An interesting discussion on another thread led me to the following thoughts.

John 1:12 tells me that it is those "who received Christ and believed in his name" who have the right to become children of God. When Rom. 10:14 asks me "...how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" it would seem to indicate that hearing with understanding necessarily atedates believing, unless you can show by GNC from other Scriptures that this conclusion is not "necessary". And hearing with understanding certainly involves "verbal" as a precondition for faith.

Gal 3:7 tells me that it is "those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." Hebrews 11:1 tells me that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen". For someone to have the right to be recognized as a child of Abraham, he or she must be hoping for some things and be certain of things he or she cannot see. How can you hope for something that you cannot articulate or be certain of the realities of things not seen unless those concepts have been explained verbally or in writing?

It seems to me that a GNC consequence of these Scriptures, unless it can be demonstrated to the contrary by GNC deduction from other Scriptures, is that understanding is a prerequisite for recognizing the existance of faith, (an exception of course may be made for those beyond infancy who are incapable of responding to the preached or written word OLC 10:3) and how else is that understanding to be recognized unless that understanding can be communicated verbally or in writing?

If the above paragraphs put forward a necessary conclusion reached from Scriptural premises, it would seem that credo-baptism must be seen as the only biblical mode of Baptism.

Now for this conclusion to be proven incorrect, two of two things must happen.
1) The conclusion reached in the above paragraphs must be shown to be illogical and
2) It must be shown by GNC from other Scriptures that IB is biblically justifiable.

Note: establishing point 2) without establishing point 1) won't prove the matter.

If any PB would like to establish either points 1) or 2) go ahead.

__________________
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 -

Can credo-baptists claim to baptize only those who have saving faith and are infallibly regenerate and in union with Christ?

If one received believer’s baptism and subsequently is discovered not to have had saving faith, must he be baptized again?

Credo-baptists are not recognizing the distinction between the visible and invisible church; and seem to claim to know more than they can possibly know about the spiritual state of the candidate for baptism.

And, when Jesus says of infants, “Of such is the kingdom of God” (or “kingdom of heaven”), what is the kingdom of which he speaks?

__________________
Glenn Ferrell
Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Boise, Idaho

http://sovereignredeemer.org

http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_de...formationidaho


Nec Tamen Consumebatur


The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. - Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

From the London Baptist Confession of 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?

Re: John 1:12

This has been discussed before (and the last thread is still open).

John 1:11-13 and infant baptism

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

John 1:12-13 & baptism revisited

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

Try putting your claims/conclusion made in your paragraphs into a syllogism. How can your view be "shown" to be illogical when not a single premise in your text even uses the term "baptism"? You've made a conclusion drawn from unstated premises smuggled in.

I'm not playing. I don't see why it should be requisite on any paedo-baptist to show:

HOW you arrive at credo-baptism, something you don't argue for, and then work to refute it.

And since you've already stated that you don't care if I CAN demonstrate #2 by GNC, I won't waste your time on that either.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Ok, I just did a search on what GNC is an acronym for, I wonder if any of these would apply:
Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Graduated Non-Convexity
Graph-Node Coloring
Generalized Nyquist Criterion

What in world does GNC mean?

__________________
Lance G. Marshall
Pastor
Georgetown, Indiana

Good and Necessary Consequence

__________________
We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible. - Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Lawrence Underwood, Jr.
Pastor - Providence Family Fellowship / Mobile, Alabama
1644/46 LBC
My Blog - Imprimis

GNC = Good and Necessary Consequence.

oops parallel posted. Missed it by that much.

__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRCNA - Bradenton, Florida
(A conservative member in a conservative congregation)

"Turning away to false Theology is equal to turning away to false gods" — Francis Schaeffer (Death in the City)

Tim, these are texts worthy of discussion. But I agree with Rev. Buchanan that you have not established your premises. I am not yet a full-blown Reformed Paedo-Baptist, but as I have mentioned in the other baptism threads, I am more comfortable with being one than being a Baptist. Here is how I would see those texts.

Reformed Paedo-Baptists would emphasize the distinction between those who are in the covenant narrowly, and those who are in it broadly (Rom. 2:28-29, 9:6; Rom. 11, etc.). It is true that God's Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only. That is in fact the confessional Reformed position.

The texts you quoted emphasize this. But when God administers his grace, he does not just embrace individuals. He embraces confessors and their families. That was his pattern in the OT (Gen. 7:1, 17:9-14; Deut. 29:10-14). And whatever changes the New Covenant has brought, it is this household principle that was never abrogated. The NT pattern in administering the sign remains the same. It is given to confessors and their families (Acts 2:38-39, 11:14-15, 16:14-15, 31:31-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). It is not the case that the Bible teaches that only believers are baptized. The apostolic example is that entire households are baptized.

Reformed Paedo-Baptists are not surprised to read that the NT Church itself is called by Scripture as God's household (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17; cf. Heb. 3). The Apostle Paul is also clear that this community of faith includes children (Eph. 6:1-4; Col. 3:20). Reformed theologians have asked this question again and again: if the Baptist understanding of the New Covenant, the nature of the Church, and the subjects (or objects) of baptism is true, why does the NT speak of households in the receiving of the covenant sign of baptism at all? Why is the Church called the household of God?

What often gets lost in discussions about the nature of the New Covenant is that other OT prophecies (aside from Jer. 31:31-34) that speak of it are usually left out, probably unintentionally. What is amazing about these texts is that they specifically and explicitly include the children of believers. Examples include but are not limited to Ps. 103:17-18; Isa. 44:3, 59:20-21, 61:9, 65:23; Ezek. 37:24-28. (I am indebted to what Puritan John Owen, Prof. Samuel Miller, and Rev. Bill Shishko of the OPC have written on these wonderful texts.) The Bible reader need not even leave the book of Jeremiah. The prophet was not ambiguous when he wrote,

With this in mind, it is perfectly understandable why the New Covenant prophecy in the previous chapter was stated in the way it was stated.

The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and with house of Judah, and this is for the good of God's people and their children with them! Given this broader OT redemptive-historical context, I still do not see why texts like Luke 18:15-17, Acts 2:38-39, 1 Cor. 7:14, etc., and the examples of household baptisms in the NT should be interpreted in the way the Baptist insists that they should be interpreted.

Like Rom. 9:6, the texts you quoted simply say that no one is saved by being born as Abraham's physical descendant. The Reformed Paedo-Baptist must ask: But how do these texts refute infant baptism? The lesson we learn from verses like these is that person is a true seed of Abraham and therefore a child of God only by faith in the Lord Jesus. Anathema to Reformed Paedo-Baptists if they teach otherwise. Being born into a believing family never guaranteed salvation. Ishmael and Esau were born to believing families, and yet they were reprobates. This was true in the OT, and is still true in the NT. There are Ishmaels and Esaus among the children of many believers. And Reformed Paedo-Baptists will be quick to point that out. But this Biblical truth does not do away with the equally Biblical truth that God works through families and uses them as a means in calling his elect to repentance and faith. It is for this reason entire households in both the OT and the NT are embraced as members of God's covenant community. OT Israel was God's house, and the NT Church is God's house (see texts above). God deals with families so that there will be a people for Himself acknowledging His Lordship and His faithfulness to His covenant promise from generation to generation (Deut. 7:9; Ps. 79:13; Luke 1:50-55).

These two Biblical truths therefore co-exist: No one is saved by being born into a believing family, but God uses the family as a means of converting His people. The Christian family after all is the place where people from their infancy or childhood are taught to obey their parents in the Lord, and are brought up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:1-4). The problem I see with much of Baptist polemics against infant baptism is that it tends to pit individual responsibility against family solidarity when the Bible does not require us to choose one and reject the other. God's demands have always been the same: repentance and faith in Him. Family solidarity does not undermine that. God will hold every individual responsible for what he has done here on earth. But in His excellent plan, God is pleased to use families to teach people about Who He is and what the gospel of His Son is all about. Prof. John Murray's words are helpful here.

I am not yet totally convinced of infant baptism, but this is how I presently see the nature of the paedo-credo debate. His covenant community, the Church, is a family of families, not a family of individuals whose children are excluded from God's household of faith until after these little ones profess faith for themselves. I agree with my Reformed Paedo-Baptist brethren that in all of this, it is the Baptist who must assume the burden of proof. Where has God abrogated this household principle? The Baptist answers to this question unfortunately have not satisfied me. Thanks for asking.

__________________
Albert, The Republic of the Philippines
Pasig United Covenant Reformed Church (a Reformed church plant)
United Covenant Reformed Churches in the Philippines (UCRCP)
Three Forms of Unity and Westminster Confession of Faith

Psalm 27:1a (AV) The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?
“Perseverance is the badge of true saints. The Christian life is not a beginning only in the ways of God, but also a continuance in the same as long as life lasts.” -

Paedo-baptists seek to defend the unity of the covenant in their arguments against baptists. But baptists embrace the covenant of grace in its proper unfolding and development in redemptive history and its relationship to Jesus Christ.

We affirm with paedo-baptists the sign of the covenant in the OT was circumcision and the sign of the covenant in the NT is baptism. We also affirm they both signify regeneration.

WE part ways there.
Regeneration is the fulfillment of circumcision not baptism-baptism is only it's NT counterpart.
The covenant of grace unfolded over redemptive history to reveal more and more of the same truth, namely salvation in Christ. Those covenant embraced types and shadows, promise and fulfillment-all culminating and fulfilled in the finished work of Christ in the New Covenant, the types and shadows being no more.

Circumcision while signifying regeneration by faith in Christ also had types and shadows associated with it which passed away with Christ. There were nationalistic and ethnic ties associated with it which were not spiritual. God told Abraham he would be the father of many nations and he was to set them apart by circumcision. He was also told that the spiritual promise of the seed was only in Isaac-meaning the promises were NOT to all the seed, but the nationalistic promises of a people and land were for all the circumcised.
In the NT Christ was THE SEED and fulfilled all of the promises including spiritual and physical. Yet now the only remaining in their fulness is Christ and union with Him-the temple, land and people are done away with as are their relationships with the carnal, non-believing offspring.
We know that because all of the passages dealing with Christian baptism in their context deal with repentant believers. No promises are forfeited to children of believers as even in the OT only the elect were given the promise of salvation so to say all children of believers have Gods promise is false.
The nature of the sign of circumcision in its relation to redemptive history looked forward to redemption at the cross(yes people were still saved by CHrist ) Baptism looks backward to a redemption already professed to be attained by believers. There is no forward looking language to the baptized community in the NT calling them to baptize their hearts etc as the OT did becuase the nationalistic land and people aspects have been done away and now only those who profess are given the sign (per NT texts) Baptists nowhere claim their churches are perfect as its very possible for hypocrites and false professors to fool the elect. But we baptize based upon the context of NT texts associated with baptism.
The texts which explain the significance of baptism ONLY speak in the past tense with the assumption the receipient has made a credible profession of faith. Rom 6, Gal 3, 1 Pet 3, etc,etc. They never(like circumcision) speak in an anticipatory manner encouraging the recipient to attain the thing signified! That is a linchpin argument no paedo baptist can refute.
The arguments from household baptism seem tenous at best and exegesis of each instance yields much less in favor for the paedo position and should not be used as to build a doctrine of extreme importance upon.
Children who do not receive baptism in infancy miss absolutely nothing of the grace of God. Not only are they in harmony with NT baptismal texts, they still are raised in godly homes, preached the gosple promise that all who believe will be justified and have union with Christ-and then be given the sign that they are assumed to posses said union(based upon a profession which could be false)
The arguments that how could God narrow the scope of his covenantal grace is moot. Nothing is narrowed. SO they dont have the sign. What is the sign a presbyterian child has-Does he have a sort of half way salvation or guarantee of salvation that a baptist child does not have? Only the elect throughout the ages were promised they would be saved. The nationalistic, forward looking apects of the convenantal sign in the OT were done away with-now in the NT it is only the spiritual significance that is paramount as the covenant of grace has been fulfilled in Christ and the language of the NT is only those in CHrist are heirs and have right to the sign for no national significance is tied to it. Let us leave all dispensational baggage(types and shadows-i.e land, temple, Jerusalem, circumcision, ethnic and lineal membership in external national covenants behind) and let the fulfillment of the New Covenant, its people, its signs and their significance be united as they are in the NT.

Is it not the case that infant baptism is 'read into' the scriptures rather than drawn out from the scriptures? Not to mention the fact church history taints our interpretation. The process in scripture seems to be repent, believe and be baptised.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent." John Calvin

John from Scotland
Denomination: Attending Baptist church
Confessional Subscription:London Baptist Confession
Blog: [url]www.three-streams.co.uk[/url]

Nope.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

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

A.J., that was one great post.

You are supposing, then, that Esau was not circumcised? I am sure he was, and he still did not belong to the Lord's people, nor was his offspring with Jacob's, nor did he receive the spiritual promises: yet, he was of the seed of Isaac, and he was circumcised (like Ishmael was, Genesis 17:26).

Also, Paul, at least, had a clear family/covenant view:

The underlying assumption very clearly is that the children of two believers are holy, and the text states that even the children of one believer and an unbeliever are holy, because they are the children of a believer, whereas other children are unclean. If Paul calls them holy, that is to say, set apart from the world, how would he not affirm that by the sign of the covenant, I wonder?

Note that either man or wife being a believer sanctifies the entire family(!). That sounds like a powerful statement in favor of the view that the covenant and its sign extends to the children.

__________________
Co
Netherlands Reformed Congegration of Kampen
Kampen, The Netherlands

Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness, and let him reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities. Psalm 141:5

Only if you take the extreme position that households which were the subject of recorded baptisms did not contain infants. Of course when baptism was first instituted the pattern had to be that the head of the household had to repent, believe and be baptised, but when he was baptised he was baptised with his household.

I am always glad when Church history "taints" my interpretation, it is the Church that interprets scriptures.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

John 1:12 and Gal. 3:7 certainly speak to the point as to the grace signified by baptism, but they are not regulative of the administration of the sign itself. Only the sacerdotal methodology finds the sacraments in every reference to grace. Rom. 10:14 is obviously applicable to those who can actually hear, just as the command to work in order to eat is applicable to those who can work. And the best commentators on Heb. 11:1 are at pains to point out that the words used to describe faith are objective in nature, and should not be translated with subjective terms like "assurance."

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Every example of a baptism on profession of belief that we find in the Bible came in a period of time that is miniscule in the history of the church - and in every single case are "missionary baptisms" - that is baptisms of people to whom the gospel was brought for the first time. That's really all we have.

Now in my opinion, the exclusive credobaptist practice cannot properly be argued based on those exclusive examples. Both credo and paedo argue that when a person learns of the gospel and professes faith, he should be baptized. The question becomes do you stop there, or not. Credos say yes. Paedos say that the household baptism narratives give examples of whole houses being baptized, and the continuity with the covenant of grace's sign of circumcision (which was given to whole families also, as well as children born into households of faith) is strong evidence for baptism of infants born into professing homes.

The Bible offers a very small slice of history - and its explicit teaching is that 1) professing believers are to be baptized and b) households under those that professed also were baptized. What we do with that explicit teaching is what divides.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



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

Todd,
It is also the case that these kinds of example-appeals are to narrative portions of Scripture. It really doesn't matter which side of the debate claims what as to example. Both sides must appeal to a wider range of Scripture-teaching, particularly didactic portions, to establish the meaning and proper subjects of baptism.

That is true; and of the facts we do possess there is not one example of the child of a believer being baptised on his own profession of faith. So the antipaedobaptist burden of proof so far as examples are concerned cannot be met in favour of their distinctive position. Further, it requires one to reject the NT testimony concerning OT baptisms in which children are explicitly stated to be baptised on the basis of household acceptance into covenant with God, e.g., Noah's family in the ark and the families of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea. It is simply a false presumption of the antipaedobaptist that the NT alone is our rule of faith and life, especially considering that the NT expressly refers back to the OT to substantiate its teaching on the significance of baptism.

Brother, that's absolutely true. Converts from Judaism and paganism would have to repent and believe before they can be baptized. But what do we do with their children? Should we apply God's initiatory sign on them because they are under the covenant authority of the believing heads of their respective households (the Reformed view) or do we exclude them from God's community of faith until they themselves can profess repentance and faith in the Lord (the Baptist view)?

In the OT, there was a distinction between the terms of admission of a pagan convert to Judaism, and the terms of admission for his children. The pagan would have to profess repentance and faith in the God of Abraham before he was to receive circumcision. But his children despite their young age would be circumcised along with him. In short, there was a household circumcision. This was done because of God's promise (Gen. 17:7) and His command (Gen. 17:9-14; Gen. 18:19).

The question we now have to consider is: Where is this distinction removed in the NT? Don't we read the same promise (Luke 18:15-17; Acts 2:38-39; 1 Cor. 7:14; cf. Jer. 32:38-40) and the same household pattern (Acts 3:25; Acts 10:44-48 with 11:14-15; Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16: 31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16; cf. Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17) in the pages of the NT in the early days of the New Covenant which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant itself (Rom. 4; Gal. 3)?

Membership in God's covenant community was something the Jews and the early Christians took seriously. To fail to have the Christ-appointed initiatory ordinance is to be considered seperate from Christ, to be outside the commonwealth of Israel, and to be a stranger from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12; cf. 1 Tim. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:12). Are the children of believers now excluded from God's covenant community? The Apostle Paul doesn't seem to share that opinion. He in fact addresses children (Eph. 6:1-14; Col. 3:23) as included among the (visible) saints (Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1), and as members of God's household (Eph. 2:19) which he indicates elsewhere as the church itself (1 Tim. 3:15; cf. 1 Peter 4:17). If we consider the NT evidence, it becomes clear that nowhere in its pages do we find any example of children born of believing families being baptized only later in life (i.e., when they become adults) after a profession of faith. If the Baptist position is true, this should have been the standard practice for the children of the early Christians. But the testimony of the early church says that it isn't.

Last night, I was amazed to find out in my Bible study that Scripture seems to use the words families and nations interchangeably (Gen. 10:5; Gen. 10:32). Notice how this is also seen in the transtion from OT promise to NT fulfillment.

The Promise

The Fulfillment

The point is that these texts are important in understanding what the Lord Jesus meant in His Great Commission where he instituted the sacrament of baptism.

This is echoed in the Acts of the Apostles as the gospel was preached to the Jews (cf. Rom. 4:17-18).

As the gospel spread to the Gentiles, the faithful apostles obeyed the Lord by administering the covenant sign and initiatory rite of baptism to families (Acts 2:38-39; Acts 10:44-48 with 11:14-15; Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16: 31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16; cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-4 w/ Deut. 29:10-15; 2 Peter 3:19-22). These families are from the nations as prophesied in the OT (Psa. 22:27; Isa. 52:15 [Isaiah prophesied that the Lord Jesus would sprinkle the nations) and as confirmed by the NT (1 Tim. 3:16; Rev. 5:9; Rev. 12:5; Rev. 15:3-4). They together compose the NT church which Scripture calls as a holy nation (1 Peter 2:9), a designation which God originally used for OT Israel (Exodus 19:6). As mentioned already, this church is God's household of faith (Eph. 2:19; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Peter 4:17), that is, His family. I am convinced that a covenantal theme such as this one is more consistent with the Reformed model than with the Baptist one.

Also, I agree that church history does taint our interpretation of Scripture. That is one of the primary reasons many believers reject infant baptism. They wonder how brilliant people like the Church Fathers, the Protestant Reformers, the Dutch Reformed theologians, the Scottish Presbyterians, the English Puritans, the Princeton Seminary professors, the American Southern Presbyterians, etc., indeed historic Christianity itself could have believed in such a "Romish tradition" like "baby sprinkling."

I think you miss the entire point of my quote about Isaac. Yes all the seed owned the nationalistic ethnic promises God gave to Abraham which were tied to circumcision(hence Esau's reception of the sign) but only through Isaac shall thy SEED be called-the regenerative lineage only passed through the Divine choice. But in the NT all the national, ethnic land and people associations of the covenant(which were shadowy) passed away and were fulfilled in Christ-so yes in the OT all the children(even the ones Abraham knew God would not pass his salvation onto were given the sign of the covenant-but not so in the New Covenant. To find that datum you must look in the NT. The NT speaks nothing of nations or land or people or physical lineage now that THE SEED has come in the fullness of time. The only reference point of continuity between the New and Old is Christ and regeneration by faith alone. The OT is replete with admonitions to the unbelieving offspring to repent and be circumcised in heart(to attaai the significance of the the sign they were given at birth)but the new is oddly absent with that. Quite odd. Not really. The NT baptismal passages only say the regenerate, those who have received the the thing signified(the fulfillment of the New Covenant)are given baptism. I challenge any paedo baptist to exegete any baptismal text in context showing that its significance reaches to the unregenerate as the sign of the covenant did in the OT. It cannot be done.

Since you quote 1 cor 7 tell me of the holiness of which Paul speaks. Is it the hagios of the believer as opposed to the infidel? Is it a secondary tier denoting regeneration for the husband has the same attribute? So are there two levels of hagios? Since I have a 6 year old, and both my wife and I are believers does that mean he is holy and regenerate and in no need of redemption, or was he born that way or given that staus through being born of the flesh or the will of man(contra John 1:12-13)? Were the pots and utensils of the sanctuary regenerate or merely separate and used for holy purposes? I would say the latter as are my children until they profess and posses faith in Yeshua. All children of believers are set apart from the wicked influences of the unregenerate. They have godly parents who raise them in the Lord, they hear the word, take them to church, etc-which doesnt mean they are saved but only raised under the teachings of our Lord. The same is true of the unbelieving spouse. These individuals are hagios(separated unto the influences of the working of the SPirit in the word,etc._NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH as there is no faith implied, and salvation is always and only by faith)Esau and Ishmael were hagios-they were not raised in a philistine or canaanite home with moon gods, but were instructed in the faith of Yahweh-but Esau and Ishmael's hagios was not the same as Isaac and Jacobs-they were regenerate(though all received the sign because the sign of the covenant in its OT phase of redemptive history not only spoke of regeneration but had to have nationalistic and ethnic ties with a land, people and temple to be able to bring about THE SEED and fulfillment of the covenant(OF which baptism IS the sign) and therefore only those IN CHIRST are to have the sign of union with Him!

__________________
Mike
Seattle, WA
Exile PCA
Every word of God proves true;
he is(I) a shield to those who take refuge in him.
6(J) Do not add to his words,
lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar. Prov 30:5-6

A.J., that was another great post. Really, semperveritas, you should try and refute him, not me...

Yes, I think I do, then. So what is your point? Because it looks an awful lot like my point, namely, that under the old covenant, all were circumcised, and all received the promise, but not all were saved; they were only saved through faith (as Paul argues in his letter to the Hebrews). Therefore, by analogy, the children under the new covenant are baptized, and all receive the promises of the covenant, but not all are saved; they are only saved through faith.

False.

Paul also affirms this when he speaks of the new covenant and quotes one of the prophets:

Scriptures, please. Where?

Which baptismal texts? Scriptures, please.

How very noble: to set up a straw man and proceed to beat it down. I will quote myself, then:

Set apart. As in, set apart in the covenant, just like the children were in OT times. Find me one text that excludes children from the new covenant.

You argue my case almost eloquently. Indeed, there is a difference in the holiness of the unbelieving husband and that of the believing wife, and you nailed that perfectly well. So the logical next step is then not to exclude the children from, but to include them in the covenant by baptizing them.

Also, you say that the new covenant has nothing to do with a land and a city and a nation and all the rest, but I suggest that is most wrong. We have a heavenly Canaan and a heavenly Jerusalem, with a perfect sacrifice and a heavenly King, Prophet and High Priest.

The one thing sadly lacking in your entire post is the Scripture. You are just arguing off the top of your head, where you should find Scriptures to explicitly support the exclusion of the children from the covenant.

semperveritas,
Please fix your signature so that it is compliant with the board-standards. Thank you.

Brother, what do YOU mean by "significance"? It plain from what you wrote elsewhere that you recognize that there is spiritual as well as merely formal significance to such things.

Name me ONE Reformed theologian who teaches that the spiritual realities of the covenant sign attach to the reprobate, or have any efficacy toward the elect apart from faith's personal apprehension. As for elect but as yet unregenerate, do you claim that such spiritual truth has NO bearing on him? How can you say that, given what you've admitted already about the OT covenant sign?

I am constantly surprised at the unblushing confidence by which these assertions are made. It is painfully clear that you have never troubled yourself to read any treatments of such passages by those with whom you disagree.

Let me just offer you one instance. I'm not asking you to agree with it, just pointing out that it is NOT an unreasonable or illogical conclusion from the language of the passage.

This is from the ASV, which I've chosen because of it's "literalness" as well as for the fact that it retains (in v34) the Greek word-order of the original.

Act 16:29 And he called for lights and sprang in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas,
Act 16:30 and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.
Act 16:32 And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, immediately.
Act 16:34 And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God.

Now let's look at the passage. The subject (or object) is the Jailer, through the entire passage, where it isn't Paul&Silas. That is to say, the EVERY action of this passage--expressed in either VERB or PARTICIPLE--if it isn't Paul&Silas, it is the Jailer, alone or with "his".

v29
He called (participle--Nominative,Masculine, Singular, NMS)
He sprang in (verb--3rd Person Singular, 3PS)
He being trembling (participle--NMS)
He fell down (verb--3MS)
v30
He brought out (participle--NMS)
He said (verb--3MS)
I might be saved (verb--1st Person Singular, 1PS)
v31
You believe (verb--2nd Person Singular, 2PS)
You will be saved (verb--2PS)
v32
No action except for Paul&Silas
v33
He took (participle--NMS)
He washed (verb--3MS)
He was baptized (verb--3MS)
v34
He brought up (participle--NMS)
He set before (verb--3MS)
He rejoiced (verb--3MS)
He having believed (participle--NMS)

Now, can you understand why folks on our side of the aisle might take this passage as a great example of the principle of federalism at work? How it's just possible that maybe we've actually done a little bit of exegesis in our time?


What about the references to OTHERS in this passage?
Well, how are they referred to, and what is said about them?

v31
You and the house of You (believe and will be saved)
v32
to Him and to all those in the house of Him (had the word of the Lord spoken to them)
v33
He and all those of Him (were baptized)
v34
He rejoiced {with his house} (panoike)

If we look at the four references to OTHERS see how they are invariably spoken of always in reference to the Jailer. Again, representation (covenant-language) is writ large.

What is said of them?

1) individual faith is necessary for the salvation of anyone.
2) all were gathered for the preaching of the Lord
3) all were baptized
4) all rejoiced with the head of house

Every single one of these items we paedo-baptists believe, AND we apply them to EVERY SINGLE one of our homes.

I have 6 children in my house. The oldest is 8. I have followed this pattern, as has every household in my church.

Is every person in our church a "regenerate" person? Since we can't read hearts, and we don't think God has asked us to read the unreadable, that question isn't even important to us, since we don't baptize anyone on the basis of "regeneration". If my child is elect, then even if at this instant he is unregenerate, the promise is still for him, because he is one of those "...as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts: 2:39).

So, there's one passage exegeted, in context. You can disagree with it, but please don't make an ignorant claim that we CAN'T do it. It doesn't have to be to your satisfaction.

A Puritan's Mind site here has a really good article on paedobaptism. I think it's really good because the writer of that article use to be credo baptist and knows from where the credo baptists come in their thinking. He is then able to show the down falls of both the credo and paedo's arguments, correct them, and lead people to sound doctrine concerning baptism which is naturally paedobaptism...

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

Albert, I've run out of thanks for today on PB, but man, do I want to thank you for your posts here! Excellent, accurate exegesis, brother. Others, like Rev. Buchanan, have done a fine job, too, but they're probably tired of me singing their praises - I've had so many occasions to do so. But it just truly encourages my heart to know that the Lord has planted men of such sound doctrine in those islands so dear to me.

Praise God!

__________________
Brad
Member- Eagle Heights PCA
Winchester, VA

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

__________________
César Proença

there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation, it is wholly of the Divine Mercy Jean Calvin Institutes II . V. 17

Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (liberated) http://www.gkv.nl/main.asp?intTreeviewID=954

Igreja Reformada em Massamá Portugal http://www.igrejareformada.pt

I love all my Reformed Baptist brethren. When I left my Pentecostal church, Reformed Baptist pastors, and laymen and laywomen were the ones who encouraged me, and accepted me into their fellowship. They gave me books and tracts, preached sermons in my presence, allowed me to attend theology classes and a pastoral conference (I'm not a pastor) and answered all my questions. Reformed Baptist Dr. James White's work was instrumental in my discovery of Reformed Theology. (Thank you, Dr. White!) I emailed him to say thank you, and he was gracious enough to post my letter on his blog. But on the topic of baptism, however, I would have to disagree with them.

The arguments used by semperveritas are the same ones that kept me baptistic. Here are my reasons why I disagree with him.

1) We must not confuse Moses with Abraham. The typological and therefore temporal role of ethnic Israel is one thing, the command to initiate children is another. If Peter meant something totally Baptist in Acts 2:38-39 in a day when God was making a transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, I cannot imagine why he was so careless in the use of his words. Wouldn't the Jews be reminded of Gen. 17:7 (cf. Jer. 32:38-40)?

2) As I study the doctrine of baptism, I have come to appreciate the Reformed distinction between the church invisible, and the church visible. This distinction is important since the Reformed view of the nature of the church is what the Baptist is essentially attempting to refute. God does establish His Covenant of Grace with the elect. But when He administers His grace, the pattern He has set is that his initiatory sign be administered to families, not to isolated individuals (as Rev. Buchanan convincingly argues). That was His pattern in the OT (Gen. 17:9-14), and is still His pattern in the NT (Acts 16:14-15; Acts 16: 31-34; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16).

3) There is also a tendency for the Baptist to pit individual responsibility against family solidarity. But as I have mentioned, the Bible does not require us to choose one and reject the other. Both are all over the Old and New Testaments. This is not an either-or thing, but a both-and. God will hold every individual accountable for his sins, and yet the Lord is pleased to use families in the history of redemption (even when some of the members of these families would later turn out to be reprobates, e.g., Ishmael and Esau). In both testaments, God embraced entire families as members of His covenant community. Households were circumcised, and households are baptized!

4) Not all Baptists do this. But many Baptists do confuse the attitude of the unbelieving Israelites in their covenant with God, with God's original demands in that covenant. I think this is much more evident in dispensational literature, but even Reformed Baptists fall into the same error. A single example would suffice.

I don't have anything against Pastor Chantry at all. His works on soteriology are excellent. He is a gift to Christ's church. He was instrumental in the planting of many Reformed Baptist churches across North America in the previous decades. He was in many ways influential also in the growth of the now vibrant Reformed Baptist community in Southeast Asia (especially in The Philippines).

Pastor Chantry's online article/booklet was re-published in a local Reformed Baptist church here. And as I read it again and again, I am dismayed to find that his statements are not what the Scriptures teach. Deuteronomy 4-30 (cf. the entire book of Hebrews) refutes his assertion. This series of chapters detailing God's demands in His covenant with the nation of Israel ends with these words.

Don't we read the first and greatest commandment (Matt. 22:37-38) here? Moses told the Israelites to love the LORD their God with all of their being, but "relatively little attention is given to inward life" in the Old Covenant? I cannot accept such a low view of God's dealings with His OT people.

5) The idea of sacramental union. I now see that it is impossible to do justice to the Bible's language of the sacraments if we deny the union between the sign and the thing signified. The sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace. What is often left out in discussions is the indispensable covenantal context of Scripture. Again, this is not true of all Reformed Baptists. But even some commit the error of failing to consider the broader redemptive-historical backdrop of the OT necessary in understanding the covenantal language of the NT. Thanks to Rich Leino, and Rev. Matthew Winzer on this.

I agree A.J. In their zeal to establish the Baptistic position, I fear too many go out of their way to create an extremely low view of what Abraham and his posterity were essentially about. The Covenant sign of circumcision is fundamentally turned into a mere ethnic mark contra all the repeated admonitions in the OT Scriptures (not to mention the clear NT teachings) that it is so much more.

Thus, when someting as crystal clear as Romans 4:11 arises, theological commitment forces them to even note that circumcision only signified and sealed Christ's righteousness to Abraham alone - forget federal identification everywhere else in the text. Abraham is father of the faithful but not with respect to what circumcision signified!

Anything to avoid allowing circumcision to signify and seal what the Scriptures state it does (or for that matter Baptism!). For if it does and it was applied to infants, then it completely destroys the ground on which Baptist theology stands.

Thus, even though Hebrews 11 puts our forefathers in the same pattern of salvation by faith that we find ourselves, they seemed to pursue this quite accidentally and in spite of the "distractions" of circumcision and the Law. God, it seems, didn't give these to His people to direct them toward Christ but either visibly confused them or, worse, pointed them in the wrong direction altogether.

Assuming you all are correct can you tell all of your children after they are baptized in infancy, and while they still are infants, what St. Paul told the Romans and the Galatians?

As a baptist what can you do to convince me to become a paedobaptist. These passages link faith and baptism very closely. Colossians 2 makes the link of faith and baptism inseparable.

This is the only imagery attached to baptism apart from washing in Acts 22, Eph 5, Tit 3:5. What language does the NT employ when speaking of baptisms significance for the infant. Was he buried and raised and clothed and washed? If not what. It seems the Catholics and Lutherans may at least take the passages literally and have them make sense for the infant. They are saved they say-look at the text. To the reformed they are in a covenant. What covenant? As far as I read in the Bible there are saved and unsaved, not a third group in some external covenant. Are children of believers in some halfway covenant witha bit more grace than unbelievers based upon birthright? To the reformed they are wet and have a promise. What promise? What promise do they have more than the child of a baptist? Again does the water wash, clothe, and unite the infant with Christ? If the children of believers are holy are they holy by birth or the water? The baptismal texts I quoted above speak the symbolism of washing, uniting, clothing. I know that is true of the believer who is baptised I can them what their baptism signified based upon acual Bible texts. The paedobaptist has no texts to explain what their baptism signified to them. What do you say, "Well Johnny if you believe your baptism is symbolic of your washing, clothing, and uniting with Jesus, your Savior-I mean, He;s not your savior yet because you are not saved yet so, but because Iam you have Gods promise He will save you if you believe and then baptism will mean something..?" Well as a baptist I told my son the gospel just like you tell your covenant children. My son believed at 4 and is a Christian by faith alone. He is baptised and his baptism is symbolic of the saving work God already wrought in him. I told him repent and believe and then be baptised because the promise was for me and my children. My son is in the New Covenant. He is in Christ by faith alone. He was not before he was saved. He was unsaved before he was saved as Paul said all are who are not in Christ-without hope and Christ, lost. But Gods promise of John 3:16 extended to my Son. Whoever believes includes my son

Peter in answering his accusers of his apparent debauchery told them of the Messiah and the promise the "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" That is the only promise in Peters answer. Then later in verse 38 he tells them what to do.
Repent and be baptized for the PROMISE is for you, and for your children and for all who are far off. What promise? The promise of salvation by calling on the name of the Lord. That promise is true, and the conditions are true as well. The initial hearers repented(implying faith) and were baptised and saved. For their children to be saved they too obey Peter's answer, as well as those who are afar off, and in the same manner and order. Unless that category to "your children" has a different standard and order of salvation as St. Peter commands. Repent and be baptised.

But the reformed they turn Peters words upside. Notice Peter didnt say-"You guys repent and be baptized, you and those who are afar off. But your children they can do it backwards. For then to be saved they can be baptized first, then repent at some later pont years down the road and believe because they are in the covenant" NO. For them to be saved(the promise in verse 21, which is the same of which he attached to v.39 is attained via Peters instructions in verse 38.) But to just answer and say, "well it didnt work the same way for infant circumcision so its ok to change Peters order for my kids. That is the crux of the matter and where we baptists do not insert our logic into unspoken areas. I will rest with Peters command in the NT. His hearers asked and he answered. Repent and be baptized in that order. Peter also said baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience 1 pet 3:21. How does the infant appeal?
The reformed turn Pauls words upside down to. Romans 4-6 Faith first in chapter 4 and 5 then baptism is mentioned in chapter 6. Galatians 3:27-28 Faith first then baptism. This would make no sense to infants.
The great commision follows the same order.
There is an order here. If our Lord speaks an order and He has all authority I for one dont want to assume and let mans logic pervert the word of God.
He says
make disciples-how do you do that? Conversion/Regeneration! From hearing and believing the gospel one passes from darkness to light(only two categories in the bible)

then baptize them(the disciples who were saved out of all the nations or peoples of the world through the preaching of the gospel).

then-teach them, feed them the word so they grow up in the faith. and so the cycle goes.

notice the order Jesus used. He makes no caveats here, "Oh wait, except for your kids-go ahead and baptize them first, teach them everything, and then conversion/regeneration last" no.


We as baptists dont inject mans wisdom of a family solidarity into the doctrine of baptism when all the apostles and Jesus give us our marching orders with minute details as to how and in what order. Infant baptism is so confusing youve got virtually every group who practices it differing with eachother because the bible gives no instructions on it. Youve got dutch reformed with presumptive regeneration, others with no its because God promises all children of believers thay will be saved, others who say a seed of regeneration is planted within them at baptism,etc,etc. WHY because the scriptures say nothing of it. CLing to those household verses though and a cryptic verse in 1 cor 7. to build it on yet it contradicts the order sacred scripture commands of the NT believer.
make disciples-one is made by faith alone=regeneration(there is no such thing as an unregenerate disciple of Chirst) baptise that disciple, and then teach him. that is the order. show me otherwise

Mike, bro, with all due respect, you aren't really asking to be shown anything.

You've made three lengthy posts in this thread, and in each case have received multiple responses to each one. But you haven't responded to anything that has been offered to your "questions."

You know what you believe, that's cool. But no one here is obliged to "meet" a series of never-ending challenges. You've received a few answers to some of your specific questions; how about interacting with some of them?


Oh, and by the way, Greek grammarian D.B.Wallace (a Baptist I believe) of Dallas Theo. Seminary has one of the standard Advanced Greek Grammar textbooks used in seminaries all across the country, including Reformed Seminaries.

He points out (correctly, IMO) that in Mt.28:19-20, the participles "baptizing" and "teaching" are properly classed as participles of means. The one actual verb that governs the sentence is "Make Disciples". "Go" is another participle, which is usually treated as attendant circumstance or temporal, as some translations give it the sense "as you go...make disciples".

Therefore, the issue in the text is, that the disciples are to "make disciples," and HOW (means) are they to do this? Well, that would be by "baptizing" and "teaching".

"Making disciples" SURELY cannot mean that the APOSTLES are making such through regeneration or as if they were responsible for converting--that's exclusively a Spirit-function.

So, saying "made a disciple" is synonymous with "regeneration" is pretty clearly a reading into this passage a meaning taken from elsewhere. In a sense, that's fine, the whole Bible is a "context" after all, assuming that you are correct (which, of course I do not). But you are just flat out wrong about these verses establishing some sort of process-order.

Naturally, I'm willing to listen to some actual arguments that show why these participles (baptizing & teaching) are unlikely to be "means". But if they are, then this whole line of reasoning is shot. There is no "order"... except for the fact that baptism seems to come before basic Christian doctrinal instruction. Actually I think the union of the two terms speaks more to simultaneity, rather than priority, but there is a basic priority to baptism as the entrance mark into the didactic setting.

But one thing is for sure: teaching Christ certainly doesn't come BEFORE baptism in this text.

Blessings.

Another interesting note about Peter's citation of Joel's prophecy (which Mike/semperveritas quotes in his last post) in Acts 2 as being fulfilled in Christ is that in its orginal context, the people were being called to repent before God. And that is exactly what Peter is exhorting the Jews to do: repent of their sins, and be saved from their perverse generation!

Peter cites Joel 2:28-32. In that same chapter (Joel 2), here is what we read.

This is consistent with Peter's words, and the rest of the events in Acts.

Both individual responsibility and family solidarity are at work here. How can we expect otherwise? This is the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham! The same promise ("to thee and they seed") is now to go to all the (Gentile) nations!

All of this makes sense only in a Reformed oikobaptist model and its view of the (visible) church, and not with the idea that the local church should have a "(totally) regenerate church membership" or that it should be a "complete manifestation of the invisible church."

My point is I do not see how texts like John 1:12 and Gal. 3:7 as quoted by the thread starter undermine infant baptism. Both the Old and New Testaments put equal emphasis on individual responsibility and family solidarity.

Mike, your question regarding the Reformed interpretation of Rom. 6:2-3, Gal. 3:27, and Col. 2:11-12 was discussed recently. See the thread here. The answer to your question is found in the Reformed view of the union between the sign and the thing signified (i.e., sacramental union). Rich and Rev. Winzer can explain this better than I do. What is worthy of note is that even texts like these support the Reformed model.

The Apostle Paul neither separates sign (application of water) from the thing signified (regeneration) nor does he separate individual responsibility (to believe in the Lord Jesus [John 1:12] or to have faith in Him [Gal. 3:7]) and family solidarity in this Epistle. He does not claim that he knows infallibly that everyone he is addressing is regenerate, but still calls them saints and faithful brothers in Christ. And in this household of faith (Eph. 2:19) which includes husbands, wives, and slaves (during their time), the children of believers are included among the (visible) saints! So the inclusion of children in the covenant community of God does not undermine the necessity of repentance and faith in Him as some Baptist writers suppose. The Scriptures see no inconsistency at all between an individual response and the household principle. And neither should we.

Contary to your claim, family solidarity is not "man's wisdom" read into ("injected" in) Scripture. It is all over Scripture as the texts above testify. As Prof. Murray puts it,

With all due respect - as a baptist you inject man's wisdom of dividing God's covenant people. You received no such marching orders. The misunderstanding of what baptism does by some does not make void the call to baptize children.

As far as baptists go, they have their varying groups as well - The Church of Christ who says you must profess, there is your key word as a baptist, and then be baptized, but if you are not baptized you are not saved...you have some baptists that say that immersion is not necessary...we could go on and on, but we won't. Your last portion of your post does nothing to refute covenantal baptism, only stir strife...stick to the texts, and interact with other posts, it might be that you will learn something...or teach someone something.

__________________
soli Deo gloria!
~Nicholas~ Ordained Pastor
Member, Fulton PCA; GPTS Student
Christians are like snow covered dung; it is the purity of the covering which the Father sees. -Luther-
There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.
-Francis Schaeffer-

Hmmm...So you know beyond a shadow of doubt when God regenerated your child? You KNOW he is elect?


Sir, I must ask, are you reformed? This is a reformed board.

And you have anything to do with this???

Ok, so by this, you acknowledge, you didn't teach your son anything of the scriptures or of God, but can only do such after his conversion.

__________________
Trey Etheridge
Pastor
Grace Church
Searcy, AR

Precisely. I should have made more of a positive argument, rather than just arguing that the case for credo-only baptism cannot be made on the basis of these narrative examples.

no interaction with the order of faith before baptism? So you make a disciple by baptizing THEM and teaching THEM? Why not join the Lutheran or Catholic church? That is exactly their exegesis. NO,baptizing "them" refers to the disciples already made from the nations when they believed the gospel and were saved then you baptise and teach THEM. The THEM are not made by baptism and teaching. They are begotten through the incorruptible word of the gospel. And of course I never said the evangelists DO the regenerating. God does it through the preaching of the gospel. A disciple is NOT made by baptizing, but FIRST by hearing and believing. Eph 1:13 and Romans 1:16; 10:9ff That is how a person becomes a disciple.

Then after one has become a disciple by monergistic faith giving grace-that new disciple is baptized and taught all the Word of God.


Paul told the jailer he would be saved if he believed, and his whole household. Meaning his household would be saved if they believed TOO. There is divine monergistic faith given to every relative, slave,and servant in the house just because the leader is regenerated. That is pure eisegesis.
Belief is the only way to be saved as I quoted in Rom 1:16; 10:9; John 3:16 etc, ad nauseum. Nobody is saved apart from faith and God never promises each and every individual is elect in the family. See Esau and Ishmael. SO how can these texts be twisted to say when the jailor was saved all in his house were without them believeing. But we know that PAUL preached the gospel to ALL in the house and they did in fact believe.
Then they all(the household believed and were baptized)
Yes they all rejoiced that he believed in God, but that doesn not say that they di NOT also believe. Because they ALL REJOICED. Unbelievers do not rejoice. THey were all told the gospel, all rejoiced and all were baptized. And yes the focus of the narrative was on the jailor so the emphasis was on his faith but GNC implies they believed. To say otherwise is foolish. Otherwise Pauls words were a lie when he told the jailor his household would be saved. Were they not saved, if they were it wasnt because only the jailor believed but because they did too. Pauls command on how one is saved was "believe" That promise of salvation attached to such God-given faith in CHrist is true if he believes and his whole household. There are not two ways of salvation, one for the head and another for the house. To say the house was baptized before they believed is nonsense. Luke spells out the fact the word was preached to ALL IN THE HOUSE(not just the jailor) and according to the order everywhere in the NT the believers were baptized, and they all rejoiced that the jailor believed-why, one reason is because since the jailor believed IN THE PRISON upon the preahcing of the gospel, the jailor invited Paul to his home and household where THEY WERE PREACHED THE GOSPEL TOO and obviously believed because they rejoiced. The natural man does not rejoice in God, but hates the works of God. So they all rejoiced that the jailor believed because the gospel came to the family and they believed and THEN were baptized. That is the order.
Lydia was baptized AFTER she believed. THAT is the pattern for all according to Acts 2:38-39, Matt 28-18-20 and ALL the examples in the bible
To argue her house could be baptized before they believed is reading into the text. Lydia believed first and was baptized. The whole household was baptized-not just infants were in there were there-she just left them there to fend for themselves while at the river. I doubt it. You pleading for household baptism begs too much, otherwise all the servants, and consenting adults too which were in the house must needs be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit without any precondition of faith in God is preposterous. They were baptised obviously because they believed.

The house of Stephanus was baptised. But they must have ALL believed because Paul says the same household(making no exceptions) ...
They devoted themselves, the entire household. So yes households were baptized but only because the households BELIEVED! To say more is eisegesis.

Jesus healed the mans son in John 4 and he and his household BELIEVED

Cornelius' house was saved, but only because they BELIEVED,
They were devout and feared God THEY were, not just Cornelius
Acts 10:2

So those devout men who feared God in his House believed the gospel

Crispus believed TOGETHER WITH his house. THUS because of their(God given monergistic faith) THEY ALL were baptized, not because only Crispus believed.

Acts 18:8

My household has been saved and baptised in that order praise be to God.

Good for you.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

Mike,

Please provide some exegesis as to what a disciple is using the grammatico-historical method. Define the term.

Sorry to all for hurting anyones feelings. I was given a notification of being churlish. Please forgive.

That is no argument. We do not disbelieve the Virgin Birth of the Christ because the Lutherans and the Catholics believe it. Neither do we disbelieve the divine Creation of the Earth because the Catholics and the Mohammedans hold to that tenet, too. It is possible for someone who is wrong in many ways, to be right in some. Indeed, either the orthodox credo- or the orthodox paedo-baptists must be in error in only one way, and right in all the others. Consider: if this type of argument holds true, you should renounce all your beliefs because I, who am a peado-baptist, hold them as well, and obviously I am wrong. This merely is a variation on what is called in dog Latin Reductio ad Nazium or ad Hitlerum, that is to say, the argument that a position must be invalid because Hitler and/or the Nazis held it. Wikipedia has a great article on that:

Secondly, you tell us we are reading things into texts. We could accuse you of the very same thing. Nothing is said explicitly about the faith of the household in those texts, yet you assume there is, and why? Because you think they could not have been baptized without having believed. I, on the other hand, think nothing is said explicitly, and, nothing is said implicitly either, because I, too, have my bias.

The question then is the same as that which was earlier asked of you: where do you find the doctrine that the as yet or forever unregenerate infants are excluded from the new covenant? The reason for this is, that, for all the other changes in the new vs. the old covenant there is some pretty clear doctrinal teaching in the Bible. Consider, for example, the disappearing of the ceremonial law , and of the food laws, and of circumcision, and of the inclusion of the heathens who believe in the covenant, there are very clear doctrinal passages (amongst others, Colossians 2, Acts 10, Galatians 5) in the Bible supporting those alterations to the new covenant; in all the instances where the two covenants differ, there are very clear doctrinal passages. Then where is this one? Where does Paul or Peter or John or Jude or the Lord Himself say, anathema on those who think that the believer's children are still included in the covenant?

And another dilemma I will bring before you, three, actually: One, does it not reflect poorly on God that, when He widens His new covenant in almost every sense, He restricts it on this account, namely, by casting the children out from the covenant?

Second, what about the transition period? When the young children where circumcised, they were under the law and in Gods covenant, which was a way to grace, as Paul shows in Romans and Hebrews. Then the new covenant is there, their parents believe, but they are cast out from the new covenant, because God no longer promises to young children all the good that he promised to the line of Abraham, if they would stick to Him. So then, did God default on his promises? Or were there then two covenants simuktaneously, with the old one dying a slow death? But then, how could the new covenant be a renewal of the old one, if they both exist together and have together the same power. Where there then two ways open at the same time, both working through saving faith, but the one with circumcision and the other with baptism as their sign?

Third, why did God so strangely change His mode of working? We know that He did not do that before or after that; the things seen in the old covenant are all present in the new covenant, only, in a fuller shape and form, and less shadowy. We still have a High Priest, a King, a Prophet, a heavenly Jerusalem, a Kingdom, a Sacrifice, a Substitute. We still abstain from many things the world delights in, we still worship, we pray, we give alms, we help our neighbours, we love God and our fellowmen; but for some reason, our children are no longer promised a thing by God, they are not set apart from the world anymore, they do not have a sign to remind them of their God - what prompted this? Did God learn that the sign thing didn't work out as planned? (I speak after the manner of men.)

Does not this credobaptism of yours lead to a change in the God you worship, does this not make Him one Who is mutuable, or changes His mind, or goes back on His promises, or is resticted in His knowledge? But I will uphold that He is none of the aforementioned, and I think I know you will, too. So then, how do you explain?

I am in a non denominational baptistic church but desirous of the reformed faith. I disagree with baptism and the sabbath keeping but hope that trying to debate I will be convinced otherwise. So far that has not happened. What is seeming to happen is the the more I look into Infant Baptism (IB) the more the Lutheran position makes more sense-at least it does something. With the PResbyterians it seems to do nothing-no offense! It seems the Lutherans actually take literally the baptismal texts
especially the great commisson text that says disciples are made by baptizing and teaching them(as the posters here corrected my incorrect thoughts on it) but their exegesis seems to say baptism and teaching make a disciple-and that makes sense.
The Lutherans say according to Rom 6:3-4 we are buried with Christ by (gk-dia) baptism. They quote Titus 3:5 as the washing of regeneration along with John3 ans Nicodemus. Thier postition seems to me a baptist one more faithful to the texts and not spiritualizing them away.
So to you guys what does infant baptism actually do in your reformed view? Just curious. As it makes no sense to me.

Friend,

If you are looking into the covenantal paedo view, you should go to Monergism.com and check out their massive section on baptism. I would probably start there. Glad to have you on the board.

__________________
Daniel Franzen
Church Creek Presbyterian (PCA)
Charleston, SC