir of eternal life.

According to v12 there were those who did receive him, and while the Gentiles must be regarded as being grafted into this group, in the first place it seems to me that this has to be taken as a subset of the "his own" legally speaking, of the previous verse. Thus, it seems as though John is here saying what Paul elsewhere expresses as "not all who are of Israel are Israel." (Rom. 9:6)

I agree that within the Old Covenant community broadly considered there was a remnant of true believers.

There were those who were "his own" in a better sense than the purely legal. And this was demonstrated by their "believing on his name," the further description. And to these receivers he gave the right, the authorization to become "the children of God." This is certainly indicative of a newly formed covenant relation that abolishes the previous administration. When Messiah comes, it is not so that he may fit into the strictures of the Mosaic covenant (although for the purposes of his saving work, he condescendingly does so). But in the fulfillment of the OT hope, that Law must be replaced, and a new covenant instituted.

I tend to view John 1:10-13 as describing a "new state of affairs." I don't see it as referring retroactively to the remnant of believers within Israel whom God gave legal warrant to become the "true Israel" under the Old Covenant. Rather, I see this passage as referring to a state of affairs post-incarnation, atonement, resurrection. The "old" has passed away; the "new" has come. Hence, the contrast: no longer does blood-tie suffice as the legal warrant for entrance into the New Covenant family. Now, one must be "born of God" (v. 13) and "receive" (v. 12) the incarnate Messiah to obtain the legal warrant to become part of God's New Covenant family. Of course, people make professions of faith that turn out to be false and thereby find themselves in the New Covenant de facto but not de jure.

The question, it seems to me, as Dr. G. has framed it, thus asks whether the language of v13 sets the parameters of identification for those who may be properly called (under any present circumstances) the new "children of God." Does the language "children born NOT of a, b, & c [naturally], but of God [spiritually]," teach that in the New Covenant anyone born according to a natural manner is precluded from the right to be called a "child of God"?

This does not appear to me to follow from the plain language. He gave the NEW right to the OLD designation (which was confined to a special sense of the words) to those who did not follow the general rejection of him, the "his own" who had remaining to them the most tenuous of all claims to the designation (but who of all mankind had the best reason to be so identified in the special sense).

It seems, Bruce, that you see less of a historical-redemptive disjunction in this text than I do. Reading on a bit one comes to verse 17: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." I don't read this text primarily as alluding to the ordo salutis but to the historia salutis. In other words, the point of this verse and the verses I've cited (12-13) is not to distinguish between an outward Mosaic administration and an inward Mosaic administration. Nor is it distinguishing between the Mosaic and the Abrahamic Covenant adminstrations. Rather, these verses function to alert the reader to a major historical redemptive shift. The shadows of the Mosaic Covenant (and also the Abrahamic Covenant) have found fulfillment in the New Covenant. And whereas under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants one might be a legal member of those covenants by virtue of one's blood-ties to father Abraham; under the New Covenant one must profess faith in Christ (the outward indication of an inward work of grace) in order to obtain the legal right to be a member of God's covenant family.

Previously, there were those who claimed the "right," and who based their "legal" claim purely on an external covenant arrangement which (if the facts were all known and brought out for examination) they had forfeited. They based this claim on their national and religious affiliation (a symbiotic affair).

True enough. But that is what makes the New Covenant better. One can no longer claim a legal right base purely on "an external covenant arrangement." Now one must claim that right via an internal circumcision of heart.

It just doesn't follow logically that simply because ALL those who received him also received a new right to such a designation in the special sense, that ONLY those who received him received that designation, and there are no other classifications (such as the as-yet-not-rejecting seed of such receivers) who may be so called in one sense or another.

This text appears to teach that faith is necessary for entrance into the New Covenant community. I believe such a conclusion does follow from a natural reading of the text. One might counter that this text provides us with the general rule but not the exception to the rule. Perhaps this is your point.

The "children NOT..." description in v13 is reserved to describe whatever "legal" claims were being abandoned (or not-asserted) by those who received him. Their reception was the whole basis for their new right.

I'm not sure what you mean by legal claims abandoned. Do you mean that those who received Christ were abandoning their legal claims to the Mosaic Covenant in exchange for legal rights to belong to the New Covenant? I'm not sure that verse 13 is describing people abandoning legal rights. I'm more inclined to view the verse as simply describing the general difference between Old and New Covenant members. A credible profession of faith was not a prerequisite for entrance into either the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants. But it is a prerequisite for entrance into the New Covenant. And such faith is an indication of a different kind of circumcision, inward, not outward.

What needs to be contrasted in this case is this right being granted on the basis of "faith", versus the Siniatic "right" being granted on the basis of the people's confession

Exo 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient."

The first Christians were the foundations of a new "children" for a new era, who were nevertheless in continuity with the "internal" Israel of old, and before them with all the sons of Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, who trusted in the promises.

Finally, it should be noted once again that we do not find the inclusion of children in the outward administration of the CoG to be Mosaic in origin. No, but it is Abrahamic in origin. It is part of the fundamental promise of God, and not of the legal superadditions of the Mosaic administration, which (according to Paul) cannot disannul (Gal. 3:17).

Yes, the people of the Israel had to agree to the terms of the Sinaitic Covenant. And I'm presently inclined to agree with Meredith Kline and other Reformed writers who view the Mosaic Covenant functioning at a typical level as a covenant of works. Of course, the Mosaic covenant was also, in a certain sense, a covenant of promise (see Eph. 2:12).

But I also see the New Covenant not merely as a republication of the Abrahamic Covenant. I see it as the fulfillment of both historical covenants. As I said in another thread, circumcision served as both a "sign" (outward symbol of an inward reality) and a "seal" (badge of authenticity) of the righteousness Abraham had received by faith prior to the sacrament of circumcision. In this sense, Abraham is a kind of prototype and exemplar of the New Covenant believer since the covenant sacrament was adminstered to symbolize and authenticate an already existing spiritual reality, namely regeneration and faith (Rom. 4:11). But not all Abraham's offspring share his faith, and therefore I'm not inclined to view their circumcision as a "seal" or badge of authenticity. (Indeed, I have a difficult time viewing infant baptism as a "seal" since the term sphragis refers to a mark or badge of authenticity.) Accordingly, the New Covenant seems to bring us closer to the eschaton than either the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants. For under the present New Covenant administration, de facto and de jure are closer together than ever before. In the new heavens and new earth, they will be one.

Anyway, that's how I would address the logical and the theological questions, from the paedo-baptist standpoint.

Blessings,

And to you, brother. Thanks so much for the time and effort put into your response. You've helped me understand the Paedobaptist view better.

Sincerely yours,

Larry, Adam, Rich, and Matthew,

I don't have time to respond to your input. But I thank you for it. You've given me plenty to chew on. Thanks for the interaction, which helps me understand your position better. I'll try to get back on the board later this week if I have some time.

God bless your ministries,

Hi doctor bob! I'm Charlie, i had been reformed baptist till recently, John Owen convinced me of paedo through using and relating the scriptures, but anyways I've been studying this subject since then as my primary study, I have read books against the view as well as articles for it, all from a covenant perspective. This doesn't directly answer your specific question but I stumbled upon it in my reading of the scriptures today.

Romans2:25-29 (circumcision was done before faith which is what circumcision represented, we know this because the law is fulfilled by faith, the circumcision done by Christ, Colossians2:11) and then Colossians 2:11 shows us the relationship between circumcision and baptism, they are both, as physical ordinances, the reflections of spiritual things which may or may not be true for each individual that that ordinance is applied to. Baptism is a symbol of the baptism with Christ in his death and resurrection which one partakes in by faith, and like circumcision it is not really baptism unless faith happens at some point in that individual's life.
God bless

Dr G.,
I probably would not have chosen to look at the passage from a principally a paedo-baptist standpoint, if not for your query. "Put on my paedo hat and look at this while wearing it, and keep in mind the other guy with his credo hat on."

So the length and whatever lack of clarity therein is at least as much to do with just trying to provide a quick analysis, not well-thought-out, as it is of "effort". But thanks for your gracious reading.

Thank you, Dr. Gonzales, for that gracious post.

First, you wrote:

Greetings, Rob. A pleasure to meet you. I agree that this text does not by itself forbid infant baptism. It does positively teach that legal warrant for membership in the New Covenant community is no longer predicated on one's blood ties to Abraham (v. 13) but on one's faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). So it does provide positive warrant for believer baptism. Of course, the mere absence of a prohibition against infant baptism is not warrant for the practice according to the RPW. Hence, you offer some positive arguments below.

Believer's Baptism is not in question. Paedobaptists believe in Believer's Baptism. What is the point of difference is "Believer's Only" Baptism in reference to the infants of a Believer. We believe in Believer's baptism and agree that the passages you are citing prove it.

What we don't believe is that only Believer's are to be baptized, and not their children as well. What you have to prove is that the children of believers are now forbidden baptism. We have a positive warrent to include children in the Covenant of Grace from the Old Testament. You have to show a positive warrent in Scripture where children are now forbidden access to the Covenant of Grace. I have yet to see it.

Next,

I'm not well-versed in Paedo/Credo polemics, so I must confess that your assertion "Abraham was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects" is new to me. I do view Abraham as a precursor or exemplar of a member of the New Covenant in that his circumcision served as a sign (i.e., outward symbol of an inward reality) and a seal (i.e., a badge of authenticity) of the righteousness that he had by faith before he had been circumcised. Hence, the sacrament of circumcision for Abraham functioned like the sacrament of baptism for the New Covenant believer--it pointed backwards to salvific realities already realized in Abraham's experience (regeneration and justification). I was not aware that Abraham was a member of the historical New Covenant community, which, at the time of the prophets who lived long after the patriarch, was represented as something future (Jer. 31). Moreover, since baptism and the Lord's Supper are the New Covenant sacraments and since Abraham partook of neither, I find it difficult to affirm that he "was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects." But perhaps I'm reading too much into your statement. Feel free to clarify.

I was a bit surprised by your reply here, because most Credobaptists would not admit that there is a relationship between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. That Abraham was a member of the New Covenant can be proved in many ways:

1) If the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, then Abraham, being a member of the Covenant of Grace would be a member of the New Covenant.

2) If Paul argues that "Abraham our father" was justified by faith in the same manner as members of the New Covenant, then it speaks volumes about Abraham's status in the New Covenant, Rom. 4:1-6.

3) Paul tells us that the New Covenant Church does not stand on its own, but was:

...cut out of the Olive tree, which was wild by nature, and was grafted contrary to nature in a right Olive tree, how much more shall they by nature, be grafted in their own Olive tree? Rom. 11:24 c.f. vs. 17-20.

The passage is clear that the New Covenant Church is grafted into the "Old Covenant Church" which "Old Covenant" was the Covenant of Grace.

4) Jesus says, "Abraham sought to see my day, and rejoiced to see it."

5) Consider, when we all get to heaven will we be in a different class than that of Abraham or Moses? Is there one group of "Old Covenant believers" and another of "New Covenant believers"?

Insofar as Baptism and the Lord's Supper is concerned. These are outward ordinances only. In their outward sense they do not need to be experienced in order for one to be in the Covenant. The thief on the cross did not partake of Baptism or the Lord's Supper. Yet, when Jesus tells him that "Today you will be with Me in paradise" I think we can hardly deny his status in the New Covenant. As far as Baptism is concerned, though, Abraham partook of the sign of Circumcision which is equivalent to Baptism. Also, when Melchizedek (SP?) brought bread and wine to Abraham some commentators argue that this was a precursor of the Lord's Supper.

Next,

Interesting question. But before I address it, I might need your help. Can you identify precisely the rights and privileges which a circumcised infant under the Old Covenant could claim? If I'm not mistaken, God had promised Abraham and his physical seed the Land of Canaan and many temporal blessings (conditioned, of course, on their fidelity to the covenant). I'm not aware of any Reformed pastor or theologian who believes the right and privilege of dwelling in Canaan (or Palestine) and enjoying the temporal blessings outlined in the Old Covenant transfer automatically to the children of believers in the New Testament. Perhaps you have other specific rights and privileges in view. Could you clarify?

Absolutely,

By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed God, to go out into a place, which he should afterward received for inheritance, and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he abode in the land of promise, as in a strange country, as one that dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob heirs with him of the same promise For he looked for a city having a foundation, whose builder and maker is God, Heb. 11:8-10.

The physical nature of the Old Testament was simply a figure for the promises contained in the Covenant of Grace, see Heb. 9:9 cited earlier. Abraham understood these things by faith, and the promises contained in these figures of the Covenant of Grace were handed down to his children through circumcision. The New Covenant expands these promises not simply to the children of believers, but to the gentiles (including myself) through all of eternity:

For the promise is made unto you (believers), your children (the children of believers), and to all that are afar off, even as many as our Lord God shall call, Acts 2:39.

The promises of the Gospel are given to every one who hears the outward call of God in the preaching of the Word. Those who believe on this outward call, and their children, are baptized into the New Covenant. If Peter believed the Credobaptist position, then the phrase, "your children" would be inconsequental, because "even as many as our Lord God shall call" would include the children.

The promises given in the Gospel of the New Covenant were the same promises given to Abraham in the Old Covenant except under the guise of a figure, and only to the Jews.

Next,

Do you think, perhaps, you might be making an overstatement? In other words, Credobaptists can marshall lots of evidence for believer baptism--evidence which Paedobaptists themselves affirm. Second, Credobaptists do not find a specific command to baptize infants in either Testament. (That would certainly help both sides!). Third, Credobaptists see a shift in redemptive history in which the seed of Abraham is no longer physical but spiritual (Gal. 3:28-29). The text of which this thread is concerned seems to suggest as much. The ones upon whom God now confers legal covenant status are no longer such as are merely born naturally into the family of God but supernaturally via regeneration (v. 13) the evidence of which is faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). Is the term "void," i.e., empty, a fair characterization? Perhaps the term "inadequate" or "inconclusive" might be more charitable.

I did not mean to be uncharitable, and I thought that "void" was a less harsh term than "inadequate" or "inconclusive." However, everyone has their own sensitivities - pardon me - please.

What seems "inadequate" to me is that the Credobaptist argument is placing the word "only" in verses that do not contain it. In an effort to clarify this I will deal with your points:

1) Has already been investigated - that we both agree that believers are to be baptized need no further discussion.

2) I am a bit confused about this second point: You claimed above an equivalence between Circumcision and Baptism. Specifically, you wrote:

I do view Abraham as a precursor or exemplar of a member of the New Covenant in that his circumcision served as a sign (i.e., outward symbol of an inward reality) and a seal (i.e., a badge of authenticity) of the righteousness that he had by faith before he had been circumcised. Hence, the sacrament of circumcision for Abraham functioned like the sacrament of baptism for the New Covenant believer--it pointed backwards to salvific realities already realized in Abraham's experience (regeneration and justification).

It seems to me that if Abraham had been transported into New Testament times, then he would have been Baptized instead of Circumcized. We have an example of a New Testament baptism in the Old Testament, 1 Cor. 10:1-5. Where does the New Covenant forbid a child to be baptized?

We have a command in the Old Testament to circumcize infants. Where has this command specifically been lifted. Possibly your third point answers this question?

3) I think this is the crux of the Credobaptist misunderstanding of Covenant Theology. It is here that they resort to a Dispensationalist view in dividing the Covenants concerning membership. This may take some explaining:

Are infants incapable of faith? The Credobaptist says, "yes." The Bible says, "No." For the following reasons:

3a) If the Second Person of the Trinity can be incarnated into a fetus, then how can one claim that "infants are incapable of faith."? Which is greater? The Second Person of the Trinity, or, faith in Jesus?

3b) If John the Baptist can leap in the womb of Elisabeth upon hearing the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus), then how can one say that "infants are incapable of faith"?

3c) The Word of the Lord to Jeremiah clearly implies that infants are capable of faith:

Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained thee to be a Prophet unto the nations, Jeremiah 1:5.

How can one claim that Jeremiah was "incapable of faith" as an infant?

Since infants are capable of saving faith, and, consequently, can be members of the Covenant of Grace, then what forbids you from Baptizing them? That they are not capable of expressing faith in Jesus Christ? Such is not a good answer.

Infants in the Old Covenant, who were 8 days old, were unable to express faith in Jesus Christ. Yet, the sign of the Covenant was given unto them. Was this direct command from God somehow in error, and needed to be corrected by a greater understanding of the "Seed" of Abraham in the New Testament?

The true Seed of Abraham has always been believers in Christ, "I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob" - He is the God of the living, and not the dead. Yet, it was not simply believers who were circumcized/baptized, but their children as well.

What was astonishing concerning Redemptive History is that the Seed of Abraham was now extended to the Gentiles, and the families of the Gentiles. Upon hearing of the conversion of Cornelius and his household:

When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life, Acts 11:18, c.f. 10:45.

That Cornelius and his household were converted by the preaching of the Word was a sign to the Jews that the promises of the Covenant are now also for the Gentiles as well. If we held to Credobaptist views concerning the New Covenant, then we would have expected only Cornelius to be converted, and not his household as well. If the New Covenant was to be understood individualistically, then there would have been no need for the household conversions in the Book of Acts. God granted salvation not only to the head of the household, but to the family and servants as well:

And every man-child eight days old among you, shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stanger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: so my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

So, the question is restated: If the Seed of Abraham are those who believe in Jesus Christ - whether Jews in the OT or Jews/Gentiles in the NT, then where is the prohibition to forbid the children of believers Baptism?

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Dr G.,
I probably would not have chosen to look at the passage from a principally a paedo-baptist standpoint, if not for your query. "Put on my paedo hat and look at this while wearing it, and keep in mind the other guy with his credo hat on."

So the length and whatever lack of clarity therein is at least as much to do with just trying to provide a quick analysis, not well-thought-out, as it is of "effort". But thanks for your gracious reading.

Bruce. No problem. You gave me a lot to think about and part of my difficulty understanding your argument may point to my need to become better acquainted with the issues involved.

I don't necessarily view this passage as a "clincher" for the Credobaptist position. Both of us affirm that at least for adults, a credible profession of faith in Christ is the way one enters the New Covenant community. So I suppose a Paedobaptist could interpret this passage as stating a general rule but not necessarily addressing the question of infants of believing families, which would be the exception to the rule. And as Matthew Winzer pointed out, it doesn't explicitly mention baptism. I've only inferred baptism in connection with God's conferral of legal warrant to enter the covenant community.

God bless your week.

Not to get in the middle of any of the arguments, and forgive me if this is repetitive, but I do not see the emphasis of this verse as the rights of the children, but rather, the rights of the Father. When we think of circumcision and baptism of infants, it is not the child's right that seats him within the covenant community. Rather, it is the believing parent's privilege to include their children in the visible community and shows the same passiveness that is echoed in heaven. We are not saved by our actions or words, because, as all of us here agree, God saved us before we knew we needed saving.

Therefore, we can press no right, even though this passage may be read in that way.

The emphasis with which one reads is important. And perhaps this is not well translated between the languages, but read the passage emphasizing the personal pronouns concerning God. That makes a huge difference. Read Ephesians 1 emphasizing personal pronouns, it is very humbling.

So when reading this passage, I see the emphasis upon the fact that even though He came, and despite the fact that His own did not receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God to those who received Him (and those who received Him were passive in their birth, since they were born of the will of God.) This changes the theme of the verse to magnify, not the children, but the infinitely loving and merciful parent. If read with that lense, it is not so much as who are included in the New Covenant as it is about the One who included them.

Additionally, it seems like a stretch to equate rights with rightful members, especially if one speaks about the actions of the flesh. IF these rights are granted to only NC believers and IF baptism is performed only on those who say they believe, THEN rights and rightful membership is gained by the actions of the flesh in the baptism of believers. Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this text, that: those who believe and receive have a right to become children of God. But surely we all do not accept this as the means of salvation because we know that other passages confirm that we cannot receive or believe without the Holy Spirit making us alive first. Yet, if we emphasize the rights of believers (as it pertains to the NC community) in this passage and posit credobaptism from this passage, then we have set ourselves up for a practice that believes the sovereignty of God in salvation, but does so on the basis of a profession of faith rather than on the promise of God as seen by faith.

Anticipating a rebuttal, let me also say that while paedobaptists also baptize their infants on the credible profession of faith of at least one believing parent (which would be akin to the practice of credobaptists concerning adult converts), we are not conferring salvation to the infant in their baptism, nor are we saying that they do not yet need to be converted so that they can believe and receive. Baptism to us does not equate to the right to become the "saved" children of God, but only confers the right to be in the assembly of the children of God, all of whom are not saved because there are sheep in with the goats and wheat in with the chaff.

Sorry if I have rambled. My synopsis is this: look at John 1 as the rights of the Father over His house, and not the son within the house. I think that steers us clear of pressing the issue beyond what it was intended.

In Christ,

KC

Kceaster,
I know you are waiting for a response from Bob G. He said he might be away until later on. I had an observation on what you wrote.
In your post you said the following

Additionally, it seems like a stretch to equate rights with rightful members, especially if one speaks about the actions of the flesh. IF these rights are granted to only NC believers and IF baptism is performed only on those who say they believe, THEN rights and rightful membership is gained by the actions of the flesh in the baptism of believers. Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this text, that: those who believe and receive have a right to become children of God. But surely we all do not accept this as the means of salvation because we know that other passages confirm that we cannot receive or believe without the Holy Spirit making us alive first. Yet, if we emphasize the rights of believers (as it pertains to the NC community) in this passage and posit credobaptism from this passage, then we have set ourselves up for a practice that believes the sovereignty of God in salvation, but does so on the basis of a profession of faith rather than on the promise of God as seen by faith.

In this part of your quote;{THEN rights and rightful membership is gained by the actions of the flesh in the baptism of believers. Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this text, that: those who believe and receive have a right to become children of God. But surely we all do not accept this as the means of salvation because we know that other passages confirm that we cannot receive or believe without the Holy Spirit making us alive first. }

This is what is missing from most padeo posts/ Credo's take the profession of faith that the person makes as the apostles did. The person desiring to obey The Lord's command to believe and be baptized is saying that God the Holy Spirit has already done the inward work of regeneration, in new birth.
The water baptism that follows is the result of the Spirit allowing that person to receive the word.
It is not the physical actions of the flesh that grants membership.It is the professed work of regeneration {100%] the work of God, that has placed the person in saving Union with Christ. His Identification with the people of God by the ordinance of baptism,while outward and physical is his or her's confession of the gift of repentance and faith; is looking back at the work of God. Not his physical parents, or their faith.
Salvation is always individual,one soul at a time, living stones, that are built into the habitation of the spirit.[EPH2:20-22} {1Pet. 2:5} We are not left as indivduals, alone and isolated. God places us into the body. The corporate does not come first, or automatically.
When Acts speaks of a household being saved, then each individual was saved. It is not like domino's where Dad believes and they all fall down.
We can rejoice that many times God is pleased to save each member of a household to the praise of His glory.
You point to the answer yourself acknowledging the necessary work of the Spirit. No new birth, no heaven. The text cited in the original post is totally speaking of the work of God in new birth, giving the ability to welcome or receive divine truth.
A disciple follows the teaching of a teacher. You could have a false teacher training false disciples. Or you could have a true teacher with false disciples in that they at a point in time depart to follow a different teaching
Jn 6 is a case in point

63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

It is the Spirit that quickens , the flesh profits nothing
vs. 66 says /any fell away.
The true making of true disciples is the Spirit of God working through the word of God. Many times in the home of believing parents God blesses the means of parental example and instruction in the word,clothed in prayer to the saving of the children.
The instruction alone does not necessarily

make disciples

in the Mt 28 sense, until the Spirit quickens.
That is why we say in the 1689-

Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
5 Rom. 6:4

Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6
6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.

And we reply:
Apart from Spirit's baptism, the ordinance is stripped of its effect, because there is no benefit to the sacrament apart from faith, and faith is a product of the Spirit's work.

And, the order of its application (prior to/or after conversion) makes no difference in the meaning we draw from it whatsoever. Because prior "profession" is simply the standard way of identifying mentally mature disciples.

However, it is not the ONLY way of identifying disciples.

Once again, a superb quality thread. A 5 of 5. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.

And we reply:
Apart from Spirit's baptism, the ordinance is stripped of its effect, because there is no benefit to the sacrament apart from faith, and faith is a product of the Spirit's work.

And, the order of its application (prior to/or after conversion) makes no difference in the meaning we draw from it whatsoever. Because prior "profession" is simply the standard way of identifying mentally mature disciples.

However, it is not the ONLY way of identifying disciples.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.

And we reply:
Apart from Spirit's baptism, the ordinance is stripped of its effect, because there is no benefit to the sacrament apart from faith.

And, the order of its application (prior to/or after conversion) makes no difference in the meaning we draw from it whatsoever. Because prior "profession" is simply the standard way of identifying mentally mature disciples.

However, it is not the ONLY way of identifying disciples.

Bruce,
I would see water baptism as an ordinance, indicating what is stated in the 1689.
Your view seeing it as sacramental would lead to pouring more into the meaning of baptism, as you would seeing it pointing to many things "promised" to the believing parent complying with what you would believe to be covenant faithfulness on the part of the believing parent, on behalf of the child. Would that be an accurate statement?
This past two month's I have listened to dozens of good padeo Pastors.
Ed Donnelly , David Silversides, Ben Miller, Pastor Shishko,and several others list what is supposed to be contained, or pictured by Infant baptism as a sign and seal. The more I listen it seems like the list grows and grows sometimes very fancifully!
When you say apart from Spirit baptism the ordinance is stripped of it's effect, no faith/ no benefit , I would be in substantial agreement with in that no Spirit baptism leaves us with a dead man walking! Dead while they live.
It just seems to me that your view places it before Spirit baptism. That is where when I hear at an infant baptism language used similar to what is said in the 1689 as true of a believer, used upon the infant , my wires get crossed.
I have to say that I can see how when rightly spoken of The padeo side addesses the same heart issues that the credo side does more so when it comes time to allow the children to partake of the Lord's Supper. You do it in two phases. We do it at the same time.

I am curious as to how a credo would respond to this situation:

A 30 year old individual professes faith in Christ and is baptized. After 5 years he denies Christ and leaves the church. Yet 5 more years and he repents of this, coming back to the church.

Would a credo re-baptize this individual?

Originally Posted by larryjf

I am curious as to how a credo would respond to this situation:

A 30 year old individual professes faith in Christ and is baptized. After 5 years he denies Christ and leaves the church. Yet 5 more years and he repents of this, coming back to the church.

Would a credo re-baptize this individual?

Larry,
I think the eldership would speak with the person involved to determine what to do. Was he saved in the first place? Did he sin as David did, then repent? Did he make a false profession based on a man centered arminian walking the aisle kind of deal? If he made a false profession what was it based on? Does he show fruits of repentance as per MT 18?
Did he experience divine discipline during his rebellion, as per Hebrews 12:1-14 , or is he a bastard and not a son?
When he first professed faith were their works of faith that followed? Was he able to receive divine truth and exhibit growth in grace?
I have heard it preached where some prominent missionaries in church history, later on in life believed that God actually saved them after they were in the missionary field.
Because of the subjective nature of this supposed case, and scriptural examples like Simon the sorcerer, I do not think there is a one step sure solution. Even as a credo , I know that as the apostles could not always tell who has a profession that was saving at the time of their baptism, nevertheless they were faithful to follow the command to baptize those who believe. Church discipline is also a command to remove any who are "called" a brother.
If you take the same person in a padeo church, call him a covenant breaker, and are eager to have all the hebrews passages come into play, would you say it is impossible to renew such a one to repentance,if having fallen away as per hebrews 6;4?

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Larry,
I think the eldership would speak with the person involved to determine what to do. Was he saved in the first place? Did he sin as David did, then repent? Did he make a false profession based on a man centered arminian walking the aisle kind of deal? If he made a false profession what was it based on? Does he show fruits of repentance as per MT 18?
Did he experience divine discipline during his rebellion, as per Hebrews 12:1-14 , or is he a bastard and not a son?
When he first professed faith were their works of faith that followed? Was he able to receive divine truth and exhibit growth in grace?
I have heard it preached where some prominent missionaries in church history, later on in life believed that God actualled saved them after they were in the missionary field.
Because of the subjective nature of this supposed case, and scriptural examples like Simon the sorcerer, I do not think there is a one step sure solution. Even as a credo , I know that as the apostles could not always tell who has a profession that was saving at the time of their baptism, nevertheless they were faithful to follow the command to baptize those who believe. Church discipline is also a command to remove any who are "called" a brother.
If you take the same person in a padeo church, call him a covenant breaker, and are eager to have all the hebrews passages come into play, would you say it is impossible to renew such a one to repentance,if having fallen away as per hebrews 6;4?

Hebrews 6 is not speaking of backsliding believers but those who professed to be believers and were found to be reprobate. And yes, it's impossible to restore them.

My position, as a paedo, is that there is 1 baptism. Therefore i would not suggest that the individual be re-baptized. And i don't see any evidence that the NT speaks of being re-baptized into Christ...even for backsliders.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Bruce,
I would see water baptism as an ordinance, indicating what is stated in the 1689.
Your view seeing it as sacramental would lead to pouring more into the meaning of baptism, as you would seeing it pointing to many things "promised" to the believing parent complying with what you would believe to be covenant faithfulness on the part of the believing parent, on behalf of the child. Would that be an accurate statement?
This past two month's I have listened to dozens of good padeo Pastors.
Ed Donnelly , David Silversides, Ben Miller, Pastor Shishko,and several others list what is supposed to be contained, or pictured by Infant baptism as a sign and seal. The more I listen it seems like the list grows and grows sometimes very fancifully!

I think this is a fair observation.

I do think that for our part, we tend to pour and pour and pour as much of the gospel message as we possibly can into baptism. And we keep "looking" for ways to do that, always tying it to Scripture of course---the "fancifully" may accurately describe your perception of a great many of them, but I would argue its only truly fanciful when there is no exegetical Scriptural connection. We say that baptism, as much as the Lord's Supper, is a means of preaching the gospel to everyone who is there.

Not being Lutheran, I don't believe in the "objectivity" of the gospel's ministerial effect through baptism to an infant subject. They attribute something very close to an ex opere operato effect in the sacrament, whereas we Reformed do not. They would argue that not being refused, it is necessarily received, and God is so powerful in mystery he can effectively preach an age-appropriate gospel to all such infants; and what he has promised he invariably effects. This is where they argue for a form of baptismal regeneration, but then they believe that blessing can be refused later on, i.e. you can lose your salvation.

Our argument would be with the underlined terms/ideas, not being opposed to the principle that certain elect infants may well be so effected.

The Spirit's work (his baptism) brings ALL the benefits of redemption to be applied to the believer, so I do not see how it is wrong to make valid attempts to find as much of that depicted in baptism as possible.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

When you say apart from Spirit baptism the ordinance is stripped of it's effect, no faith/ no benefit , I would be in substantial agreement with in that no Spirit baptism leaves us with a dead man walking! Dead while they live.
It just seems to me that your view places it before Spirit baptism. That is where when I hear at an infant baptism language used similar to what is said in the 1689 as true of a believer, used upon the infant , my wires get crossed.
I have to say that I can see how when rightly spoken of The padeo side addesses the same heart issues that the credo side does more so when it comes time to allow the children to partake of the Lord's Supper. You do it in two phases. We do it at the same time.

Again, let me say that this also is a fair, and duly considered observation. We don't agree, of course, however this sort of analytical penetration is, IMHO, one of the benefits of civilized interaction on the P-B between the perspectives. I know that in my time here, I have come to understand the credo perspective better, as well as being able neutrally to note similarities and differences. And it seems clear to me that you have as well.

When it comes to these children, there is no question but that we observe a stage of immature, and a stage of mature, discipleship. Initiation requires only the bare minimum, which is person-variable, to the extent that we differentiate between expectations for an adult and a minor. A minor grown to maturity, who asks for more responsibility, needs to be tested for that maturity.

This has been mentioned on other occasions, but it bears repeating here: one can see, at the level of participation, the similarity between the Baptist view of sacrament/ordinance involvement, and that of the paedo-communionist. Both combine initiation and confirmation, the ceremony of induction and the ceremony of renewal. There are a variety of differences, of course, but on this point one might see how the argument is frequently heard from the Baptist camp that Presbyterians are being "inconsistent," and from the paedo-communionist side that the Presbyterians are being "baptistic," regarding the Confessional view of the Lord's Supper.

As far as I'm concerned, my child has attained the status of "disciple" as soon as he has been born; and disciples are to be a) baptized and b) taught (Mt. 28:19-20).

All I'm saying of the infant is that the effect of his baptism is a benefit IF and WHEN he believes, that is to say, it has a positive benefit to the elect. It has no such effect for the non-elect, who never have faith to make use of it. It doesn't matter to us when the sign is applied, other than to follow what we think is God's determination as to when it is commanded for different classes of people.

Peace.

Originally Posted by larryjf

I am curious as to how a credo would respond to this situation:

A 30 year old individual professes faith in Christ and is baptized. After 5 years he denies Christ and leaves the church. Yet 5 more years and he repents of this, coming back to the church.

Would a credo re-baptize this individual?

Hi:

I know that Al Martin of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, NJ had his son baptized 3 times - because he professed faith, then fell away, then professed faith, then fell away, then professed faith. I don't know if he fell away again.

Though Martin is consistent with their philosophy he is inconsistent with the Scriptures.

G&P,

-CH

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

All I'm saying of the infant is that the effect of his baptism is a benefit IF and WHEN he believes, that is to say, it has a positive benefit to the elect. It has no such effect for the non-elect, who never have faith to make use of it. It doesn't matter to us when the sign is applied, other than to follow what we think is God's determination as to when it is commanded for different classes of people.

Peace.

Not to correct you incorrectly Pastor, but, couldn't we say that baptism for a non-believer has a negative effect? It's sort of liking hearing the Word. It either softens or hardens. Wouldn't baptism for a non-believer break the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain?

In Christ,

KC

Hi KC,
I don't mind corrections. In this case, I did write that deliberately.

I thought about the question you raised, and still decided to write as I did, even though "effect" sounds more neutral than "blessing". Note that I wrote baptism on the non-elect infant has no SUCH effect as I described.

I think that the negative effects are not as plainly defined as the positive, when it comes to the infants. We recognize baptisms that take place in churches that are almost corrupt past recognition. Why? because the form of the baptism and the history of that church are still more powerful witness to the triumph of Jesus Christ than their sin has power to take away, even when mixed with so much corruption (as Calvin expressed). I realize that this issue still comes into debate.

So, that little one is more sinned against than sinning. Whereas, the adult is certainly violating many commands, and reaping many sorrows, whether he was baptized as a mature person or as an infant. He abuses his baptism, which carries negative effect.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Hi KC,
I don't mind corrections. In this case, I did write that deliberately.

I thought about the question you raised, and still decided to write as I did, even though "effect" sounds more neutral than "blessing". Note that I wrote baptism on the non-elect infant has no SUCH effect as I described.

I think that the negative effects are not as plainly defined as the positive, when it comes to the infants. We recognize baptisms that take place in churches that are almost corrupt past recognition. Why? because the form of the baptism and the history of that church are still more powerful witness to the triumph of Jesus Christ than their sin has power to take away, even when mixed with so much corruption (as Calvin expressed). I realize that this issue still comes into debate.

So, that little one is more sinned against than sinning. Whereas, the adult is certainly violating many commands, and reaping many sorrows, whether he was baptized as a mature person or as an infant. He abuses his baptism, which carries negative effect.

I think I understand. When using effectual, it has a positive connection, especially as it pertains to salvation. No problem here. That's good confessional and biblical language... thanks for clarifying.

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.

I completely agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those in the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC not baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe all baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.

Who received the covenant sign in the OT?

Remember that the early church only had the OT. When Peter preached at Pentecost, the hearers didn't have the benefit of Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that matter, those who participated in John's baptism would not have had such an individualistic view as to leave their children at home or even let them come but told them that baptism was not for them until they reached a certain age. That concept would be completely foreign to them. When household baptisms are in view in Acts, they also did not have the benefit of any NT text, at least not what we have today with the exception of an early gospel.

So excluding children would have been a very new concept for the Jewish believers and since inclusive and not exclusive words are used with new Gentile converts, I think it is safe to say that early believers would have been bringing their children to the waters of baptism.

In Christ,

KC

Originally Posted by kceaster

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.

Who received the covenant sign in the OT?

Remember that the early church only had the OT. When Peter preached at Pentecost, the hearers didn't have the benefit of Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that matter, those who participated in John's baptism would not have had such an individualistic view as to leave their children at home or even let them come but told them that baptism was not for them until they reached a certain age. That concept would be completely foreign to them. When household baptisms are in view in Acts, they also did not have the benefit of any NT text, at least not what we have today with the exception of an early gospel.

So excluding children would have been a very new concept for the Jewish believers and since inclusive and not exclusive words are used with new Gentile converts, I think it is safe to say that early believers would have been bringing their children to the waters of baptism.

In Christ,

KC

This reduces to an argument from silence where a change might reasonably be expected. The Confessions do not allow us to accept arguments from silence as normative for requiring Christian doctrine. In this case it is fair to point out that had the disciples announced such a change in who receives the covenant sign and given their theological rationale for it, they would have done so first in teaching the initial converts at Pentecost or soon after, after which it would have been seen as a settled doctrine of the church and would not have been needed to be mentioned.

Yet, as Dr. B and I have pointed out, the change is in fact made likely if not directly explicit by Paul's statement about exactly who is a child of Abraham and John's comment about who has the right to be recognized as a member of the new covenant.

Originally Posted by kceaster

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.

Who received the covenant sign in the OT?

Remember that the early church only had the OT. When Peter preached at Pentecost, the hearers didn't have the benefit of Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that matter, those who participated in John's baptism would not have had such an individualistic view as to leave their children at home or even let them come but told them that baptism was not for them until they reached a certain age. That concept would be completely foreign to them. When household baptisms are in view in Acts, they also did not have the benefit of any NT text, at least not what we have today with the exception of an early gospel.

So excluding children would have been a very new concept for the Jewish believers and since inclusive and not exclusive words are used with new Gentile converts, I think it is safe to say that early believers would have been bringing their children to the waters of baptism.

In Christ,

KC

Thats alot of speculation (the understanding of the Acts, early Christians?) there to try to support the paedo view. They already had Jeremiah 31 and naturally wouldn't have tried to make a parallel equation of circumcision to baptism.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.

I completely agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those in the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC not baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe all baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.

I know this has been argued to death around here, but let me make a suggestion. Please explain why, in the context of Jeremiah 31, the following references are made:

families, Israel, virgin, Jacob, woman, child, Father, Ephraim, firstborn, nations, flock, young of the flock, young men, Rachel, children, son, daughter, Judah, seed, house, husband, and brother.

Some of these are mentioned multiple times. What does all of this type of language signify? And, did Jesus ever use these types of words in connection with salvation? Did the Apostles?

The question to ask yourself is this: If God's economy (which incidentally connects to the Greek word for house) encompasses families, and God certainly included unbelieving family members in the old covenant, then why would that have changed in the NT era with no commentary as to the change? How would God, who had dealt with families, and even deals with families in the prophecy of Jeremiah, change to an individual basis as pertains the sign of the covenant or any other peripheries of the covenant?

In Christ,

KC