But Bill, you did acquiesce in the term "Anabaptist" the moment you called us your paedo brethren. Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

Randy, the literature supports deriving their "communal" existence from Separatist-Puritan stock, which is in reality not genuine Puritanism, since a Puritan sought the purity of the Church of England and separatists rejected national churches. The Anabaptist label has been used to denote their "doctrinal" distinctives. The true Puritans regularly made use of it.

PC,

Why can’t and infant have God’s law written on his heart. And why can’t infants be God’s people? Your response, no doubt, will be that infants cannot be God’s people until they are converted. But that’s irrelevant to the debate. Neither can adults be God’s people nor have his law written on their hearts until they are converted. Please grasp this, the question is not whether one is yet converted; the question is whether one is to be regarded as converted! That is what the debate is about. Nobody knows who is converted but God; and God can convert infants just as easily as adults. So conversion may not be the issue, but rather the question is who are to be regarded as the children of promise?

Can’t an infant have his sins forgiven? But once again, the issue is not whether one’s sins (man’s or infant’s) are forgiven but rather the question pertains to whether one is to be regarded as one whose sins are forgiven. Moreover, the verse regarding everyone knowing the Lord need not be taken in such a wooden way as to exclude infants - lest infants dying in infancy and those born with mental deficiencies could never be saved! After all, the verse pertains to the invisible and not the visible church! Accordingly, the verse may not be used as an exhaustive description of those within the invisible church lest infants and those incapable of being called could not be God’s children!

I believe that I have exhausted this matter. So naturally I believe that all I can do is repeat myself, which I do not have the luxury of doing.

Best of providence,

Ron

__________________
Ronald W. DiGiacomo / Ruling Elder
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com

You are still forcing your presuppositions onto me. I do not share some of these base presuppositions. For instance, I don't believe that the children of believers are in neutral zone and have the same chance of being elect as an unbeliever's child. I think we should expect believers' children, who are raised in the knowledge of the Lord, to be his people, unless they fall away. In other words, believers' children have to apostasize, not simply never join in the first place, in order to be regarded as not in the church. They are born into a believing family. They either stay or they leave. They don't stand on the fence and then pick a side when they're 5.

Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later. This is getting into a whole other topic that I don't believe we can speculate too much on; however, I believe I see the infants of believers differently than you do, and this is going to be a clincher in the credo/paedo debate.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 05:45:16 EST-----

An unbelieving spouse, furthermore, is only said to be sanctified for the sake of the child. Question: Why does Paul bother to emphasize that "[o]therwise your children would be unclean" ( 1 Cor. 7:14 ) if there is no real significance to that? Why, if they are holy and are raised in a household of faith, should they not be baptized? Why leave them in a state of not having been declared ceremonially clean before the world, by virtue of being inheritors of the promises? Yes, to receive these promises, they will need to be elect; and yes, some of them will not be elect, but that is the same situation as with any adult believer. As far as we may expect, they are holy. In fact, the pattern throughout Scripture is that men with unbelieving children are reprimanded by God, as if we should expect the children of believers to persevere (and prove to be elect) under good parenting? It is even a requirement for elders.

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

Matthew, I accept the fact that you are my brother in Christ, and a visible saint, based upon what you confess. Salvation is by grace through faith, not grace through faith plus baptism. To be sure, baptism is an ordinance that is not optional for the believer, and not being biblically baptized would prevent you from joining a Baptist church. If a paedobaptist moved to our area and wanted to join our church, but would not submit to believers baptism, they could not join. Their conviction on baptism would be respected, and I would not challenge their profession if it was biblically based, but they would not be allowed to become a member of my church.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

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

So paedos are brothers; they are just not allowed to take their place as ordinary members of the Father's family. That sounds like a heathen and publican to me, not a brother. There is obviously a disconnect in your thinking between Christianity and the Christian Church which has no basis in the Bible. I am sorry to have misunderstood your use of the term "brother," my brother.

Matthew, I am not going to apologize for being a Baptist. I am also not going to parse words with you. You know exactly what Baptists believe. That a Baptist has the brass to state in plainly seems to be cause for vilification.

I do want you, Presbyterian brethren on this board (and yes, I do mean brethren) to know that I hold you in high regard in spite of our disagreement over baptism. I will gladly fellowship and worship with you. I even depart with some Baptists by opening the Lord's table to Presbyterians. I draw the line at formal church membership. I am simply being true to my Baptist convictions.

Brother, I'm not asking you to apologise for your conviction nor have you been vilified. I am simply pointing out that you call us brethren in terms of Christianity but not in terms of the Christian church. So far as our relationship with Christ is concerned you seem very comfortable to regard us as your brethren. So far as our relationship with Christ's church is concerned you are ready to treat us as heathen and publicans.

Concerning your additional post, I think it is to be regretted that you have introduced church membership as a quasi-sacrament rather than as a practical recognition of the participants of the two sacraments which the Head of the Church has ordained. There should never be a discrepancy between church membership and church privileges. This discrepancy would be further evidence of a disconnect between Christianity and the Christian church.

To the OP, the fundamental disagreement is over what a disciple is. Is a person baptized and taught everything because he demonstrates the mature fruits of discipleship or is he baptized in order to be discipled? I believe the Scriptures manifestly teach the latter. Discipleship is not to be conflated with regeneration but all the means of grace are administered by the Church toward the end that a Sovereign God will convert and mature to His holy ends. The baptism of infants is a visible testimony that grace precedes faith.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

Herald,

Let me try to help you out a bit.

Your dilemma:

You believe we are Christians, so you are glad to fellowship, worship and commune with us. Notwithstanding, we could not join your church thereby placing ourselves under the authority of your elder board. Accordingly, it seems as if you are willing to regard people as in Christ who could never be excommunicated from Christ’s visible body. In other words, your willingness to regard us as true brothers in Christ prevents you from having a consistently biblical ecclesiology. For a consistently biblical ecclesiology presupposes that anyone who may be treated as in Christ must also be a potential candidate for being declared outside Christ (should they become delinquent in doctrine or lifestyle).

A possible solution:

Let’s assume (a) that you would not fellowship, commune or worship with anyone who was not a member of a true Christian Church, and (b) you consider Presbyterian churches to be true Churches of Jesus Christ. If such were true, then your position would be a bit more palatable. What you’d be saying then is that you would not fellowship with just anyone who professes Christ and lives a moral life, but only with those who are members of true Christian churches – even such Christian churches that would be as unbiblical as Presbyterian churches with respect to baptism.

The way the dilemma and the solution differ is that the dilemma suggests that you would fellowship, worship and commune with people outside the visible church, which is an unbiblical ecclesiology and something that I believe was giving Matthew (and frankly me) some heartburn. The solution I’ve proposed saves your catholicity and to some extent your ecclesiology by requiring membership in Christ’s body and submission to spiritual oversight as necessary conditions for Christian communion etc. You’d still be left with a somewhat inconsistent, sectarian ecclesiology (on a local level, if you will) that would allow for Christians to join lesser churches than you believe yours to be, but that inconsistency is I believe part-and-parcel with baptistic thought. That’s the best I can do to present your views in the best possible light.

Warmly,

Ron

This is a generous attempt at a solution, but I don't think it saves anything. "Baptism is a sacrament ... for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church" (WCF 28:1). According to Bill, denying the "Anabaptism" tag requires asserting that sprinkling infants is not baptism, and therefore "Baptists" administer the ordinance for the first time. That being the case, these infants are not baptised, which means they are not members of the visible church catholic. If they are not members of the visible church catholic then they cannot be true members of a visible particular church, because particular churches are nothing less than members of the visible church catholic.

Matthew,

It certainly saves something but obviously not as much as you or I might like. It certainly doesn't save what we know to be the sign of entrance into the visible church. Notwithstanding, it does save other necessary conditions for full communion, such as submission to elder rule, a credible profession of faith, etc. Those necessary conditions for communion are I believe something our dear brother would affirm; yet your critique of his position could imply the opposite, that he would call "brother" someone who, for instance, was not in submission to any elders. I think that needed to be noted.

Blessings,

Ron

Would these be unbaptised elders? Would this be the profession of an unbaptised person? Without baptism there is no visible church, hence there can be no fulfilment of any condition for church communion. That is why the first mandate in making disciples is to baptise.

I am enjoying this thread in that many important topics are being discussed.

Austin inpart you said this:
Austin your speaking as if anyone can be a christian by physical birth into a family with a believing parent without the work of the Spirit.
ie, they are in? until they show they are not ??
Getting back to the OP this idea of a non saving ,new covenant membership
is a major difference in the baptism debate as well as what is the Church.

Baptists are told they cannot teach or hold office in a padeo church,unless they conform to the padeo view,and this is proper. why should padeos think it strange when they are asked to do the same when among baptists?

Matthew, Ron, Rich, Bruce and all the padeo brethren are brothers because of the blood of Christ, and Spirit baptism. Entrance into the blood bought Church is through Spirit baptism. This is another difference obviously.
Your position looks at water baptism as the entrance. We believe Spirit baptism alone actually places anyone in the actual[invisible] church.
To their own master they stand or fall. God knows the heart.

The use of the language of visible/invisible church although sometimes helpful,and a theologically needful at times, also can cloud these discussions

Austin when you say this:
I understand the position you advocate but it begs the question are believing parents hoping/or presuming or something else? We both anticipate and prayerfully look for evidence of the Spirits work in our children as we are conscious that often God works in a believing home through the word of God being taught by the Spirit led parents.

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

Anthony, how could you possibly know if we have Spirit baptism? At best we might display outward marks of it, but only God knows whom He has baptised with His Spirit. Hence the necessity of the invisible/visible church distinction, not simply as a theological nicety but as a practical reality.

Matthew,

First off, we are not just speaking of one particular Baptist here but rather all Baptists everywhere.

There are degrees of theological inconsistencies. For instance, all Arminians have a view of free will that if true would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism. Now I hope you would agree that a typical Arminian congregation that affirms God’s omniscience can be a true church of Jesus Christ, but one that is completely consistent in their Arminianism (to the point of being Open Theistic by creed) would be no church of Jesus Christ. The point being, there are degrees of inconsistency. One can embrace the false teaching of libertarian freedom while inconsistently embracing the truth of God’s exhaustive omniscience. It is what we call a happy inconsistency. We should be delighted that Arminians are not so consistent as to reject all truths that would logically follow from their fundamental belief of libertarian freedom. In the like manner, it is better for our Baptist brethren in their rejection of our view of baptism to still acknowledge churches such as ours as true churches of Jesus Christ, even though if they were consistent with their views they would not. You wish to magnify the point that Baptists have no consistent basis to fellowship with you because if they were consistent with their view of infant baptism, then they would not regard an adult as a true believer and member of a true church without having been baptized as a believer. All along I have agreed with this point. What I have tried to add is that although they are not consistent with their ecclesiology to the point of not acknowledging our assemblies as true churches, they can happily (yet inconsistently) embrace the truth that OPC churches are true churches of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, their fellowship and communion would be based upon some truth (e.g., clear teaching of the gospel, etc.), but not the sacramental truth regarding baptism as it relates to ecclesiology. In the like manner, I can fellowship with an Arminian over the truth of God’s exhaustive omniscience even though if he were 100% consistent he would have no claim on that truth over which we might fellowship.

I've beaten this enough. Please take the last word.

Warmly yours,

Ron

Hello Matthew,
Well yes , as I noted God alone sees the heart. We are instructed by the apostle Paul to mark those who walk after the apostolic example,in contrast to those who are self-serving.
I see you men as brothers who attempt to give instruction according to the scriptures. If any are false brethren,tares,goats , I am confident that God will be the judge of all such persons.
Believers in Rockhampton have made a judgement that you match the biblical qualifications of an elder. How do they know for sure?
I do not see where we are going to "know for sure" until the last day declares the reality .
What I do know is that the Spirit indwells all members of the body of Christ. Unsaved persons are not part of that body, as Jesus did not die for false professors. You have professed to be part of that body.Others have believed your profession. So do we.
A parent who believes they are correctly applying a sign and seal of the covenant to their infant still makes similar judgements as their child grows older. They look for evidence that the child,or young adult has the signs of those indwelt by the Spirit in order to become a "communicant" member.
Is this in reality that much different? if you have believed the infant to be in the visible outward administration, and yet seems to lack those signs of regeneracy as they grow older, you still make the same judgements on that which is seen and heard as the credo does.
The profession outwardly does not save apart from it being Spirit wrought. Yet all true believers will profess. a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square. On one hand I see the use of the visible /invisible distinction and it serves as a helpful model. Yet I look more at the scriptures teaching on what is referred to as the invisible church as being the primary use of the description of the church.
I am still re-examining Hebrews 3-4, and 1cor 10 using the padeo paradigm as you have suggested in times past. It just takes me awhile as I keep drifting down different lines of thought Have to go to work now.

Since this thread is now open to both sides, I reply:

The real issue is whether pb is truly a good and necessary consequence of Scriptural data. Pb's believe it is, cb's find either logical gaps in the reasoning or insufficient exegesis of relevant Scriptures in attempts to demonstrate pb's necessity.

NB: If someone wants to offer detailed argumentation proving the pb position, I'm not going to play. My observation is solely offered as an attempt to identify the key issue that prolongs the debate.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

Unfortunately, I do suffer from a plaguing inability to communicate well, but I will try to explain what I meant.

I did not say anything about being born a genuine Christian without the work of the Spirit, nor do I think we should just assume that any particular child or adult is regenerate. I think SemperFidelis said it much better than I did. They are born and raised disciples. Many disciples fall away and prove to be unregenerate, both adult converts and children who have been raised in the knowledge of the Lord. I do not assume anything about anyone's spiritual state; however, I do treat the children of believers as belonging to God's people, just as I do the same towards my own pastor, whom I cannot prove to be regenerate either, other than witnessing fruits.

The bottom line is, we cannot baptize anyone - infant or adult - on the basis of certain spiritual change. We baptize those who become disciples, and their children, who are discipled from the tenderest ages. This is the most consistent practice.

Nonsense - and a little thought should show you why.

Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his menbership in Christ's visible church.

If the only basis we have for accepting someone as a Christian brother or sister is that they are baptised as infants, how can you possibly justify baptising an adult raised in a non-Christian home when they now profess conversion? If you baptize such a person as likely regenerate based on their confession of faith and a life now marked by turning from sin, why can't we recognize you as equally regenerate and thus our brethen in Christ?

John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God". Since we can sufficiently identify the likely regeneracy of adult individuals turning from non-Christian backgounds by a profession of faith accompanied by a turning from sin to God's ways, both pb's and cb's baptize them. But recognizing the likely regeneracy of such converts necessarily entails also recognizing them as entitled to membership of the visible church, even if they haven't yet become members of a local church by formally joining that organization (however that is done).

Since professing pb's have (almost always) joined a local church, a Baptist has not the least problem recognizing a professing Presbytrian, other Reformed, Lutheran or evangelical Anglican or any other pb with church membership as both a brother and a member of Christ's visible church in the world.

I'll venture a guess that many credobaptists on this board will disagree with you here. And furthermore, baptism is clearly treated in Scripture as the means by which members are set apart as being in the visible church.

Hey Austin,
wow, I've missed a lot over the past couple days! Right, I don't necessarily see them as being in a neutral zone either. They are blessed for being born into Christian families, and there is a very high probability (for lack of better words) that they are elect and will be regenerate.

I agree, and this applies to credo families as well. But note that even within the paedo scheme, the child still needs to "pick a side" (age 16 if I'm not mistaken?) through the quasi-sacrament of confirmation. Regarding the need to apostatize, this suggests that the grown up child borrows his parents' faith until such a time as he decides to let go of it. To the PB, would that apostasy be regarded as "lighter" or equal to apostatizing one's own faith?

I think that more critical to the debate is not our view of infants, but the nature and meaning of baptism.

__________________
Dennis Oh
Toronto, Canada
"The gospel is only good news if it gets there in time" -- Carl F. H. Henry

It seems like most of the replies are dealing with the fundamental differences between the Reformed and Baptists on the concept the covenant. While this is true, in my opinion, it is really secondary to the issue.

I think we can find the answer to the question by looking at where virtually all Baptist polemics on this subject begin...

The real issue is one of hermeneutics. The Baptist position is first and foremost about the absence of any explicit teaching regarding infant baptism in the New Testament whereas the Reformed position accepts that inference on this subject is just as binding as that which is explicitly stated.

That this is the heart of the issue can be demonstrated from Fred Malone's book entitled "The Baptism of Disciples Alone". As a Reformed Baptist attempting to critique infant baptism from a covenantal perspective, he begins his case in the 2nd chapter dealing with the subject of hermenuetics. The chapter concludes with...

"...let us consistently apply the principle that the explicit teaching of Scripture takes precedence over inference from Scripture. If we follow these principles consistently, we must conclude that supposed 'good and necessary inference' from the Old Testament cannot carry more weight than the New Testament command and example expressly set down in Scripture, especially for the 'sacraments institutes by Christ' Himself."

If chapter 2 is correct than the arguement for the Baptist case is made and the covenantal argument made in the rest of the book is superfluous.

For Malone, the heart of the matter is the lack of an explicit reference to infant baptism in the New Testament. For this reason he sees the inference drawn for infant baptism to contradict that which is explicit.

This is my starting point with Baptists who wish to discuss this subject. If the absence of an explicit text is ultimately why they are Baptist, then no amount of persuasion will be sufficient until they first see the error of their approach to the Scriptures.

Some Reformed Baptists who are educated on this subject will affirm inference but deny that it can rightly be made with infant baptism. I've had a few interesting conversations with Reformed Baptists where I'll ask the question "What if there was an explicit reference to infant baptism in the New Testament; would you then agree with the Reformed paedobaptist position as it understands the rest of the Scripture?". In each case the answer was "yes". This demonstrates that, even with Reformed Baptists, it is ultimately not about the covenants but about the lack of an explicit reference.

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

I think I have shown that a GNC of John 1: 12,13 is that someone who presents with the Scriptural criteria for being recognized as a child of God, must be recognized as both brother and entitled to church membership. Any case for the contrary must demonstrate that the consequence is not necessary.

While some passages concerning "baptism" have been taken as you note, the problem with such readings is whether or not the baptism referred to is really water baptism or whether such passages are intended to refer to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in 1 Cor 12:13.

It should be noted that Martyn Lloyd-Jones gives several good reasons for believing that water baptism cannot be in view when "baptism" is mentioned in Rom. 6 in his commentary on that chapter. Anyone who wants to affirm the contrary will need to engage the arguments there.

What literature Reverend Winzer? I have proven this isn't necessarily true on the PB. The early Particular Baptist were not separatists as you imply if I am understanding some things correctly.

In fact I think this was surely John Bunyan's position.

I hope to resume this later. I am not feeling to well. I will probably be on tomorrow.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

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

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

Apostasy is not leaving one's own faith because that would fly against perseverance of the saints. Apostasy is leaving the visible Church. But we are talking about two different things. You are essentially looking at this from a purely internal perspective. I am suggesting that all we see in Scripture is people being baptized if they were to be counted among Christ's disciples (visibly) because nothing further can be seen. For instance, Simon Magus said he wanted to be Christ's disciple, and therefore he was baptized. He was not regenerate, but Philip could not base baptism on that - He could only base it on the fact that Simon had said he wanted to abandon his past and become a disciple. I am only suggesting that believers' infants, being the children of Christians, are counted disciples and initiated into the discipleship process by virtue of being born in a Christian family. It says nothing about their spiritual state, except that we expect that they should not abandon the path they are raised in, although we cannot know it for an indisputable fact. Indeed, in a Reformed Baptist church, a lot of young children are baptized on professions of faith that seem incredibly sincere, and yet they later fall away. I have never met a 5YO of faithful baptist parents who, when asked if he believed in Jesus, responded, "No, I choose to be an atheist." The child is raised in the faith, although we do not know the spiritual condition of the child any more than we do of the parent.

Regarding confirmation, it is called that for a reason. The child is not initially choosing the faith at that point, but confirming it. I do not believe there is a universal age, and I certainly think 16 is way too long to wait IMO. I think 16 is the top end of the range among Reformed and Presbyterian churches, so it seems unfair for you to pick the top of the range and use it against me.

Edit: Forgive me, but we have long since gotten off topic from your OP. There are already vast numbers of threads on this very subject where much more eloquent people than I have interacted with the issue from the perspective we are discussing, and I feel kind of guilty engaging you on it since I know I cannot discuss it as well as others can/have.

Regarding the central issue that separates the two camps, though, I think I can fairly say that we have been witnessing it in our own debate, although we haven't been talking about it directly. It has been underlying our discussion this whole time. What it comes down to is different approaches to visible/invisible church and how baptism relates to the two.

This is a great example which establishes rather than denies CB. The point being that Simon WANTED to become a disciple and so received baptism. This example is similar with all other instances of baptism in the NT, as far as can be established reasonably, that is, those who received baptism professed personal faith.

Your suggestion remains to be established scripturally. Are infants disciples? Do they bear the marks of NT disciples? Can one become a disciple by proxy or association, according to the biblical pattern? The thing about baptism, which above all is a sign of our identification with Christ's death and resurrection (Col 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead"), has everything to do with one's spiritual state, how can it not? PB seems to water-down (no pun intended) the weight of the meaning of baptism, putting it at the level of circumcision when it seems to mean so much more.

Dude, don't feel guilty. I'm enjoying our discussion and it's helpful for me cause it's at a level i can understand. I'll get around to the archives if/when I get a chance. Hope we can continue the talks.

peace.

-----Added 11/4/2009 at 02:29:47 EST-----

Thanks for the post. I think both camps would agree that an explicit statement would be most helpful and we'd all prefer that over the complexities of inferential theology. Thus, the clinchers for me would be:
1. explicit reference to an infant baptism occurring in the New Testament
2. determining whether 'oikos' necessarily includes all members within a given household, including infants. Remember that our friend John Owen showed very well that the words "whole", "world" and "all" don't always include every individual.

In the absence of the above, what is the best practice? In the objective sense, we would want to practice what is most safe and scripturally faithful; subjectively, we want to practice what is most meaningful.

You must also keep in mind that the silence on infant baptism cuts both ways.

Since the Bible doesn't explicitly state what Christian parents are to do with their children in regards to baptism, the Baptist must also use inference to answer the question.

Ultimately Baptists infer from the lack of an explicit text that infants should be baptized while paedobaptists infer from the covenantal framework of Scripture that infants are to be baptized; especially since there is no command to cease to administer the sign of the covenant to children.

The "absence" of explicit teaching is used by both positions to advance their causes. I am a paedobaptist because, in absence of an explicit command not to baptize my children, I look to the Scriptures as a whole to draw the correct inference as to whether or not the sign of the covenant should be applied to them or not.

This is assuming the position you are trying to prove. I know of 9 baptisms in the NT, not counting John's baptisms, and of the 9, 5 are household baptisms, 2 had no households present (Paul and the Ethiopian), and the other 2 we aren't told anything else about (Gaius and Simon Magus).

I agree that baptism has everything to do with one's spiritual state, but as I have already said, I think the children of believers, who are raised to believe unlike pagan children, are to be expected to be truly God's unless and until they apostasize; however, we can no more assume their spiritual state than we can my pastor's. We do act like it is so and expect it to be so, though.

-----Added 11/4/2009 at 04:23:02 EST-----

Regarding explicit references to infant baptism:

The evidence here is clearly in our favor. There is neither (a) an instance of an infant explicitly said to have been baptized nor (b) an instance of a child of believers having a coming-of-age baptism later. All we can do is look at principles established in Scripture, and they all point to the inclusion of infants, e.g. Peter's re-echoing of Gen. 17:7 in Acts 2:39, the 5 household baptisms out of 9 total baptisms in the NT (!), and yes, even Jesus' statements about letting the children come to him are relevant, even if they aren't prooftexts.

Edit: All the examples used to prove that personal professed faith is the prerequisite for baptism are examples of adults converting for the first time. None of them were raised in a family of believers.

I have never heard it expressed in this way. Thank you for your thoughts. However, your reasoning seems a bit like the normative instead of the regulative principle since their is no command to baptize infants but we see it only after someone has expressed faith. Just my Baptist thoughts.

__________________
John Lanier
Elder in Training
Reformed Baptist Church
Topeka, KS

First, Open theism is not the consistent outcome of Arminianism. Arminianism maintains a doctrine of God which is in accord with classical theism. Secondly, reformed churches separated from Rome because it corrupted the doctrines of grace in a semi-Pelagian direction. Churches which are Arminian in confession are no better than the Church of Rome and hence corrupt churches. They are churches because they administer Trinitarian baptism in accord with the institution of Christ. But they are corrupt churches because they teach significant errors.

Now this is altogether different from a "Baptist" perspective, where we are not considered as baptised, and hence not even churches of Jesus Christ. We do not even belong to the visible church in order to be considered as corrupt churches. We have no churches. If, in charity, some of them feel this is rather harsh and are inconsistently compelled to receive us as churches because of the ministry and spirituality that they see amongst us, I receive it thankfully. "Brethren" should not disown each other but are their brother's keeper. But this is beside the theological point that baptism marks entrance into the visible church and without baptism one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, and therefore as a "brother."

The New Testament silence about women partaking of the Lord's Supper doesn't seem to bother our baptist brethren in the slightest.

Shooorly shome inconshishtenshy, Mish Moneypenny!

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

The "others" baptised me without profession, which you do not accept.

OK. I'm listening.

A false dilemma. Baptismal regeneration refers to a mechanical effect of baptism on the spiritual condition of the person baptised. The denial of a spiritual effect does not require one to deny all effects of baptism. Baptism effects visible church communion. This is clear from the fact that the book of Acts relates how the apostles always required it in connection with repentance. Repentance is invisible and known only to God; baptism is visible and can be seen by men.

Confession of faith and new life should never be separated from baptism. The New Testament constantly appeals to the new life of the brother in terms of baptism. E.g., Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This leads to a specific visible and admonitory relation whereby brethren may address each other in terms of "If baptised, then..." You cannot appeal to us and say, "If baptised, then..." Hence your description of us as brethren is emptied of all visible and admonitory significance.

This is invisible and known only to God. We are speaking about visible saints.

Pastor Truelove,
In Acts 21:21 we see an indication that one of the things spoken among the Jews was that Paul was teaching them not to circumcise their children [the covenant sign]
It does not say he was teaching any replacement sign. It does say that the sign of the covenant was not to be administered according to Paul's teaching.
If there was a replacement sign don't you think it would be clearly mentioned here?
How do you understand this passage? Also along the same line,when the Acts 15 meeting took place,again we see no statement that their is any replacement sign. We do see that circumcision is no longer in effect. The sign and what it signified are fulfilled in Christ.

See Barry Howson, "Erroneous and schismatical opinions," especially Appendix B. He writes, "But there is plenty of evidence connecting the Calvinistic Baptist ecclesiology with Puritan-Separatism" (p. 318). He appeals to the studies of White, Novak, and Tolmie. Novak's study details the roots of numerous particular Baptist leaders, and he concludes that they were exposed to "the radical Calvinism of separated worship before [their] adoption of the particular Baptist position" (ibid.).

Matthew,

I was willing to give you the last word on this matter but at that time I would have never imagined that a Reformed pastor would make such a blunder on another matter. You just denied that the logical implication of libertarian free will is Open Theism. Matthew, I built a sound argument based upon a simple analogy that employed a premise that should be obvious to all Reformed pastors. That premise was: ... all Arminians have a view of free will that if true would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism. You just denied that premise, which is basic to Reformed thinkers. Plainly put, LFW requires that a future choice is neither metaphysically true nor false with respect to its outcome prior to it occuring, which means that God cannot know the outcome of a LFW choice because God cannot know anything that is not true! Accordingly, an Arminian view of the will, taken to its logical end, denies God's omniscience. I launched an argument based upon an analogy that was basic to that very simple premise about LFW, but even that premise you are unwilling to accept. I cannot help you, Matthew. Be happy in your disagreements with our Baptist brethren.

Ron

This is slander to the conservative Arminian. You are requiring the difficulty of his position to be answered in terms of the Open Theist solution. From Calvin to Edwards the reformed have answered the conservative Arminian in terms of God's choice of creation notwithstanding foreknowledge of evil. That answer is without bearing on the Open Theist. By requiring such consistency you are cutting off an important tactical argument that has been successful in showing the conservative Arminian the error of his belief.