Some credible Credo arguments IMHO.

PuritanCovenanter · #1 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 02:18 PM

This is a blog entry from someone who use to belong to the board but is no longer with us.
He is not allowed here but these thoughts are I am sure. So have at it.

Quote:

Four Paedobaptist Arguments Reviewed and Critiqued

Those who baptize babies have a number of problems if they want to think of themselves as following the Bible. There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible. Moreover, throughout the New Testament, baptism is coupled with repentance, faith and discipleship (Matt 3:6; 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 4:1; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12f, 37; 11:47; 1Cor 1:16 taken with 16:15 ).

Yet Paedobaptists do not let these things discourage them. They have a number of arguments of their own. I want to look at three that are relatively new, along with a fourth argument which is much older and is perhaps the most important of them all. I hope to show that they do not stand up to Biblical scrutiny, and are in fact, myths.

The first argument concerns Acts 2:37-9:-

‘Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."’

Now the paedobaptist argument from time immemorial has been that the reference to children means that children are part of the New Covenant. However, the natural reading of the text is that the children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and that this is true for all generations (‘you and your children’) and also for all the Gentile nations (‘to all that are afar off’- compare Eph 2:11-13, 17 ). Repentance and faith in Christ are not inherited (John 1:12-13 ).

The new argument states that Peter could not possibly have referred to the Gentiles because up until his encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10, he thought that salvation was only for the Jews. Therefore he must have been referring to the children, grandchildren and later descendants of the Jews. This is a quite ridiculous statement unless one supposes that Peter did not know the Jewish Scriptures. Starting with Gen 12:3, there are literally dozens of OT Scriptures that speak of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Covenant (eg. Psalm 22:27; Jer 16:19; Zech 2:11 ). Peter himself refers to one of them in Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 2:28: ‘And it shall come to pass afterwards (ie. in New Covenant times) that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.’ Peter knew perfectly well that the Gentiles would come into the Covenant and that it would happen in the time of the Messiah (Isaiah 60:1-3 ). What he did not understand until Acts 10 was that the Gentiles would not first need to become Jews by being circumcised. This was a misunderstanding shared by many Jewish Christians, even some considerable time later (Acts 15:1 ).

The truth of this interpretation is clearly seen in Acts 2:41: ‘Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.’ This is a limiting statement. Who were baptized? Those who gladly received Peter’s word. They did not go and fetch their infant children who had not even heard Peter, and would not have understood him anyway, so that they could be sprinkled. It was a simple case of Believers’ Baptism. If further proof of this be needed it is found in verse 42: ‘And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.’ Can tiny infants learn and continue in Apostolic doctrine? Would paedobaptistic churches be happy to have them sharing in the breaking of bread?

The second argument concerns a part of Hebrews 10:30. ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ The paedobaptist case is that people in the New Covenant are subject to judgement, and so the Covenant cannot be composed solely of believers as Reformed Baptists claim. This claim has no respect for either the immediate or the larger context of the argument of Hebrews. It is important to note at once that these words are a quotation from the Old Testament (Deut 32:36 ) and therefore originally applied to Israel.

It is generally agreed by commentators that the author of Hebrews was concerned that the Jewish believers to whom he was writing were being tempted to revert from their faith in Christ back into Judaism once more. Therefore much of the letter is taken up with proving the superiority of Christ to the prophets, the angels, to Moses, to Joshua and the Levitical Priesthood, to the Temple and, in the early verses of Heb 10, to the OT sacrifices and the Mosaic Law itself.

Let us now consider Heb 10:14. For by one offering [Christ] has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.’ The word for ‘perfected’ (Gk. teleo) could equally well be translated ‘completed’ or ‘consummated.’ The state of Christians is infinitely better than that of those under the Old Covenant, who were obliged constantly to offer the animal sacrifices that could never finally take away their sins (vs1-3 ). The Christian has been cleansed once and for all from his sins by the blood of Christ (Rom 8:1 ) and is regarded by God judicially as perfect, even though he is still ‘being sanctified’ and receiving God’s Parental chastening, mentioned in 12:5ff.

It is these Christians who make up the New Covenant, as is made perfectly clear in vs15-18. The covenant promised by God through Jeremiah and inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20 etc) is made with the people described in verse 14. The law which had been written on tablets of stone as a ministry of condemnation to the Israelites (2Cor 3:7-11 ) is now written by the Holy Spirit on the hearts of believers and God is pleased to forget all their sins.

In the light of all this, the writer to the Hebrews urges these wavering Jews to place their trust fully in the promises of God in Christ (vs19-23 ). They are justified by faith, so long as they really have faith, and so he urges them to ‘hold fast the confession of our hope,’ and to encourage each other with the promises of God. He continues (vs24-26 ):-

'And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins…….’.

What then is this ‘wilful sin’ that places us outside the mercy of God, bearing in mind that in verse 17 we were told that God remembers the sins of New Covenant members ‘no more’? Surely it is the sin of unbelief? These Hebrews are being tempted to reject their Lord, to forsake the assembling of themselves together in His Church and to return to Judaism. But the writer warns them that if they do that there will remain for them, ‘no longer a sacrifice for sin.’ The Old Testament sacrifices looked forward to Christ, but if Christ is rejected, then no meaning remains in the sacrifices. Moreover, if they will return to the Law, to the Law they shall go. If the penalty for sinning against the Law was death (v28 ), how much greater will it be for those who sin against Him to whom the Law pointed, despising the very blood of the covenant by which our Lord was set apart for the saving of sinners (v29. cf. John 17:19 )?

If they will return to the Old Covenant, they will be judged by it. The Israelites were God’s chosen people under the Old Covenant, but by their rejection of their Messiah, they came repeatedly under judgement (Isaiah 1:9; Matt 23:37-8 etc). If these Hebrews will reject Christ, then ‘The Lord will judge His people,’ and they will be found to be ‘Not My people’ (Hosea 1:9 ) because they have scorned His way of salvation. They were never truly His and the Lord Jesus will say to them, “I never knew you” (Matt 7:23. cf. 1John 2:19 ) and they will find just what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God. These words, ‘the Lord will judge His people,’ do not refer therefore to true Christians, who are kept by the power of God (1Peter 1:5 ), but to those who follow Christ for a while and fall away (cf. Mark 4:16-17 ).

The third argument states that baptism is the successor to circumcision, and therefore because infants were circumcised under the Old Covenant, they should be baptized under the New. This myth has a much nobler pedigree than the first two, being traceable to Calvin. That, however, does not make it true. The two ordinances are very dissimilar in nature. If a man were blindfolded and then had one of them performed upon him, I think he would be able to tell which one of them it was!

The most obvious difference between circumcision and baptism is the fact that circumcision was performed only upon males. We will return to this presently. The second obvious difference is that while baptism is repeatedly and specifically associated with faith, repentance and discipleship, as we saw at the beginning, circumcision is never associated with anyone’s faith except Abraham’s. In Rom 4:9ff, we are told that faith, not circumcision was accounted to Abraham for righteousness, and then that circumcision was the seal, not of his faith, but of the righteousness of his faith- a righteousness that would be gained for him in due time by Christ. It was a faith, moreover that he had before he was circumcised (Gen 15:6 ). Even the Abrahamic covenant was made while Abraham was still uncircumcised (Gen 15:18 ), and the sign of that covenant appears to have been the animal sacrifices, rather than circumcision (vs 8-9 ).

Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of the faith of Abraham, and of him alone. No faith was required of any of Abraham’s servants when they were circumcised (Gen 17:13, 27 ), nor of Ishmael, nor, indeed, of Isaac. Nor was circumcision a voluntary business. ‘He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised’ Gen 17:13 ). Anyone who refused was to be ‘cut off from his people’ (v14 ). Nor was faith required under the Mosaic Covenant. All Hebrew infants were to be circumcised, whether or not their parents were true believers. A foreigner living in Israel who wanted to partake of the Passover had to be circumcised along with ‘all his males’ but no mention is made of a true faith in Jehovah (Exod 12:43-49 ). Yet Naaman the Syrian, who did come to true faith (2Kings 5:15 ) was not circumcised. Nor apparently were those Persians who became Jews as reported in Esther 8:17. Circumcision seems to have been reserved for those of Jewish blood, and those foreigners who were living in Israel and who wanted to eat the Passover, along with their families and servants. It was never a sign of or for those with true saving faith. It is worth noting that Ishmael was circumcised despite being specifically excluded by God from the covenant (Gen 17:18-21, 26 ). Indeed, Ishmael stands as a type of those who persecute the true people of God (Gal 4:28-31 ).

‘Circumcision neither signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant to the individuals to whom it was by Divine appointment administered. It did not imply that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs of the promises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them individually as heirs of the promises. It did not imply this even to Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham. Their interest in the promises was secured to them by God’s expressly giving them the covenant (Gen 26:4; 26:13f; Exod 2:24 ), but was not represented in their circumcision. Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself……………. The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this; but it did not sign this to any other. Any other circumcised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was given by name, might have been childless. -Alexander Carson

What then was the purpose of circumcision, if it sealed nothing to those who received it? God ordained it to be administered to all of Abraham’s male descendants to distinguish from all other nations that people from which the Messiah should come. It served as a continual reminder that from the Abrahamic stock, the promised Seed should spring and, along with the Scriptures and the Mosaic Law, kept them separate as a nation so that Christ should be born into a people that had at least an outward knowledge of the true God. Therefore, once He had come, circumcision lost all significance (Gal 5:6; 6:15 ). Next, circumcision was the title deed to the earthy inheritance of Abraham, this being a figure of the heavenly inheritance that is what Abraham truly sought and found (Heb 11:16 ). As A.W.Pink points out, ‘The servants and slaves in Abraham’s household “bought with money” beautifully adumbrated the truth that those who enter the kingdom of Christ are “bought” by His blood.’

Nor should we imagine that the Abrahamic Covenant is somehow in force today. God has not promised to me, nor to you the reader, that we should be the father of many nations, nor that we shall inherit any real estate in the Middle East. The land promises were fulfilled completely to Israel after the flesh (Josh 21:43-45 ). The other promises were fulfilled in Christ (Gal 3:16 ), and come through the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, not to those who have Abraham’s circumcision, but to those who have his faith (Gal 3:7-9 ). It is they who are the proper recipients of baptism.

If baptism were the successor to circumcision, we might expect to see some reference to it in the Bible, but there is none. In Acts 15, we see a great palaver over the question of whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised. Why didn’t Paul simply say to the Judaizers, “These people have been baptized; they have the new version of circumcision. Why would they need the old version as well?” It would have ended the discussion at a stroke. Moreover, those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost were all Jews (Acts 2:5 ). The males had all been circumcised. Why did they need a second covenant sign when they already had the first? It appears that the Jewish Christians continued to circumcise their boy babies even after Pentecost. We read in Acts 21:20 that they were all, ‘zealous for the law’ which obviously included circumcision. Yet Paul seems to have been quite relaxed about this situation and was happy to be associated with them in an Old Covenant ceremony. The fact is that circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham. It had nothing to do with faith, as we have seen. Baptism is for Abraham’s spiritual descendants, the children of promise (Gal 4:28-29; 3:7 )

There is one place in the Bible where circumcision and baptism are mentioned together. It is Col 2:11-12. A. W. Pink has a simple but accurate explanation of this text:-

It is a mistake to suppose that baptism has come in the place of circumcision. As that which supplanted the Old Testament sacrifices was the one offering of the Saviour; as that which superseded the Aaronic priesthood was the high priesthood of Christ; so that which has succeeded circumcision is the spiritual circumcision which believers have in and by Christ. ‘In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ’ (Col 2:11)- how simple! How satisfying! ‘Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him’ (v12 ) is something additional: it is only wresting the Scriptures to say these two verses mean, ‘Being buried with Him in baptism ye are circumcised.’ No, no; verse 11 declares the Christian circumcision is ‘ made without hands’ and baptism is administered with hands! The circumcision ‘made without hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh’ has come in the place of the circumcision made with hands. The circumcision of Christ has come in place of the circumcision of the law. Never once in the New Testament is baptism spoken of as the seal of the New Covenant; rather is the Holy Spirit the seal (Eph 1:13; 4:30 ). - A. W. Pink: The Divine Covenants (Pietan Publications )

Note that Paul is speaking to all the Colossian Christians; ‘In whom you were also circumcised…’ All of you. Every true Christian has the circumcision of the heart which was lacking in Israel after the flesh (Jer 9:25-26; Acts 7:51 etc). It is having God’s law placed in the mind and written on the heart as described in Jer 31:33. It is being born again by the Spirit of God through faith in Christ (1Peter1:3ff). This is the reason why both male and female are baptized, whilst only males were circumcised. Ciecumcision had nothing to do with anyone's faith but Abraham's and nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It signified that that the coming Messiah should be born (according to the flesh) of the line of Abraham. Baptism signifies the New Birth and the coming of the Spirit, which according to Joel and repeated by Peter on the Day of Pentecost, would be given to both male and female (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:16ff). This is not, of course, to say that no one under the Old Covenant received the Holy Spirit, but at Pentecost, the Spirit was given in a new and much wider way.

Immediately I foresee an objection from my paedobaptist brethren. Baptists do not know, they say, that those whom they baptize are born again just because they have professed faith. This is true, but it misses the point. We are not comanded to baptize only regenerate people for the very good reason that we don't know who they are. On the Day of Pentecost, 'those who gladly received' Peter's words were baptized (Acts 2:41 ). Maybe not all of them were regenerate, and some fell away. We are not told. But the Apostles did not for that reason baptize everyone in the crowd, but only those who professed faith. Those who later revealed themselves not to be true disciples were disciplined and eventually expelled from the Church (Acts 8:21; 1Cor 5:13; 1Tim 1:20 ).

A helpful analogy here is that of banks. If you ask a banker to whom he lends money, he will answer, 'only to credit-worthy people.' However, he knows perfectly well that occasionally mistakes are made and money is lent to people who cannot repay it. However, they do not therefore throw up their hands and lend to everybody. On the contrary, they run their credit checks and vet their customers all the more closely because they know that mistakes are inevitable. So it should be with the churches. Because we know that unregenerate people are sometimes baptized, we should seek to make this as rare as possible by ensuring as best we can that professions of faith are credible.

The final argument need not detain us long. It is the claim that we should not look for Scriptural evidence for infant baptism because there is no such evidence for women being admitted to the Lord’s Supper. This is a wretched suggestion. If paedobaptists can really not find such evidence then they should bite the bullet and not admit women to Communion. In fact, the proof is not hard to find if one follows the principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture. It is clear that women were counted as members of the church (Acts 1:14; 8:12; Rom 16:1 etc). Then in 1Cor 11:17ff, we learn that the whole church came together for the Lord’s Supper. Therefore women must have joined in. It is this clear Scriptural evidence that is lacking for infant baptism. It simply isn’t there; no command, no instance, no regulation, and therefore no warrant.

Archlute · #2 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 06:53 PM

Well, they might be credible to a credo, but I don't see anything new here, just the same old credo objections rehashed.

Note that the same old credo hermeneutic is at work, where the New Testament is the exclusive starting point (almost to the denigration of the OT), and any continuity among the signs within the Covenant of Grace is disparaged.

Note that the string of texts listed up front are not exegeted, but merely cited as proof of his position (and I can think of at least one of them which, when the relationship of the governing imperative to the explanatory participles has been correctly understood, takes the legs out from under the typical Baptist understanding of the issue).

Note the citation of a Baptist theologian making a dispensational redefinition of circumcision as a mere national sign (when Paul specifically states that it was both a sign and a seal, in Romans 4), or the limiting of it's significance strictly to Abraham.

FWIW, the connection between circumcision and baptism did not begin with Calvin as he states, but goes at least back to Martin Luther (and probably further in the theology of the church, if the issue were to be traced), from whom I read great sermon just last week regarding this very issue - the meaning of circumcision and its connection with baptism as a sign of God's covenant faithfulness in Christ.

If any of you want to read it, and I would say that it is a very edifying sermon regardless of one's baptismal position, it is his New Year's Day sermon from volume 1 of his published sermons. The text is from the Gospel of St. Luke 2:21.

(Sorry. I remain a convinced paedo.)

Pilgrim · #3 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 07:19 PM

Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

reformedman · #4 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

Paedobaptists do not disagree that persons of age that are converts may also be baptized.
I honestly hope that everyone will look to love their heaven bound brethren with the posts in this thread because so far I have seen that these types of well meaning conversations many times turn into a heated argument.

Jim_Johnston · #5 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

sure, those who receive the word should be baptized.

Can we get a credo interaction with this:

Where is the word "only" in that text?

Example:

All those who were president of the USA were white men.

So, *only* those who are white men should be president???

And with this:

Quote:

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

[...]

29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.

[...]

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

There were only mature males there. Probably because only adult or chatechized males at the Jewish feasts (i.e., think of the 12 male disciples at passover. They didn't think it odd to be away from family. Think of cleanliness rules for males in thr OT, but not for females. Think of how many women would have not been allowed to eat because they were on their period. Think of Jesus going up to Jerusalem for the passover when he was 12. Think of the Talmud saying that only males and chatechized children ate the passover, etc., etc., etc.,)

The Baptist system, for all the rigerous argumentation and erudite scholarship, suffers from fundamental and irrepairable historical, exegetical, hermeneutical, and logical problems.

Semper Fidelis · #6 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Note that the same old credo hermeneutic is at work, where the New Testament is the exclusive starting point (almost to the denigration of the OT), and any continuity among the signs within the Covenant of Grace is disparaged.

Yes, except I've noticed some inconsistencies here. It's a pick and choose approach as to when we should be authoratatively going to the New Testament.

For instance you note:

Quote:

Note the citation of a Baptist theologian making a dispensational redefinition of circumcision as a mere national sign (when Paul specifically states that it was both a sign and a seal, in Romans 4), or the limiting of it's significance strictly to Abraham.

But, when faced with this point, the Baptists then go and camp out in Genesis to develop the meaning and to overthrow what Paul says is the meaning of circumcision. I've noticed that there is an eclectic and convenient jumping back and forth in this hermaneutic.

Typically they'll scold the paedobaptist for not developing their theology by using the New to shed light on the Old. Yet, when it suits, the Old sheds light on the New - that is, the meaning of circumcision and the "four nations" is developed from the Old and Romans 4 is then reinterpreted to suit what they bring from the Old into the New.

Frankly, this issue of the way they interact with Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is what I find to be the most damaging to the credibility of their argument - especially when they then turn around and have a Gospel-believing Abraham willy-nilly circumcising folks he knows are God haters and keeping them in his household. I love my Baptist brothers but I'll never understand how they will use the fathers of our faith in such a way as to shore up their position.

Larry Hughes · #7 (**permalink**) 09-27-2007, 10:28 PM

"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

First, it’s simply natural language and natural grammatical sense (like water always flowing down hill and the necessity to locally speak “going down into”). This has been pointed out before and quite old, the credo paradigm imposes a very un-natural way of speaking here to support the doctrine. E.g. A man goes to house of four a husband, wife, teenager and one infant. He convinces the family of a good life saving thing. How does he record the response this joyful response for the record? A. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined.” (meaning whole family, the natural and plain speech) Or B. “Those who gladly received this good word were joined, except for the infant of course who was clueless to all that was going on.” We have first against the Credo paradigm, 1. The very natural flow of language which is of course “A”; unless, 2., you actually meant to make a point of excluding the infant, then of course “B” would be correct. But “B” is not what we find and thus the credo argument is against itself here in the written text.

Of course the other is old hat argument too:

[quote]There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible.[\quote]

There is no command to give the Lord’s Supper to women in the Bible; there is no instance of giving the Lord’s Supper to women in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the giving of the Lord’s Supper to women to be found in the Bible.

There is no command to give the wine in Lord’s Supper via multiple tiny plastic cups in the Bible; there is no instance of giving the Lord’s Supper via multiple tiny plastic cups in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the giving of the Lord’s Supper via multiple tiny plastic cups to be found in the Bible.

There is no command to give crackers as the bread in Lord’s Supper in the Bible; there is no instance of giving crackers as the bread in the Lord’s Supper in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the giving of crackers as bread in the Lord’s Supper to be found in the Bible.

And etc…

Back to the drawing board.

Jim_Johnston · #8 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 12:41 AM

Quote:

There is no command to baptize babies in the Bible; there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible; there are no regulations governing the baptism of babies to be found in the Bible.

There is no command for non- apostles, prophets, or miracle workers to administer baptism; there is no instance of a non- apostles, prophets, or miracle worker administering baptism; there are no regulations governing how non- apostles, prophets, or miracle workers are to administer baptism.

Where do baptists get their idea that any ole preacher, pastor, reverand, &c are "the proper administers of Christian baptism?" Perhaps the pentecostalist/charasmatic baptists, with their "apostles," are the more consistent of the bunch?

JohnOwen007 · #9 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 06:41 AM

Quote:

there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible;

Wrong. Israel had their equivalent of baptism and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:1-4). The Lord's Supper ("the same spiritual food") was the manna feedings (1 Cor. 10:3-4) which taught them "not to live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3).

And Israel's baptism occurred in the Exodus (1 Cor. 10:1-2). It was a sign of the exodus from slavery to sin that Christ would win on the cross. And there were, naturally, babies who were in Israel's Exodus, and thus had the sign of baptism applied to them.

Yes, babies are baptized in the bible.

AV1611 · #10 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 07:04 AM

What amazes me is the obvious fact that God deals with the human race organically and this is seem explicitly in the Old Testament. This continues through the NT:

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

God has promised to be the God of our seed! Let us rejoice!!

Robert Truelove · #11 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 11:36 AM

I intend no offense but when I hear my Baptist friends camp on Acts 2:41 as the defacto answer to the entire debate (and in my experience this is commonly done), I cannot help but think they have not come to grasp the paedo-baptist arguments to a sufficient point to even begin grappling with them.

I am currently delivering a series of lectures on the sacraments. These lectures include the following...

1. The nature of the sacraments and the importance of a proper understanding of the doctrine 'Sacramental Union" which is vital at a foundational level to the right understanding of ANY sacrament in the Bible whether in the Old Testament or New Testament. That is, one's understanding the doctrine of what a sacrament is (big picture), will effect ones entire approach to the subject.

2. How to properly answer the question "What is Baptism?". In this lecture I go through the problems with the simplistic proof-texting approach that some employ in defining baptism. I employ a broad range of texts on the subject as found in the New Testament and demonstrate why the Westminster Confession's definition of baptism is scriptural to the core.

3. Who are the proper subjects of baptism and why? At the foundation, is the basis for baptism a profession of faith (even in the case of an adult convert) or the covenant itself (I argue the later)?

4. What is the efficay of Baptism? What exactly does it do to the one baptized?

5. Regarding the Lord's Supper...how from the broader few of Sacraments as a whole it relates to baptism, and how it differs (active versus passive sacrament).

6. Who are the proper subjects of the Lord's Supper (a critique of paedo-communion.)

7. What is the efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What exactly does it do for the faithful participant? For the unfaithful participant?

When I have completed my series, I will be posting it on the Christ Reformed Church Web site. If there is interest here, I'll let you know when it is available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

PuritanCovenanter · #12 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

sure, those who receive the word should be baptized.

Can we get a credo interaction with this:

Where is the word "only" in that text?

Example:

All those who were president of the USA were white men.

So, *only* those who are white men should be president???

All those who were president of the USA were white men.

So, *only* those who are white men should be president??? hummm?

Well as we have discussed before that the word only is not in the text but the people baptised that day were people who continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and prayers. (v.42) You also want to argue from what is not in the text when you say infants were baptized. But I want to discuss what has been written.

Concerning the reference or premise concerning men who were President.... there is another text (the constitution) that says who can possess that job. And the prerequisite to being baptised according to Peter and the word is repent and believe. Every recorded person baptised in the New Testament is someone who is cognizant of what is going on. Unless you are arguing from silence. I don't think I am.

Sorry I posted and have not taken time to discuss this more. The end of the week is not a time I should have done this. But I will get back.

I would like to discuss the signs of the Covenant of Grace. I am not sure the CoA is purely one of the CoG. Nor the Mosaic Covenant. I do believe these covenants administer the Covenant of Grace but I also believe they administer the Covenant of Works. Reverend Winzer and I discussed this earlier in an earlier thread. Works within the Mosaic Covenant?

Sorry for being so scattered. Rich and I discuss Romans 4 and Galatians here. The Case for "Believer's Only" Baptism

And I discuss Children and the Covenant of Grace here.
The Covenant of Grace and Children.

Have a great weekend and we shall continue on.

PuritanCovenanter · #13 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prespastor

I intend no offense but when I hear my Baptist friends camp on Acts 2:41 as the defacto answer to the entire debate (and in my experience this is commonly done), I cannot help but think they have not come to grasp the paedo-baptist arguments to a sufficient point to even begin grappling with them.

I am currently delivering a series of lectures on the sacraments. These lectures include the following...

1. The nature of the sacraments and the importance of a proper understanding of the doctrine 'Sacramental Union" which is vital at a foundational level to the right understanding of ANY sacrament in the Bible whether in the Old Testament or New Testament. That is, one's understanding the doctrine of what a sacrament is (big picture), will effect ones entire approach to the subject.

2. How to properly answer the question "What is Baptism?". In this lecture I go through the problems with the simplistic proof-texting approach that some employ in defining baptism. I employ a broad range of texts on the subject as found in the New Testament and demonstrate why the Westminster Confession's definition of baptism is scriptural to the core.

3. Who are the proper subjects of baptism and why? At the foundation, is the basis for baptism a profession of faith (even in the case of an adult convert) or the covenant itself (I argue the later)?

4. What is the efficay of Baptism? What exactly does it do to the one baptized?

5. Regarding the Lord's Supper...how from the broader few of Sacraments as a whole it relates to baptism, and how it differs (active versus passive sacrament).

6. Who are the proper subjects of the Lord's Supper (a critique of paedo-communion.)

7. What is the efficacy of the Lord's Supper. What exactly does it do for the faithful participant? For the unfaithful participant?

When I have completed my series, I will be posting it on the Christ Reformed Church Web site. If there is interest here, I'll let you know when it is available.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Could we get some paedo interaction with Acts 2:41? "Then those who gladly received his word were baptized."

Read the above post and links. I am not one to just camp on a verse. You know me not Prepastor. BTW you can do much good to reveal the FV in your series. I also recommend listening to Dr. R. Scott Clark's audio on the efficacy of baptism. Go to his site here.Westminster Seminary California clark and right click on this..."My lecture (MP3) on the Federal Vision doctrine of baptism" and click on save target as.

PuritanCovenanter · #14 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnOwen007

Quote:

there is no instance of the water baptism of babies in the Bible;

Wrong. Israel had their equivalent of baptism and the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 10:1-4). The Lord's Supper ("the same spiritual food") was the manna feedings (1 Cor. 10:3-4) which taught them "not to live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3).

And Israel's baptism occurred in the Exodus (1 Cor. 10:1-2). It was a sign of the exodus from slavery to sin that Christ would win on the cross. And there were, naturally, babies who were in Israel's Exodus, and thus had the sign of baptism applied to them.

Yes, babies are baptized in the bible.

Not New Covenant water baptism. And it was not a baptism that signified the forgiveness of sin. It was a baptism into Moses. The fact that they all were baptised in the cloud and sea into Moses is not the same thing as being baptised into Christ. They were indeed fed by the Spiritual Rock but that does not necessarily imply that the feeding was necessarily spiritual. The feeding was very physical in nature to feed their flesh and not necessarily their souls. For God was not pleased with most of them.

PuritanCovenanter · #15 (**permalink**) 09-28-2007, 01:49 PM