a non-argumentative question for paedobaptists

a mere housewife · #1 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:07 PM

Bruce quoted the following section from the article on Shepherd and Kline:

Quote:

And this is why Paul insists that there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. Before Christ, only the free Jewish male can inherit the promises. Gentiles, slaves, and women only inherit the promises through their free, Jewish males. But Jesus Christ IS the free Jewish male, he is the last Adam, the true Israel, and he has included ALL of his people in his inheritance, regardless of gender, race or class.

I was wondering if someone would be so kind to answer a question this touches on for me (& I should probably confess that I do not read the baptism thread arguments: I stopped doing so several years ago because the argumentative nature of the discussions seemed to obscure rather than aid my ability to clearly understand the ideas). If this has been covered, I wonder if someone could point me to the place where it has been (or, perhaps repeat the answer for me?). I am not wanting to argue a position but to better understand the paedobaptist position, so I'd prefer if only paedobaptists comment.

Without appealing to arguments from silence if possible (they seem to go both ways), how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised? This seems -- it is -- a change in the administration of the covenant sign away from being representative in nature and being more individual. I don't see how it can be argued that paedobaptism does not have a representational element because the standing of the parents is the basis for whose babies get baptised. How can we assume that the commands that applied to circumcision apply to baptism, and import them from the old covenant when the administration, and the nature, of the new covenant sign is already so vastly different by the inclusion of women?

Thanks in advance.

armourbearer · #2 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:17 PM

I observe that in the one clear example of female baptism -- Lydia -- the representative principle is still operative in the baptism of her household. In keeping with the fulness of New Testament administration, this demonstrates that federalism has not been curtailed, but rather expanded so as to include women where there is no believing male presence.

a mere housewife · #3 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:40 PM

Rev. Winzer, thanks: I understand that. I am not sure I could agree, but understand.

It does lead to one further question for clarification, which would be then that not only children, but adults --servants presumably in Lydia's household (or would you presume some other composition of her household?) would need to be baptised regardless of age based on the head of household's standing, on this view?

armourbearer · #4 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

It does lead to one further question for clarification, which would be then that not only children, but adults --servants presumably in Lydia's household (or would you presume some other composition of her household?) would need to be baptised regardless of age based on the head of household's standing, on this view?

Yes, the household baptism is understood to include all within that household under the authority of the head thereof. But there is a disconnect here with modern practice due to the fact that servants today are not considered a part of the household.

Semper Fidelis · #5 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

It does lead to one further question for clarification, which would be then that not only children, but adults --servants presumably in Lydia's household (or would you presume some other composition of her household?) would need to be baptised regardless of age based on the head of household's standing, on this view?

Yes, the household baptism is understood to include all within that household under the authority of the head thereof. But there is a disconnect here with modern practice due to the fact that servants today are not considered a part of the household.

I agree.

Fundamentally, Heidi, we're dealing with whether or not the household is going to allow for the worship of multiple Gods or not. This issue arises quite a bit but, if people sat back and considered this point, would you really allow a servant (who lived among you and your children) to be worshipping another God? Don't we do even a better job than that with who we allow our kids to have as babysitters?

Fundamentally, Heidi, as I pointed out in another thread, Baptism is for disciples. Disciples are not necesarily only those that have been definitively converted or know everything. Baptism is the beginning of discipleship and understanding and not the end of it. Discipleship is in the things of God and parents are commanded to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. In other words, children are disciples and, as such, should be baptized.

It is not merely because the parents are believers that the children are baptized but because they are to be trained and, as such baptism belongs constituently to their status as disciples in the things of God.

larryjf · #6 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised?

We must look at the history of Redemption, and how it becomes more expansive to answer your question.

The Covenant of Grace has gone through an ever-widening scope until the consummation in Christ when the whole world is in God's redemptive focus.

Abraham (man) --> Jacob (family) --> Moses (nation) --> David (kingdom) --> Christ (world)

So yes, under Christ even females are brought into the covenant sign because the scope was widened to include all types of people from every nation.

But to suggest that children would no longer be included would be to suggest that the covenant did not expand, but in fact the scope was restricted further in the NT than in the OT.

a mere housewife · #7 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 10:51 PM

So then, if I'm understanding correctly, the warrant for believing that the representative principle is expanded to females rather than done away is because of the passage Rev. Winzer cited from 1 Cor about ceremonial headship, and also because circumcision is seen as equaling baptism in other respects?

a mere housewife · #8 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:05 PM

Thanks everyone, by the way, for the helpful answers: my thanks button keeps disappearing, but they are elucidating the confusion for me.

Kevin · #9 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:07 PM

Pastor Winzer, Rich, Larry good points all. Thanks guys, for adding light to this discussion.

armourbearer · #10 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

So then, if I'm understanding correctly, the warrant for believing that the representative principle is expanded to females rather than done away is because of the passage Rev. Winzer cited from 1 Cor about ceremonial headship, and also because circumcision is seen as equaling baptism in other respects?

There is more detail that could be added, but the fact that circumcision and baptism represent the same benefits of the covenant of grace, and the New Testament includes females in the covenant sign, are a good starting point.

a mere housewife · #11 (**permalink**) 06-25-2008, 11:41 PM

Thank you; that does answer my question.

Ruben and I would selfishly love to sit down with a group of you and 'non-argumentatively' ask all the questions we have :-). This has been most helpful; I think I understand the paedo view on this point now and can consider it, and its relation to other paedo views, more comprehendingly and accurately.

{added: just linking this thread to the split off for the future reference of anyone who might want to follow said link}

Dawie · #12 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Bruce quoted the following section from the article on Shepherd and Kline:

Quote:

Before Christ, only the free Jewish male can inherit the promises. Gentiles, slaves, and women only inherit the promises through their free, Jewish males.

This is not correct imho – the males were types of Christ.

As the bride is in Christ circumcised, so is the female in the male circumcised. Gentiles, slaves, and women didn’t inherit the promises through the males, but in the same way as the males, by being in Christ through faith.

We are all, male and female, the bride. Hence also males, as being part of the bride, are represented in circumcision. Being male, I am not excluded from what is typified by male circumcision, i.e. the circumcision of the bride in Christ.

Quote:

...how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised?

Circumcision and baptism communicate different facets of the bride’s death in Christ by mystical union, inter alia:

1.) By baptizing the female, it points to the bride’s baptism in Christ.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

2.) As the bride is in Christ circumcised, so is the female in the male circumcised.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Sorry I'm way late on this - just my

.

toddpedlar · #13 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Thank you; that does answer my question.

Ruben and I would selfishly love to sit down with a group of you and 'non-argumentatively' ask all the questions we have :-). This has been most helpful; I think I understand the paedo view on this point now and can consider it, and its relation to other paedo views, more comprehendingly and accurately.

{added: just linking this thread to the split off for the future reference of anyone who might want to follow said link}

Hey, why not arrange a Chicago get-together? Bawb and I could come down and bring brats & beer, and you two could drive up and bring some barbecued beef and we could make it a Midwest barbecue baptism bash!

tburus · #14 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawie

2.) As the bride is in Christ circumcised, so is the female in the male circumcised.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

I'm sorry because I know this thread had been very genial so far, but did you just claim that Jesus underwent spiritual circumcision? Why would Jesus need to remove the "body of the sins of the flesh"? If this is what you are saying, that Christ was circumcisized spiritually and that our spiritual circumcision is inherited from his, I would have to strongly disagree.

TimV · #15 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

In keeping with the fulness of New Testament administration, this demonstrates that federalism has not been curtailed, but rather expanded so as to include women where there is no believing male presence.

Federalism has always included women heads of households. From Numbers 30

"When a young woman still living in her father's house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

Quickened · #16 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Quote:

Originally Posted by a mere housewife

Thank you; that does answer my question.

Ruben and I would selfishly love to sit down with a group of you and 'non-argumentatively' ask all the questions we have :-). This has been most helpful; I think I understand the paedo view on this point now and can consider it, and its relation to other paedo views, more comprehendingly and accurately.

{added: just linking this thread to the split off for the future reference of anyone who might want to follow said link}

Hey, why not arrange a Chicago get-together? Bawb and I could come down and bring brats & beer, and you two could drive up and bring some barbecued beef and we could make it a Midwest barbecue baptism bash!

Talk about a good idea!!

Dawie · #17 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tburus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawie

2.) As the bride is in Christ circumcised, so is the female in the male circumcised.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

I'm sorry because I know this thread had been very genial so far, but did you just claim that Jesus underwent spiritual circumcision? Why would Jesus need to remove the "body of the sins of the flesh"? If this is what you are saying, that Christ was circumcisized spiritually and that our spiritual circumcision is inherited from his, I would have to strongly disagree.

Hi T

No I meant the elect (bride) were in Christ circumcised in his death, of which physical circumcision is the type. During their lives this true circumcision is applied to them.

tburus · #18 (**permalink**) 07-04-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawie

Hi T

No I meant the elect (bride) were in Christ circumcised in his death, of which physical circumcision is the type. During their lives this true circumcision is applied to them.

Thank you for clarifying your statement for me.