Thread: At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Syllogism for Discipleship Baptism as defined by Reformed Baptist as outlined in the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

"X"= A person who meets the qualification of faith and repentance. (Mathew 28:19, Acts 2:28, 8:36-37)

(1) Scripture commands "X" to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized.
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited.
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize "X" even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

As I said before, show me in your two Acts passages where there is any implicit or explicit command to the church as to whom they are to baptize. While these may be precedent in case law, they are not the law upon which the precedent rests.

[quote:f58c6d5d81]since KC, seems to have left premises 1 and 3 alone, and Paul's objection to me seem to be powerless to overrule the argument let us move on to the stronger objections that both Paul and KC both more or less agree on.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

I didn't leave 1 alone because I stated that your premise was not proved by your texts in Acts. If you are only left with Matthew, then your "X" is explicitly a disciple. In the immediate context, a disciple is one who is baptized and taught.

Your argument must then next address what a disciple is and what a disciple is not. Invariably, you will always look at a mature example or statements apprehending, "If you do X, you are my disciple." Unfortunately, the latter statement is not a requirement for becoming a disciple, but remaining a disciple. A disciple, in the final analysis, is one who is to be taught, nothing more, nothing less. These are the ones who are also baptized.

Further, I have never left your point three alone, because my history on this board shows very well that I hold very closely to the RPW. Again, it is unfortunate that you cannot see the command from the OT to include infants, which was not abrogated in the NT and therefore still applies.

It is therefore inappropriate for you to say that I have not dealt with your premises. You simply did not care for my answers, but they are a valid counter-argument.

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Challenging "premise 2" KC writes:


[quote:f58c6d5d81] That is easy enough to overcome. Simply decide to believe that circumcision and baptism are linked and you will have it licked. See Col. 2:11-12 for details. Circumcision was commanded for all in covenant with God and baptism became a sign of the new covenant administration.

Argument goes like this.

1) The circumcision of infants in the OT was required for covenant inclusion.

2) Baptism became, not replaced, the NT sign for inclusion in the covenant.

Conclusion: Baptism of infants is required for covenant inclusion based upon the OT command. [/quote:f58c6d5d81]

The problem is that Reformed Baptist will not simply decide but demand proof that the recipients of circumcision and baptism are identical. Citing Col. 2:11-12 is not helpful because a look at the passage reveals a silence about such an identity.

Paul was reminding these gentiles what they had in Christ for they were not born of the circumcision?
[b:f58c6d5d81]11 [/b:f58c6d5d81]and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; [b:f58c6d5d81]12 [/b:f58c6d5d81] having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [b:f58c6d5d81] 13 [/b:f58c6d5d81] When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

That in which you have quoted, is all the proof you need. The only way for it to become clear to you is if you see these verses in the context of Scripture, not Baptist theology.

Two things are unavoidable:

1. Infants were included in the covenant in the OT by their circumcision.

2. If infants are to be included in the covenant in the NT, they must have a sign administered to them.

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Now was it "baptism" or the "circumcision of Christ" which allowed the Gentiles to become part of God's people even though they had not been circumcised? I think verse 13 answers that question, that it was the "circumcision of Christ" that is what gave the Gentiles the circumcision without hands and so gave them entrance into the Covenant community.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

And as Paul's thoughts continue IN THE SAME SENTENCE, he shows that the circumcision made without hands is attached to the Spirit's work in water baptism. Complete the thought. You are dividing verse 11 from verse 12 instead of seeing it as one sentence.

Now, a follow on question. What is the circumcision of Christ?

[quote:f58c6d5d81]Even Karl Barth recognized this when he wrote:

Based on this reasons the identity of those who receive circumcision and baptism cannot be substantiated by these verses.[/quote:f58c6d5d81]

Unfortunately you have not proved that my arguments do not stand. You certainly will not gain any favor by quoting Barth.

If you think it through, I think it will become apparent to you. But you can't look at baptism as a baptist does. The sign of baptism is not the all important thing. Generation after generation merely look at the sign instead of what is signified by it. The baptism that baptists practice is merely a water rite. Once this is satisfied, they are satisfied. This is no different than the way Israel looked at circumcision. If the outward sign was applied, all was good.

However, the outward sign is only what we see. If it is not completed inwardly by the Spirit, that circumcision made without hands, then the person merely got wet. More than that, the person, if they are unregerate, has just received a sign of the covenant, which they have now spurned. And, as in the Supper, they will be held accountable for their spurning.

Get past the sign. The sign may be applied externally to those in the external community of faith. Only in the elect, is the sign applied internally, the circumcision made without hands.

If you view baptism as only an outward sign, you will never see it for what it is. It is because you only see the outward, that you cannot see why infants are to be baptized. Because the final conclusion you must come to is that the outward baptism is salvific, which we all know is an error.

Only what the Spirit does on the inside is what is salvific. He does not depend upon the sign, the sign depends upon Him.

Because this is true, we can see that those of the circumcision and those of baptism are linked, not by the sign, but the thing signified.

And because that is true, infants of believers should be baptized, just as God commanded the patriarchs to circumcise.

In Christ,

KC

[quote:9fcc8beb3e][i:9fcc8beb3e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9fcc8beb3e]
[quote:9fcc8beb3e][i:9fcc8beb3e]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:9fcc8beb3e]
I tried to stay away from this discussion but could not any longer due to some outlandish arguments.

Tyler, I know that you have been researching the RP and think that is excellent. BUT the way you try to use it as an argument is totally unconvincing and misinterpretated. Please do not allow your new found zealous discovery of a principle run away with your thinking before researching thoroughly, I am only telling you this to save you any more embarassement because KC and Paul have annhialated your use of the RP as an argument.:tongue:

To use your RP argument as well. Where is there a COMMAND to pesent, dedicate a child of a believer ANY WHERE is scripture?[/quote:9fcc8beb3e]

Roldan, can you please explain how my objections to Paul or KC objections does not work? If not than I simply must note that It is very suspicious when a person starts accusing his opponents of fallacies but never actually points them out because it is a symptom that a person is angry that they do not have a counter argument to combat a position they think is right but cannot find a reason to prove it.

Hope to see you Monday...

Lord bless... your reforming brother

Tertullian [/quote:9fcc8beb3e]

I'm sorry that you did not understand my post. I CLEARLY stated my objection to your RP argument. Did you overlook the question that is relevant to your arguments? Please refer to it again and please answer it. Remember answer the question according to your Zwinglian RP view.

See you Monday.

Your Reformed brother, Roldan:bigsmile:

P.S. Tyler you know me man. There is no anger involved here, Grace and Peac

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan]

I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]

[quote:599430bd25][i:599430bd25]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:599430bd25]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:599430bd25]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan]

[quote:1d28bad27d][i:1d28bad27d]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:1d28bad27d]
[quote:1d28bad27d][i:1d28bad27d]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1d28bad27d]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:1d28bad27d]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:1d28bad27d]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children.

[quote:76daf89ce2][i:76daf89ce2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:76daf89ce2]
[quote:76daf89ce2][i:76daf89ce2]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:76daf89ce2]
[quote:76daf89ce2][i:76daf89ce2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:76daf89ce2]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:76daf89ce2]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:76daf89ce2]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children. [/quote:76daf89ce2]


Tert, you know as well as I that the example of Christ blessing children is in NO WAY A COMMAND bless children in Worship.

Did Christ bless those children in a Worship service? Of course not.

Were those children He blessed children of believers? We don't know. unlikely though.

So why not admit that the baptist when screaming "Regulative Principle" are proving to much and do not practice their own objections to Reformed RP.

My point is, to use the RP as a argument against infant baptism is unhelpful and to me an insult to the intelligence.

Bottom line you have NO command expressed in scripture to bless, dedicate, present or whatever baptist want to call it. Therefore please discontinue that argument for it becomes devestating to your own position.

With meekness and a heart to help, Roldan

[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:6d1d663a5f]
[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:6d1d663a5f]
[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:6d1d663a5f]
[quote:6d1d663a5f][i:6d1d663a5f]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:6d1d663a5f]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:6d1d663a5f]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:6d1d663a5f]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children. [/quote:6d1d663a5f]


Tert, you know as well as I that the example of Christ blessing children is in NO WAY A COMMAND bless children in Worship.

Did Christ bless those children in a Worship service? Of course not.

Were those children He blessed children of believers? We don't know. unlikely though.

So why not admit that the baptist when screaming "Regulative Principle" are proving to much and do not practice their own objections to Reformed RP.

My point is, to use the RP as a argument against infant baptism is unhelpful and to me an insult to the intelligence.

Bottom line you have NO command expressed in scripture to bless, dedicate, present or whatever baptist want to call it. Therefore please discontinue that argument for it becomes devestating to your own position.

With meekness and a heart to help, Roldan [/quote:6d1d663a5f]

Roldan, I will not discontinue an arguement because you ask me to, please prove it wrong, because if you are right I will stop baby blessing as well, instead of saying alright Rholdan both sides break the regulative principle so go a head an continue... I would rather end baby blessing than worship God with my imagination!

Also, you misunderstand the regulative principle of worship if you think that we cannot follow an example of Christ, I mean Christ command his Disciples to bring the children to him to be blessed and that is what Reformed Baptist do, namely, follow Christ command. Obviously Paul and your "In church" arguement fails to understand the "circumstance" aspect of the regulatice principle because you treat the in church outside church as an element but where we the Church worship God is actually a circumstance not an element.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Tertullian]

[b:1a1b083d53]Thanks for the response, I always enjoy talking with you. I know that probably nothing I say could ever change your view but I still think that the point of debate is not always to win an arguement but to help to challenge the other person to compare his position with Scripture and I think that this debate is accomplishing that. Nonethelesss I have a few things to say in reply to your objections. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53] Tyler,

Well, I thought my arguments were very damaging, but since you choose to protest I can only tighten the noose harder.

First let's deal with your syllogism. You write:
[quote:1a1b083d53]

(1) Scripture commands "X" to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized.
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited.
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize "X" even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized. [/quote:1a1b083d53]


Let's note first. Premise two is a negative premise. To translate it and make it clearer it is saying:

No Scripture is a commander or prohibitor of non-X to be baptized.

What is the problem? Well, this is a fallacious syllogism. One cannot have an affirmative conclusion with a negative premise. Therefore, do I even need to continue? Well, technically no. But it's Friday...so let's have more fun.... [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] Actually my conclusion was a negative one but I can see how you could interpret it as being a positive one, but obvious I am not trying to prove that adult disciples can be baptized since we both affirm that but I am trying to prove that infants and other non-Disciples cannot be baptized. I concluded that we can only baptize group "X" and never baptize group "non=X" even though no verse prohibits non-X from being baptized so it really was a negative conclusion. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53]

Paul, seems to object to "premise 1" on the basis that if these are the qualifications for baptism they are also the qualifications for salvation and so infants cannot be saved [/quote:1a1b083d53]


That's right.

[quote:1a1b083d53]

The problem with this objection is that it fails to recognize that these verses are addressed to adults who have been regenerated and has no reference to either infant baptism or salvation.
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


And are the baptism verses, "repent and be baptised" addressed to regenerated adults? Also, Scripture commands that what one must do in order to be saved is "repent and believe." No where does command or prohibit what non-X (an infant) must do. But Tyler says:

[quote:1a1b083d53] These verses do not prohibit infant salvation which can be inferred from other parts of Scripture
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Now, what have I been saying? Why does Tyler get to use inference when it suites him? [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I am not just making stuff up, we probably could both agree that Scripture does warrant the inference of infant salvation. In fact, I think the eveidence might be stronger than inferrence but I for one have not problem with inference persay so long as it is warranted. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] I have argued, and there have been thousands of papers written in support of infant baptism by the greatest theological minds ever, that we can infer infant baptism. But Tyler states about these inferences:

[quote:1a1b083d53] they do not prohibit infant baptism which cannot be inferred from the rest of Scripture (or does it, may be the arguments have just not been stated yet). [/quote:1a1b083d53]


Tyler knows very well the arguments have been stated. So, upon analysis, what this debate boils down to is: if infant baptism can be inferred from Scripture then we would not violate the regulative principle. Infant baptism can be inferred. Therefore we do not violate the regulative principle.

Let me break it down further. What Tyler's argument really amounts to is this:

if infant baptism is true then they have no problem with the regulative principle.

And this brings us back logically, as you'll be bound to say, to the original debate over infant baptism. You see, Tyler must FIRST PROVE that infant baptism is not taught in Scripture before he can use the RP argument! Therefore, it boils down to a begging of the question. Tylers argument is now not very impressive:

if credo-baptism is true then the regulative principle supports it

Who's impressed with this?! [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] This is not a fair assessment of my argument from the regulative principle my argument states that the burden of proof is on the paedobaptist not the Reformed Baptist to prove infant baptism, and of course my argument is that no where in Scripture does it command infant baptism, but only if you accept the regulative principle of worship would that be a problem for not practicing it. For if you did not hold to the regulative principle who cares how you administer the sacrament we can add to God's commands.
KC, has understood that point and that is why he moved to the next logical level and tried to argue that infant baptism was commanded I hope that you will come up to join us in level two soon so that you can offer your proof that God commanded it. [/b:1a1b083d53]


[quote:1a1b083d53] Let's continue...shall we? About my challenge of Tylers INTERPRETATION of the RP he writes:

[quote:1a1b083d53] The problem is that if Paul is right he has only proved that infant baptism is inconsistent with the regulative principle of worship because Paul is defending infant baptism by denying the regulative principle of worship, which is what my syllogism seeks to prove.
[/quote:1a1b083d53]

Now, is this what I have been saying? I have challenges Tyler's INTERPRETATION of the RP. This is because I have shown, for ONE example, that baptism in the NT were IMMEDIATELY done. they did not wait for the elders to "grill" potential baptizies. So, far from showing that infant baptism is inconsistant with the RP (which I addressed above) I have actually shown that Tyler (or his church) are the ones who are inconsistant. They need to engage in IMMEDIATE baptisms; and furthermore these baptisms ought not be done IN CHURCH. Obvioulsy since there is no command to baptize IN A CHURCH and actually all the evidence we have are examples of baptisms that take place OUTSIDE of A CHURCH.

He then throws out a red herring, but this dog won't hunt. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53]Actually I am not sure why you think I or my church grills incomers, this is just something the theological enemies of Baptist made up about Reformed Baptist but its basis for this critique is in the critic's imaginations not the London Baptist confession. Furthermore, the "in Church, out church" is a circumstance, I encourage please tell me that whom receives the sacrament is a circumstance to, and than we can make more progress I this area. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53]
All, I can say to Paul is that if the regulative principle does not apply to baptism than why does he have a problem with how Reformed Baptist have preferred to administer the sacrament?
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Tyler, it should be obvious. It is becasue you only give the sign of the covenant to half the members of the covenant. It is because you, a mere man, would seek to have the very children Christ blesses and says, "do not hinder them from me," give a "credible" profession in order to be allowed into a covenant that God has allowed them in! That's my problem. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I am only worshiping God how he prescribes rather than adding my imagination into the worship, furthermore, Christ blessing children has nothing to do with baptism, not the Disciples tried to hinder the children- so obviously they were not in the practice of baptizing infants. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53] Tyler now turns his guns to my argument to show that it is (1) troublesome and (2) fatal. We shall see if both shots hit their target. Dealing with (1) he writes:

[quote:1a1b083d53] Paul also challenges "premise 2" by an unstated and unargued assumption that the recipients of circumcision must be the same as baptism because circumcision is identical to baptism
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


...and...

[quote:1a1b083d53]he troublesome one Paul brought up by Pual himself is the obvious fact that not even Presbyterians believe that the recipients of the signs are identical.
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Now, by "identical" I mean that the children of covenant members are also considered covenant members. No presbyterian I know of disagrees. SO, so far Tyler is setting up a straw man. This wil, become more evident. [/quote:1a1b083d53] [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] In the old Covenant the essence of the recipients of circumcision was male and the accident was age, in contrast to this Presbyterians argue that the recipients are both female and children and the essence is on the faith of the parents until the child is old enough. Notice that the two recipients are not identical and the reason for them getting the sacrament is not identical. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53][quote:1a1b083d53]
Note: premise one of Paul's arguement is false. The essense is "Disciple" and the gener is the "accident" on the matter of whom receives baptism- so yes women receive the sign but not because they are women but because they are Disciples. That is why not every women gets a sign. Hence, the real premise should read:

1) Women who are Disciples should receive the Covenant sign.
2) Infants can be women.

Note it does not follow that infants receive the sign logicially- the proof for this will have to be established on other grounds.
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


It should be obvious to an interpreter who wants to read his oponant in the best light that my argument has the hidden phrase "women who are in the covenant should recieve the sign (because the bible now tells us this)." X(infant women) is in the covenant. Therefore, she should revieve the covenant sign. Again, Tyler should know this. He should have delt with the strong version of what he knew I meant. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] First off, just because a women is in covenant does not mean that they should receive the sign- see women in the old Covenant- obviously the qualification is Disciple and secondly I did change your premise to disciple. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] It should be obvious that I didn't mean ALL women indescriminatly! Why would he interpret me that way then?

[/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I can only go by what you tell me. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] According to my above argument it does follw...logically. Now, what Tyler has done is again assumed (read his P1) that ONLY disciples (as he defines it) who are women should get the sign. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] Again, I do not want to play with words, Disciple is just a short hand for someone who meets the qualifications of repentance and faith, in fact, on another thread you defined disciple as someone who believes and I accept that definition. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] But it should be obvious to even a child that this is what we are debating! So, again, Tyler's argument is: if paedoism is false then only disciples should get the sign of the covenant. This is unimpressive. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] My argument is that it does not follow that if women who are disciples get the sacrament, infants since they are women should get the sacrament, for the obvious reason that there are to categories of women one who gets it and one who does not and it is logically possible that female infants fail into the category that does not get the sacrament hence we need more arguments to decide not arguments that only prove that it is logically possible that female infant baptism could or could not be true. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] Now for (2).

[quote:1a1b083d53] When Paul says that the New Covenant is only "additive not subtractive" he must mean that the "New Covenant is more glorious than the Old Covenant" because if he meant something else like nothing was abrogated when the Covenant passed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, we can easily offer the counterfactual of animal sacrifices during worship services. [/quote:1a1b083d53]


Yes it is more glorious...MORE inclusive, as well! Furthermore, who says sacrifice was abrogated? [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53]The Westminster Confession says that animal sacrafices have been aboraged. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53]Christ is our sacrifice! Thus blood atonement is still required! So we can see an odd neo-dispensationalism comming from Tyler. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] Not only Tyler but the Westminster we might add and the book of Hebrews (see chapter 8) say that they have been aboraged and we are no longer to have many priest and many sacrafices but they have been restricted to one. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] Even the very fact of blood atonement still being required for the remission of sin is evidence of the CONTINUITY...now, that sacrifiece was done once for all and is for all men not just jews; but this shows that the NC is more glorious and inclusive! [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53]It is more glorious but it is flaw to say that inclusive is more glorious- indeed the sacrifices and priests have been restricted and excludes all but one, but though the Old was more inclusive at this point, the New Covenant is still more glorious. That is why you need to rest your argument with the first premise merely the New Covenant is more glorious than the Old which we can both agree with. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] He continues to show my fatal errors:

[quote:1a1b083d53] Now I think Paul's gap filler is extremely dangerous because it runs like this, (1) we can assume what we think a Covenant would look like if it was more glorious, (2) all genders of infants receiving the sign is more glorious (3) therefore we can assume that since males infants had the sign of circumcision in the Old we can assume that in the New since it is more glorious we can give baptism to male and female infants.
[/quote:1a1b083d53]


Was that my argument? Wasn't my argument that all genders of covenant members are to recieve the sign and children are still covenant members? I need to see this revoked. That's right, that's my covenantal grid. My presupposition. [/quote:1a1b083d53] [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] No, you need to prove that circumcision is identical to baptism (which I reject) you need to prove that the command to only circumcise infants has been revoked (which you have just assumed based on what you conception of a better covenant would look like, which is an extremely dangerous form of interpretation and will worship) You are not assuming continuality (you are assuming replacement theology, cirucimcison is replaced by baptism) and then assuming that God has not continued to obey what he called a primitive patricidal command but has corrected his mistake and started to baptize both sexes, which you know not from Scripture but from what you feel is what a more glorious Covenant should look like. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] I assume continuity unless otherwise revoked. [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] than stop assuming replacement theology and stop baptizing female infants. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] I don't assume, as Tyler seems to, a dispensation appraoch. That is, unless repeated in the new we cannot assume continuity.[/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] I assume basic continuity between the Covenants I assume God still has the right to choice who get the sacraments of His Covenants. [/b:1a1b083d53]

[quote:1a1b083d53] Therefore, we have seen that Tyler's argument has been now defeated. His RP argument is a lone soldier satnding atop a mountain. But what he doesn't see is that his sword is made of paper and his shield is made of glass, and the real battle is going down on the field below him.

-Paul [/quote:1a1b083d53]

[b:1a1b083d53] Actually I stole this argument from an appendex in the London Baptist Confession and it has stood for the last couple of centuries and most of your rebuttals of Discipleship baptism are against the regulative principle of worship or are just artificial name calling (ex. Dispensational method vs. my Covenantal method and so on)

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/b:1a1b083d53]

KC,

I really have enjoyed this convo I hope you have enjoyed it as well. Seeing that we might be nearing the end, I thought I would wrapp up your convo, since I do not think you can produce an arguement from Scripture that supports the doctrine that baptism is circumiscion (Col 2:11-12 I do not think teache that, for reasons listed below).

I can only conclude that if I was in your shows faced with the regulative principle I would certainly be digging for an express verse that teaches that infants can be baptized but on failing to find one I would certainly have tried to connect circumcison with baptism as you have tried to do, but I do not think that that connection is going to work. Why? Becaue the Bible just does not make that connection, and so your whole counter-arguement is based on a connection not found in Scripture. Hence, I think though your method of reponse to the regulative principle is the most likely to overcome the arguement (find a command)-but a command just cannot be found and then to try to connect baptizing with circumcison and than apply the command to circumcise babies to baptism ultimately fails too, because this connection is something Scripture does not connect-

and hences this absenve of connection leaves your entire arguement that we must asume the command applies to both circumcison and baptism is hopelessly floating on a connection never made in Scripture.


Here are my arguements below.

[quote:4a532060a8] As I said before, show me in your two Acts passages where there is any implicit or explicit command to the church as to whom they are to baptize. While these may be precedent in case law, they are not the law upon which the precedent rests. [/quote:4a532060a8]

I think you may have missed the point, I agree with you in some respect, my one point in bring these passages up is that baptizing disciples (i.e. people who repent and believe) is not a violation of God's commands and that this was the practice of the Apostles and Apostolic church (both sides can agree with this without compromise to their respective positions). I still would argue that when Peter says "Repent and be baptized" and than it says latter on the text "all who believes were baptized" we can conclude that Peter did not administer baptism indiscriminately but only gave it to those who expressed faith in Christ. Although Peter's command do not prohibit other people from being be baptized they do command only those people to be baptized.

[quote:4a532060a8] didn't leave 1 alone because I stated that your premise was not proved by your texts in Acts. If you are only left with Matthew, then your "X" is explicitly a disciple. In the immediate context, a disciple is one who is baptized and taught. [/quote:4a532060a8]

That is not the immediate context of Mathew, using that definition anyone whom we tell and teach the Gospel (atheist, Buddhist, Deist) could be called a Disciple, obviously Jesus was using the word as it is traditionally used and clearly, though teaching is a necessary ingredient to the definition of Disciple it is not sufficient without the addition of repentance and belief on the learner or Disciples part.

[quote:4a532060a8] Your argument must then next address what a disciple is and what a disciple is not. Invariably, you will always look at a mature example or statements apprehending, "If you do X, you are my disciple." Unfortunately, the latter statement is not a requirement for becoming a disciple, but remaining a disciple. [b:4a532060a8]A disciple, in the final analysis, is one who is to be taught, nothing more, nothing less. These are the ones who are also baptized [/b:4a532060a8]. [/quote:4a532060a8]

Again, that means that the atheist who we teach the Gospel is automatically made a Disciple and than he simply refuses to continue and becomes a "Disciple breaker?" I think that this is not how we traditionally employ the word- O Bertrand Russell was a Diciple of Christ because he was taught the Bible in his youth, Muhammad was a Disciple of Christ because he was taught about Christ as well, I mean is this really what we want to say? Obviously, teaching is not a sufficient definition unless it is accompanied by a positive response like belief on the part of the listener.

[quote:4a532060a8] Further, I have never left your point three alone, because my history on this board shows very well that I hold very closely to the RPW. Again, it is unfortunate that you cannot see the command from the OT to include infants, which was not abrogated in the NT and therefore still applies. [/quote:4a532060a8]

I agree that it was never abrogated but I disagree that it was ever commanded. I do not accept the statement that the recipients of circumcision is identical to baptism.

[quote:4a532060a8] It is therefore inappropriate for you to say that I have not dealt with your premises. You simply did not care for my answers, but they are a valid counter-argument [/quote:4a532060a8]
You do not doubt that Scripture commands Disciples to be baptized (which was premise one) nor do you doubt the regulative principle of worship (which was premise three) hence you only object that God never commanded baptism which was an objection to (premise 2) that is all I meant by saying that you left premise one and there alone.


[quote:4a532060a8] That in which you have quoted, is all the proof you need. The only way for it to become clear to you is if you see these verses in the context of Scripture, not Baptist theology.

Two things are unavoidable:

1. Infants were included in the covenant in the OT by their circumcision.

2. If infants are to be included in the covenant in the NT, they must have a sign administered to them. [/quote:4a532060a8]

Who is not reading Colossians in context, Paul was not even talking about infants in this passage, must Presbyterians only use these verse to say that circumcision is identical to baptism.

[quote:4a532060a8]And as Paul's thoughts continue IN THE SAME SENTENCE, he shows that the circumcision made without hands is attached to the Spirit's work in water baptism. Complete the thought. You are dividing verse 11 from verse 12 instead of seeing it as one sentence.

Now, a follow on question. What is the circumcision of Christ? [/quote:4a532060a8]

The Circumcision of Christ is the cross and that is how we have been reconciled to God, that is why Paul develops the thought that Christ cross reconciled us in the preceding verses not baptism.

[quote:4a532060a8] Unfortunately you have not proved that my arguments do not stand. You certainly will not gain any favor by quoting Barth [/quote:4a532060a8]

It is a shame that you did not want to address Barth's argument against the idea that this verse teaches circumcision is baptism.


Barth's arguments against this interpration run

1) Is not the statement: "You are baptized in Him" (along with: You are dead and you are raised again in Him), without any parallel in the New Testament?

2) Even with the strongest concentration on its deeper sense, can baptism, which is in any case a human act performed with water, be described so simply as a work not done with human hands?

3) In what tolerable sense can the statement in v. 11: "You are baptized...," be set in juxtaposition with that in in. 12 the power which effects their resurrection is expressly said to be that of faith in the operation of God who raised Jesus from the dead, so that it cannot be described as baptism.

4) Finally, how odd it is if the whole attack on the rituals commended by the false teachers depends at the decisive point on the argument that they are not needed because in this respect Christians are best provided for in baptism!

Barth's argument in favor of seeing baptism as having the function of sealing the fact that we where circumcised in Christ on the cross rather then functioning as the circumcision of Christ as Presbyterians must assert to prove identity between the two sacraments.

Barth shows that all three of the difficulties mentioned above disappear if we interpret Christ crucifixion effecting in us the circumcision done without human hand.

1) Positively, when the clause in c. 12a, which undoubtedly refers to baptism, calls it a being buried with Christ, is it not point back to a preceding dying with Him? All these difficulties disappear if one assumes that the circumcision effected on Christians- described in an expression peculiar to Colossians but most appropriate to its thesis- there is denoted the crucifixion of Christ which took place for Christians and embraces them. Christians receive a share in the fullness of the Godhead. This was the work done on them, not by human hands in the body of the flesh in which they existed was put off and set aside like an old garment. If v. 11 speaks of the death of Christ which embraces Christians, it relation to the parallel v. 12, which speaks of their resurrection with Christ, is meaningful; it is also one which is found else where in Paul. The reference to Christ death is a clear and cogent argument against the false teachers by whose onset the Colossians community was threatened. To call the death of Christ which embraces Christians His circumcision, i.e, the circumcision effect by God in Him, is justifiable in a defense against Jewish-Gnostic ritualism, in which (cf. Col. 3:11) the demand for circumcision probably played a prominent part. It is also justifiable on the ground that herein- in accordance with the meaning of Old Testament circumcisions (cf. Tit 2:14)- God purified a people for His possession. On this view (but only on this view) one can also see why there is in v. 12a a resemblance of baptism as the burial of Christians with Christ. This resemblance is not an argument. As in Rom 6:2-4 it gives emphasis to the real argument. It is to this effect: Even in your own lives as Christian you being with the event in which you burial with Christ, and there with you liberation from all autonomous attempts at deification of salvation, was... confirmed and registered by that which yourseleves desired and received from the community. Hold fast to this! ( P 119-120)

KC, untill you can answer Barth's objection I believe that you have not yet proved your case but have just assumed your case to be true by assuming that circumicison is identical to baptism. (Note: I am not Barthian but this just goes to show that you do not have to be Baptist to see that these verses have nothing to do with an identity between circumcision and baptism). Colossians 2:11-13 does not teach such an identity or atleast force us to come to that conclusion seeing that another alternative presents itself- hence your whole argument about continuity is left floating on mid air without the slightest Scriptural evidence, I mean one verse was a slime argument anyway to rest a whole Doctrine of connection upon, but now with no verses whatever holding the doctrine up how is still in the air? The answer I think is that it is not still hanging on the wall but has fallen to the ground and broken in peices.

I see no reason to "connect circumcison and baptism" and so until you can connect the two you have no right to argue covenent continuation between two things that were never connected in the first place.


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]

Great idea, to limit the scope of the convo!!!

[quote:44e99af76e] Well, now your equivocating. I do believe that it is commanded. I took you as wanting me to show you a verse that said, "Baptize your children." There is no verse that says, "Baptize infants." I do believe, though, that we are commanded to give our children the sign of the covenant. So, I guess I'm playing at your's and KC's level now. [/quote:44e99af76e]

Hmmm, on a rereading of my last post to you I can see that my words about "second level" could be taken to mean something negative about you- please forgive me if it sounded insulting I suppose a better way I ought to have said it was that the meat of the issue is really your guy's objections to premise 3 of the regulative principle argument.



I guess, the regulative principle proves that the burden of proof is upon the Presbyterian to show where God commands infants to be baptized. But the Presbyterians have answered saying that throw some kind of inference we have the command (either by inference that connects circumcision to baptism, and then another inference that says that what God whom God command to receive circumcision he must also command to receive baptism, etc.) and then from that inference, Presbyterians try to use the same type of argument against the Reformed Baptist and say where is the repeal to stop giving circumcision or baptism to infants?
[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
Actually I am not sure why you think I or my church grills incomers, this is just something the theological enemies of Baptist made up about Reformed Baptist but its basis for this critique is in the critic's imaginations not the London Baptist confession.
[/quote:44e99af76e]

I use grill for rehtorical fashion. My point, which was avoided, is that in the NT example the baptisms are IMMEDIATELY done. They do not wait and "talk nicely over a cup 'o cofee to prospective baptizies." [/quote:44e99af76e]

Good point, I agree we ought to baptize on a creditable profession and that we do not absolutely need to quiz the person though in some cases it might be wise but as you pointed out in other case it might be wise not to as well. We are in agreement here.

[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
First off, just because a women is in covenant does not mean that they should receive the sign- see women in the old Covenant- obviously the qualification is Disciple and secondly I did change your premise to disciple.
[/quote:44e99af76e]

No no no. Your missing the point. Because a women is in THE NEW COVENANT does mean she get's the sign. We are in the NC now. I know that that didn't aply in the old, but we are not talking about OC we are talking about NEW. [b:44e99af76e]ANd we have revelation telling us that women may now participate [/b:44e99af76e]. [/quote:44e99af76e]

Amen, as long you always add that last line I will agree that women who meet the qualifications of revelation (namely Discipleship) may participate in New Covenant sacraments).

[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
The Westminster Confession says that animal sacrafices have been aboraged
[/quote:44e99af76e]

I said "sacrifice" not "animal." Now, the need for sacrifice is still required...but it is done in Christ. SO, again we see the continuity. [/quote:44e99af76e]

Sure we see continuity but not addictiveness.

[quote:44e99af76e][quote:44e99af76e]
Thanks for the response, I always enjoy talking with you. I know that probably nothing I say could ever change your view but I still think that the point of debate is not always to win an arguement but to help to challenge the other person to compare his position with Scripture
[/quote:44e99af76e]

I think I'll take you up on that. Prove the RP from Scripture.

-Paul [/quote:44e99af76e]

The regulative principle can be established in Scriptures repeated emphasis that worship is not to be conducted the way Heathen worship their gods. We can see that Aaron's sons were stuck dead when they added something not prohibited by Scripture. The ultimate argument though is that God is Lord and Holy and as such due to the nature of worship it must be regulative by His own wishes and not ours. (See Matt's defense I think he did a good job overall)


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]

[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
[quote:8cf4ff2dc2][i:8cf4ff2dc2]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:8cf4ff2dc2]
I do not teach baby dedications, I teach Baby blessings. That has been the historic Puritan Baptist practice.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

Dedications, presentations, exhortations, blessings whatever you may wish to call it, again according to your view where is this specifically commanded in scripture?

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Roldan] [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

We follow the example of Christ who blessed the Children. [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]


Tert, you know as well as I that the example of Christ blessing children is in NO WAY A COMMAND bless children in Worship.

Did Christ bless those children in a Worship service? Of course not.

Were those children He blessed children of believers? We don't know. unlikely though.

So why not admit that the baptist when screaming "Regulative Principle" are proving to much and do not practice their own objections to Reformed RP.

My point is, to use the RP as a argument against infant baptism is unhelpful and to me an insult to the intelligence.

Bottom line you have NO command expressed in scripture to bless, dedicate, present or whatever baptist want to call it. Therefore please discontinue that argument for it becomes devestating to your own position.

With meekness and a heart to help, Roldan [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

Roldan, I will not discontinue an arguement because you ask me to, please prove it wrong, because if you are right I will stop baby blessing as well, instead of saying alright Rholdan both sides break the regulative principle so go a head an continue... I would rather end baby blessing than worship God with my imagination!

Also, you misunderstand the regulative principle of worship if you think that we cannot follow an example of Christ, I mean Christ command his Disciples to bring the children to him to be blessed and that is what Reformed Baptist do, namely, follow Christ command. Obviously Paul and your "In church" arguement fails to understand the "circumstance" aspect of the regulatice principle because you treat the in church outside church as an element but where we the Church worship God is actually a circumstance not an element.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:8cf4ff2dc2]

Tyler, Tyler, Tyler, again you miss the point. You are a great example of Red hearings.

My point is that you have no COMMAND to bless children of BELIEVERS. Can mininsters go around blessing little children in a Chuck E. Cheese facility just because Christ did it. That is absurd.

Again you or any baptist, have any scriptural warrant to bless children and infants. By the way Christ blessed children not infants, so do you only believe in blessing children who are older than infants? For infants can't try to walk up to Jesus. It was older children.

Of course I understand the RP, do you know there are different views of the RP? Yours being Zwinglian and Ana-baptist? And ours being the Reformed view(Calvinistic)?

By the way Kc and Paul's arguments are devestating to your arguments. Just because you can't see that yet does not mean it isn't, you just can't accept it. Your arguments are sounding intelligent but really "you ain't sayin nothin".

I think you just need to study this more thoroughly in order to come in here talking like a Theologian who has studied for years. Just my

:wr50:

I gues we will talk more on Monday.

Love you bro. Roldan

[quote:66a34e4b7b] Tyler, Tyler, Tyler, again you miss the point. You are a great example of Red hearings.

My point is that you have no COMMAND to bless children of BELIEVERS. Can mininsters go around blessing little children in a Chuck E. Cheese facility just because Christ did it. That is absurd. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

I am not sure what you mean, Scripture never portrays Christ as forcing his blessing upon children against the parents wishes and nether ought we.

[quote:66a34e4b7b] Again you or any baptist, have any scriptural warrant to bless children and infants. By the way Christ blessed children not infants, so do you only believe in blessing children who are older than infants? For infants can't try to walk up to Jesus. It was older children. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

It is hard to prove from the text that no infants were blessed by Christ- the word in the Greek employed (I think being no Greek scholar)is a catch phrase that could include both groups.

[quote:66a34e4b7b] Of course I understand the RP, do you know there are different views of the RP? Yours being Zwinglian and Ana-baptist? And ours being the Reformed view(Calvinistic)? [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

Actually I adopt the regulative principle of worship as outlined in the London Baptist confession.

[quote:66a34e4b7b] By the way Kc and Paul's arguments are devestating to your arguments. Just because you can't see that yet does not mean it isn't, you just can't accept it. Your arguments are sounding intelligent but really "you ain't sayin nothin". [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

May be, but you are not exactly a unbaised person to make that judgement call. Feel free to answer in of my questions I give to them I always wanna hear you take on matters.

[quote:66a34e4b7b] I think you just need to study this more thoroughly in order to come in here talking like a Theologian who has studied for years. Just my.. [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

How much studing is enough? Two years, three years, four years, who gets to draw the line? I think it is best to judge the arguements not the qualifications of the person making the arguements wouldn't you agree?

Again, I did not make this arguement up but I am standing on the shoulders of the London Baptist Divines who I do think have the background necessary to argue it if there is such a thing.

[quote:66a34e4b7b]I gues we will talk more on Monday.

Love you bro. Roldan [/quote:66a34e4b7b]

Hope to see you then. Also I thought you might be intereste in this explaination given by a Reformed Baptist for the practice:

[quote:66a34e4b7b]
Baby blessing is not an element of worship therefore they are optional but they do seem warranted for special services just as Weddings and funerals are, and these services as the Westminster confesses are, "ordered by the light nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word" (Westminster Confession 1.6). These should not be confused with baby dedications.

In the gospels of Mathew (19:13-15), Mark (10:13-16), and Luke (18: 15-17) we read of an occasion when Jesus took the little children up in his arms, put his hands on them, and blessed them.
1) Who brought their children to Jesus? We are not told. They might have been genuine believers in Christ or temporary followers.
2) How old wre the children who were brought to Jesus? Mathew calls them 'little children'; Mark 'young children'; Luke 'Infants' (or new-born babies).
3) Why were the children brought to Jesus? Mathew says 'that he might put his hands on them and pray'
4) What did the disciples do? They rebuked those who were bringing the children, and tried to stop them coming to Jesus.
5) Why did they stop the children coming to Jesus? Because they thought that Jesus was not interested in babies who were not old enough to understand his teaching.
6) What happened when Jesus saw this? Mark tells us that 'he was much displeased'
7) What did Jesus say to the disciples? 'suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven' or, in another translation, 'let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them; for the kingdom of heaven belong so such'
8) What else did Jesus say? 'Verily I say unto you, Whosever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child he shall not enter therein.'
9) What did Jesus do to the children? 'He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them.' We are not told that Jesus baptized the babies or christened them or dedicated them, but that he blessed them. Had Jesus baptized the babies the disciples would have protested even more, for they were accustomed to seeing the repentant baptized, but not babies.
10) What does 'blessed them' mean? Mathew says that the little children were brought to Jesus that he might put his hands on them and pray. To bless here does not mean to consecrate or dedicate, but to pray, asking God's blessing Jesus blessed the children by praying over them and for them.
11) What did he pray for the children? We are not told, but whatever he asked of the father he received, so that thee children were blessed as a result of being brought to Jesus. Perhaps they were converted later in life. We are not told that Jesus' blessing the children made them Christians there and then.
12) What are we to do? We should bring our children to Jesus seeking his blessing upon them. He is the only Savior and he alone can save them from their sins. We can bring out children to Jesus privately in prayer, which we should do constantly, but it is fitting that we should do this publicly as well- for the Lord is especially present in the midst of his people. If this is done, it is suggested that the minister read out to the congregation the above questions and answers in order to ensure the people understand the origin and nature of the blessing. Having doe this, the minister takes the baby in his arms, and prays after this manner:

"Lord Jesus Christ, thou hast said that the Kingdom of heaven belongs to little children, and we now bring to thee this child... asking thee for they blessing. Hear our prayers on his behalf, and in they good time send they Holy Spirit into his heart that he may be converted and saved from his sin, and be made a member of they church and an heir of they everlasting kingdom. Do this for they name's sake. Amen'
The service could well end with the blessing:
The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his continence upon thee, and give thee peace. Amen'
[/quote:66a34e4b7b]

[quote:a8628a6b26][i:a8628a6b26]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:a8628a6b26]
I just want to know where we are COMMANDED to baptize IN A CHURCH? Can someone help me out here?

(1) Scripture commands "X" to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) Scripture never commands or prohibits "non-X" to be baptized.
([b:a8628a6b26]3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited. [/b:a8628a6b26]
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize "X" even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.

where is the "express command" to baptize in a church? Even though it is not prohibited the RP says we can only do wht is commanded.

See, I can be a better RPer than Tyler

-Paul

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by paul manata] [/quote:a8628a6b26]

So you would agree that regulative principle argues againt infant baptism? Remember in a church building or outside a church building is a circumstance not an element.

Thanks Paul for keeping it concise and breif. I hope that you are being edified as much as I am.

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: burden of proof: no, I think that the one who says God has changed allowing children in the covenant when he had for millenia is up to you to show.[/quote:add26ffac4]

How can God stop what he never started? God never commanded Baptism to be given to infants in the Old or New.

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: RP: so you can't prove it from Scripture? Tell me, how is following a command to give our children the sign of the covenant hethen? Sounded like question begging to me. [/quote:add26ffac4]

The Regulative Principle can be proven but I really do not want to debate that with Presbyterians who already believe it (I am assuming that you agree with it)

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: your argument: Are you going to fix it? [/quote:add26ffac4]


Fine: According to the regulative principle of worship I need a command to baptize an infant, where is the command?

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: disciples as followers of Christ: good, now you can agree to baptize infants, since I believe that they are. Now, of course there are different levels of cognitive awareness like my sons understanding of the trinity now and what it will be like as he matures. Who are you to lay down the mental requirements one must have for God to consider them? Furthermore, all the examples (blatantly obvious) we have are ADULTS being baptized. I'll be generous to you. An "adult" back then was 12 years old. Now, would you not baptize a 11 yr old. Give me an example of a 9 yr old being a disciple? You can't...oh well you can of course infer and ponder. But this would seem prejudicial. [/quote:add26ffac4]

Peter said "repent and be baptized" notice the order, that is why it says a few verses latter, "all who believed were baptized." The Eunuch asked Philip what prevented him from being baptized" Philip replied, "Believe with all you heart, and you may" Christ said go an make "Disciples" then baptize them. Notice that Peter was obeying Christ commission by baptizing Disciples and how Did Peter and Philip define Disciple, as someone who repented and believed.

[quote:add26ffac4] Re: command to baptize infants: "baptize households." Oh yea, you will re-interpret that. O.k., "promise is to you and your children." Oh yea, you'll reinterpret that as well. "Your children are holy, set apart." You'll reinterpret that as well. Or, (1) all visible church members are to be baptized. (2) Our children are visible church members. (3) Therefore they ought to be baptized. P2 is proved from Paul addressing parts of his letters (e.g. eph.) to children. Oh yea, you'll reinterpret that as well. Or,(1) ALL NC covenant members are to recieve the sign of NC membership. (2) Children are members of the NC. (3) Therefore, they are to receive the sign. P2 is proved because the NC prophacies include children. Oh yea, you'll reinterpret that as well. [/quote:add26ffac4]

Warfeild freely admits that, "It is true there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized" (Studies in Theology, p. 399.) and once these facts are admitted it logically follows that infant baptism is not authorized by the New Testament. Warfield logically must grant this when he writes, "The warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament." (Ibid. p. 399). So if your own side even confesses that all those verses prove nothing constructive about the practice of infant baptism why do you persist on using them not even your own side finds them convincing. I am sure what you already adopt infant baptism these verses must speak volumes but to people who are not already convinced of the practice these verses say nothing about infant baptism as Warfield confessed.

[quote:add26ffac4] It is becomming obvious that your argument is begging the question. What's really going on is that IF our position is correct then we DO NOT have a problem with the RP. Now(!), what you need to do BEFORE you can use the RP argument is prove our position wrong. Do you see this? Your argument ONLY works IF...IF... our side is wrong. So, first we will debate this for the next few hundred years, then maybe when we are proved wrong you can say, "see the regulative principle argued against it." So, what you have done is set up a criteria that YOU will not allow us to meet. It's not as though we have no answers, but it's that you don't like them. So don't pretend that you have this objective argument and the "facts" speak for themselves. You are a better Van Tilian than that. So, admit that your argument is only true IF we are wrong and therefore, we should be debating those things...because until they are refuted then you CANNOT use the RP. [/quote:add26ffac4]

What is really going on is that you need to jump aboard and defend the thesis that circumcision equals baptism, that is really where KC is at and that is where you should be at to. Notice, you have to prove that God has commanded infant baptism, your only hope is that circumcision equals baptism, now prove it from Scripture. (Note using Col 2:11-2 will not work unless you can answer Barth's objections that I left on my last reply to KC)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by Tertullian]

Why go through the back door when we are all waiting for you the front? This is not a military raid we are meeting for a freindly cup of tea.

Here is something I wrote on the regulative principle of worship; I accept the Westminster definition and proot texts:


[quote:e2a25d0922] The Lord is not to be trifled with, especially, in the matter of how He is worshiped by His people. The Lord has commissioned His peculiar people not to worship in the manner of the Heathen but to follow in complete obedience all of God's commands. While the Heathen around ancient Israel worshiped their gods with human sacrifice, orgies and mutilation and whatever else their sinful imagination conjectured, Israel in contrast was to keep God's Holiness before their minds constantly and to beware of using their corrupt imagination to worship God. God has built a permanent and clear monument about the serious nature of respecting God's commands when He caused heaven to poor down fire on Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abilu, who only offered strange fire before God (see Leviticus 10). Nowhere does Scripture prohibit "strange fire" but God's angered burned against Aaron's sons nonetheless. Why, because God had nowhere commanded it. God was demonstrated through this tragedy that the antithesis that exists between the worship the true God and the pagan way of worship must be honored and never blurred. God's people must not worship God in a manner that is not expressly commanded even if it is not expressly prohibited by Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith faithfully teaches what Scripture teaches upon the subject of worship when it proclaims:

I. The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.(a) But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.(b)

(a) Rom. 1:20; Acts 17:24; Ps. 119:68; Jer. 10:7; Ps. 31:23; Ps. 18:3; Rom. 10:12; Ps. 62:8; Josh. 24:14; Mark 12:33.
(b) Deut. 12:32; Matt. 15:9; Acts 17:25; Matt. 4:9, 10; Deut. 4:15 to 20; Exod. 20:4, 5, 6; Col. 2:23. Reformed Worship must be regulated by God's word. (Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 21:1)

This Confession continues to observe that the worship of the triune God is divided between "Elements" and "Circumstances". The term "Elements" is a short hand term that describes commands from God that the church must obey when it worships. The term "Circumstances" describes how in practice the "Elements" are done justice in each of the various cultures and times the Church finds herself worshiping God in. The Westminster continues to define baptism as one of the Church's Elements of worship and this brings us to the conclusion that we must follow baptism as it is prescribed by Scripture and never add to the practice anything beyond what is written even if it is not expressly forbidden by Scripture. This is one of the greatest strengths of the prestigious tradition outlined in the Westminster Standards.
Ironically, however, it was this strength that ultimately caused a group of non-conformist to reject part of the Standard. Reformed Baptist, Dr. Fred Malone explains that this later group of theologians would seek to amend what they felt to be a great inconsistency within the Westminster Standard in regards to the Standard's positive stance on infant baptism and positive stance of the regulative principle of worship. This group history would call "Reformed Baptist" and in 1689, these theologians published the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and in an appendix explained why they could not in good conscience continue to follow the reformers and the Westminster Divines in affirming infant baptism. They wrote:

Therefore, we cannot for our own parts be persuaded in our own minds, to build such a practice as this, upon an unwritten tradition: But do rather choose in all points of Faith and Worship, to have recourse to the Holy Scriptures, for the information of our judgment, and regulation our practice... All instituted worship receives its sanction from the precept, and is to be thereby governed in all necessary circumstance thereof [emphasis Fred Malones]1

The Reformed Baptist theologians were fully persuaded that Christ was Lord over His Church's worship of Him and they could not find in Scripture where Christ ever commanded infant baptism. Thus, the controversy of infant baptism was born a fresh only it was propelled by those of a reformed magisterial mindset instead of the Anabaptist verity that had appeared earlier. The question that must now be asked is where the Reformed Baptist right when they said that infant baptism breaks the regulative principle of worship? Both sides of the controversy have typically admitted that Scripture does not prohibit infant baptism, but still, the burden of proof ultimately falls upon the Reformed paedobaptist because the regulative principle of worship considers the answer to the question does God expressly prohibit this practice to be irrelevant to the question what practices ought to be conduced in worship serves. Thus we can only conclude that the burden of proof is ultimately upon the Reformed Paedobaptist to prove infant baptism, not the Reformed Baptist to disprove infant baptism. Yet, this fact, only changes the nature of the game but the game is far from won by the Reformed Baptist side. [/quote:e2a25d0922]


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

Hey Tertullian,

I've been trying to follow the discussion thus far and found it quite good. You debate very well and your polite and I appreciate that. Your familiarity with Presbyterian authors is quite astounding and it reminds me of T.E. Watson's book on baptism which boasts itself for basing its arguments, ironically, on what paedobaptists have written. Now, your argument from the regulative principle rests on the fact that there are no commands to baptize infants. How that command should be presented in scripture I'm sure your quite flexible in regards to its form. In this case, not flexible enough to accept what paedobaptists have been offering thus far; incidentally, this is precisely what you and Paul are debating. How far do we take the regulative principle?

I wish only to satisfy your challenge by taking a slightly different approach. I'm not going to criticize most of the arguments that you have presented thus far because at this point you have debated that the burden of proof lies on paedobaptists. Rather than debate the burden of proof issue, because I think Paul and KC are doing a fine job, I wish only to beat a dead horse by repeating some common proofs that I think satisfy the regulative principle.

While ago, you had mentioned that just being in the New Covenant is not enough to prove infant baptism because "...no one has the innate "right" to the covenant sign. Even Covenant members do not have an innate right to the Covenant sign... therefore a person to prove infant baptism must do more than simply prove that infants are in the New Covenant to establish infant baptism... a person needs to prove that God commanded baptism to be given only to infants with parents with faith and where God says that both male and in female infants can be baptized. As far as I know nobody has been able to show that God has commanded these things." I would say that this is partial truth. Circumcision was a requirement of ALL males to be members of the covenant. So all men not only had an innate right to baptism but also were commanded to do so. I think baptism in the New Covenant falls under the same line of reasoning. Everybody in the New Covenant (dead folks exempted) must be baptized or else run into the equally unbiblical proposition that there are such things as unbaptized visible church members or that baptism is morally optional.

Here is a simple way of looking at the argument:

1.)All covenant members (dead ones exempted) are required to receive the covenant sign of baptism.
2.)Infants are covenant members because of their believing parents.

Conclusion: Infants are required to receive the covenant sign of baptism.

All I have to do is prove that all covenant members are required to receive baptism and show that infants of believing children are covenant members and I have satisfied the regulative principle.

Premise 1 I will openly take for granted. It is utterly ridiculous for me to imagine that people can become apart of the covenant without the requirement of its initiatory rite. This was true in the Old Covenant and by virtue of continuity must be true in the New Covenant. As far as the Lord's Supper, that's different. Not even all adults are fit for the Lord's Table let alone the whole debate for infant communion.

The big question is whether infants are apart of the New Covenant. Well, I would just refer to another thread on this issue. But I think the answer is 'yes.'


Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

Thanks for the warm introduction and I appreciate your willingness to open up a fresh dialogue about a subject that ought to begiven at least a little bet of time if we are to make progress.

I just thought you might be interested in two points that I think will help answer your questions.

Firstly, in regards to the burdon of proof I just wanted to make it clear that once the idenity between circumcision and baptism is granted the burden of proof does shift to the Reformed Baptist who does not want to baptize male infants; however, I would add that Scripture itself does not connect or make identicial circumcison and baptism and therefore I reject this connection and therefore the burden of proof become once again on the Presbyterian side to show the command to baptize infants. (I know Presbyterians use Col 2:11-14; but there are serious objections to using the passage to find idenity between the two rites see my last post to KC)

Secondly, in regards to the issue of Covennant membership and the rite of the Covenant, I know that you cannot subjectively imagination it but our imaginations are not a good place to establish how we are to worship God.

here is something I wrote explaining why I feel and argue that the whole Covenant member arguement is useless to overrule the regulative principle arguement:

[quote:3c3961f8fc] [b:3c3961f8fc] The Most Common but Useless Argument given for the Reformed Paedobaptist position [/b:3c3961f8fc]

Before progress can be made in critically examining and questioning the two most compelling arguments for the Paedobaptist position a popular argument must first be set aside because unless it is addressed it will haunt the minds of those who have read on this subject from a Paedobaptist perspective. Yet it is for this reason that Barth had to add his third point, namely, the Paedobaptist must prove what needs to be proved. For many Paedobaptist argue that the physical children of spiritual Covenant members are included in the Covenant of grace, in fact, they spend whole books defending that thesis when they were suppose to be defending infant baptism. Indeed nothing could be more irrelevant than answer to the question what is the status of the physical children of spiritual Covenant members. For either way the question is answered we will have learned nothing about infant baptism, for if the question is answer that physical children of Christian parents are not necessarily New Covenant members (my own position) we now know that infant baptism is wrong, but if we answer the question and say, yes, they are New Covenant members, we have learned nothing about if we ought to baptize an infant or not. Why not? Consider the argument for infant baptism based on Covenant membership:

(a) That all children of believers are born in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace.
(b) That the covenant privileges belong to them by birth
(c) That the covenant seal and sign must be given to all children of believers since they are in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace.


TE Watson destroys this argument with speed when he writes:

If for argument's sake we grant propositions (a) and (b) we will now show that inference (c) does not necessarily follow. Let us consider an example in the Old Testament. It will not be denied that Jewish females had as great a part and interest in the covenant made with Abraham as had the males. Here then we have a case of persons in covenant who are yet without the sign of the covenant, circumcision. To answer the obvious objection, it should be remembered that a certain kind of circumcision was given to females by the Egyptians, and a similar practice could easily have prevailed among the Jews. Now the reason the Jewish males were circumcised. Had it so pleased him, he need never have given any sign at all, in which case both males and females would have been in covenant with him without having any sign to that effect.

Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some of the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p.
Watson's observation that you can be in the Covenant and still not receive the Covenant sign is most pertinent to the present evaluation of trying to prove infant baptism by proving that children of believers are New Covenant Members. Using the regulative principle of worship we can focus more clearly on the heart of the matter, this argument is useless because it is only a command to baptize an infant that could warrant the baptism of an infant. Therefore, this and only this, (i.e. a command of God) can be the argument that will satisfy the criteria that the argument to baptize infants must fulfill. Therefore, regardless of its popularity we must ultimately judge this argument as essentially useless and irrelevant to the question of infant baptism and now begin to examine the two arguments that attempt to explain the basis for infant baptism on a command from God.

[/quote:3c3961f8fc]

Thanks for the response you seem like a very well read person on this subject so I would enjoy hearing from you in the future.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

Thanks for the warm introduction and I appreciate your willingness to open up a fresh dialogue about a subject that ought to begiven at least a little bet of time if we are to make progress.

I just thought you might be interested in two points that I think will help answer your questions.

Firstly, in regards to the burdon of proof I just wanted to make it clear that once the idenity between circumcision and baptism is granted the burden of proof does shift to the Reformed Baptist who does not want to baptize male infants; however, I would add that Scripture itself does not connect or make identicial circumcison and baptism and therefore I reject this connection and therefore the burden of proof become once again on the Presbyterian side to show the command to baptize infants. (I know Presbyterians use Col 2:11-14; but there are serious objections to using the passage to find idenity between the two rites see my last post to KC)

Secondly, in regards to the issue of Covennant membership and the rite of the Covenant, I know that you cannot subjectively imagination it but our imaginations are not a good place to establish how we are to worship God.

here is something I wrote explaining why I feel and argue that the whole Covenant member arguement is useless to overrule the regulative principle arguement:

[quote:cdeb489486]
[b:cdeb489486] What Does the Reformed Paedobaptist have to prove in light of the Regulative Principle of Worship [/b:cdeb489486]

To make progress in the controversy between credobaptism and paedobaptism the question must be asked what exactly the paedobaptist needs to prove in order to satisfy the regulative principle of worship. Theologian Karl Barth provides an excellent outline of the three ingredients to the argument that the reformed paedobaptist needs to articulate in order to make his case that Scripture when viewed as a whole clearly commands the practice of the baptism of the children of Christians. Barth's criteria may be summarized as follows (1) The necessity of infant baptism must be established (either by just and necessary inference or a direct command) (2) The case must be presented calmly and clearly (3) What needs to be proved must be proved and not something else. When all three of these criteria are meet than the Reformed Baptist will have been sufficiently answered by Reformed Paedobaptist. Yet as Barth showed, and I will try to show, these criteria were not meet by either the reformers or their prodigy after them. It must also be noted that Reformed Baptist will not be convinced by vicious circular arguments or appeals to the authority of the reformers or Standards no matter how prestigious they may be since the very truth of their conclusions is what needs to be proved and established. It is amazing how many Paedobaptist arguments become invalid once that last point is made. Having established the criteria by which we can judge the arguments advanced to support the questionable practice of baptizing infants let us begin to examine them.

The history of the arguments advanced by Paedobaptist can be summarized in the words of Paedobaptist B.B. Warfield who wrote to his fellow Paedpbaptist Presbyterian and Congregationalist, "Let us confess that we do not all argue alike or aright. But is not this a proof rather of the firm establishment in our hearts of the practice?" (Studies in Theology, p. 406.) a statement which, Reformed Baptist TE Watson, insightfully adds, "Indeed it is, and hence men are so slow to give the practice up?" (Should Babies Be Baptized?, p. 79.). Indeed, Warfield was right the only thing that can be counted on, when comparing John Calvin's argument, to Charles Hodge's argument , to John Owens' argument is that they all contradict each other, some finding one verse to support the practice another disagreeing and so forth. Yet, two arguments seem to continually reappear and unite these theologians in the otherwise confusion called positive evidence of the practice of infant baptism. These two arguments are that God has promised to regenerate infants so they can receive the sign of regeneration (i.e. Baptism) and that covenant sign was administered to infants in the Old Covenant and therefore baptism since is the same Covenant sign must be given to infants in the New Covenant. Yet under close scrutiny neither argument affords the just and necessary inference that they are dressed up to have.



[b:cdeb489486] The Most Common but Useless Argument given for the Reformed Paedobaptist position [/b:cdeb489486]

Before progress can be made in critically examining and questioning the two most compelling arguments for the Paedobaptist position a popular argument must first be set aside because unless it is addressed it will haunt the minds of those who have read on this subject from a Paedobaptist perspective. Yet it is for this reason that Barth had to add his third point, namely, the Paedobaptist must prove what needs to be proved. For many Paedobaptist argue that the physical children of spiritual Covenant members are included in the Covenant of grace, in fact, they spend whole books defending that thesis when they were suppose to be defending infant baptism. Indeed nothing could be more irrelevant than answer to the question what is the status of the physical children of spiritual Covenant members. For either way the question is answered we will have learned nothing about infant baptism, for if the question is answer that physical children of Christian parents are not necessarily New Covenant members (my own position) we now know that infant baptism is wrong, but if we answer the question and say, yes, they are New Covenant members, we have learned nothing about if we ought to baptize an infant or not. Why not? Consider the argument for infant baptism based on Covenant membership:

(a) That all children of believers are born in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace.
(b) That the covenant privileges belong to them by birth
(c) That the covenant seal and sign must be given to all children of believers since they are in the external sphere of the Covenant of Grace.


TE Watson destroys this argument with speed when he writes:

If for argument's sake we grant propositions (a) and (b) we will now show that inference (c) does not necessarily follow. Let us consider an example in the Old Testament. It will not be denied that Jewish females had as great a part and interest in the covenant made with Abraham as had the males. Here then we have a case of persons in covenant who are yet without the sign of the covenant, circumcision. To answer the obvious objection, it should be remembered that a certain kind of circumcision was given to females by the Egyptians, and a similar practice could easily have prevailed among the Jews. Now the reason the Jewish males were circumcised. Had it so pleased him, he need never have given any sign at all, in which case both males and females would have been in covenant with him without having any sign to that effect.

Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some of the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p.
Watson's observation that you can be in the Covenant and still not receive the Covenant sign is most pertinent to the present evaluation of trying to prove infant baptism by proving that children of believers are New Covenant Members. Using the regulative principle of worship we can focus more clearly on the heart of the matter, this argument is useless because it is only a command to baptize an infant that could warrant the baptism of an infant. Therefore, this and only this, (i.e. a command of God) can be the argument that will satisfy the criteria that the argument to baptize infants must fulfill. Therefore, regardless of its popularity we must ultimately judge this argument as essentially useless and irrelevant to the question of infant baptism and now begin to examine the two arguments that attempt to explain the basis for infant baptism on a command from God.

[/quote:cdeb489486]

Thanks for the response you seem like a very well read person on this subject so I would enjoy hearing from you in the future.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]

I think you may have misunderstood my arguement or my arguement may have been unclear. Therefore please allow me to clarify:

[quote:cbeb7c97ec] Therefore, we can see that the issue is over whether Scripture commands our children to be baptized, and not about the regulative principle. So, in conclusion, I must conclude that your argument begs the question and has zero weight...unless you are correct about your position; which is what I dispute. So, if credoism is true then paedoism is not. This is the essemce of Tyler's argument. [/quote:cbeb7c97ec]

The essence of my argument is that the burden of proof is upon the Paedobaptist to produce a command to baptize infants; I agree with you that if circumcison and baptism were identicial I would have to be the one to come up with a command that forbids the baptism of male infants, but I do not agree that baptism is circumcison. Hence, you either have to prove that Scripture teaches that they are identicial or you have to produce the command to baptize infants another way.

As for the regulative principle of worship- I can agree wih the Westminster stance so would you agree that a person cannot hold to the regulative principle of worship as outlined in that Confession and continue to baptize infants. After all if that person does not accept that "baptism is circumcison" due to the fact that Scripture never teaches there is identity between, also they take a convenantal rather than replacement approach to Scripture and that not even Presbyterians accept complete identity between the rites when they include female infants then he has not command to practice infant baptism and according to the regualtive principle what is not commanded is not to be done-

so that person would have to stop baptizing infants if he accept the Westminsters stance on the regulatice principle right?



To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]:saint:

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]

Thanks for the reply.

How about instead of "beer" we are meeting for Bible study after all man does not live on bread alone... but feel free to bring the beer for yourself if you want (Luther would be proud)


[quote:842b531756] Well, this burden is only because your presupposing your position. I presuppose mine so I think you have burden. [/quote:842b531756]

I do not presuppose the truth of my position my position could be in error we have to check what our highest authority says and that is Scripture to see what side is right... no wonder you cannot see my arguments if you just assume that you position is right.

[quote:842b531756] God places our Children in the covenant. He has nowhere told us that they are out. All NC members receive the sign. I need you to show where God removes the Children from the covenant. [/quote:842b531756]

I have addressed this issue who is a "Covenant member" and who gets the "Covenant sign" must be distinguished as different questions. Until you can explain to my why I cannot distinguish those categories I will not because as we all know if I do not distinguish them I am forced to say that no women were Covenant members in the Old Covenant and I would have to say that God is not Sovereign over who gets the sign or that the essence of a Covenant is that the Covenant members must get a sign but all of these doctrines are pure speculations that cannot be supported from Scripture and I see no reason to follow someone where Scripture does not take me.

[quote:842b531756]So this burden stuff is not helpful. You should know as a debater that burden is a slippery slope. [/quote:842b531756]

Funny words coming from a Presbyterian, I am amazed how you can use that argument when it works in you favor and then disregard it when it appears to work against your position. In truth there is nothing inherently wrong with establishing who has the burden of proof as a "debater" I know that sometimes it is not wise to even debate until that point is established.

[quote:842b531756] Furthermore, circumcision is not identical...who says it is ...DEPENDING on how you define identical. Noone has EVER said that baptism means to cut forskin?!.[/ [/quote:842b531756]

Many Presbyterians have said that they were identical for example the Ursinus, co-author of the Heidelberg Catechism, reduced the whole argument for infant baptism to a single syllogism that read:

"Under the Old Testament, infants were circumcised as well as adults. Baptism occupies the place of circumcision in the New Testament and has the same use as circumcision had in the Old Testament. Therefore infants are to be baptized as well as adults" (Ursinus)

Of course I acknowledge that Presbyterians argue "replacement theology" of the rites then argue "command continuity" of the administration (go figure) but this is exactly where I see the problem I do ever see Scripture teaching that the "command to circumcision male infants" carries over into baptism. The only way Presbyterians can say that it is to argue that in essence circumcision and baptism are the same (the proof for this who knows because Col 2:13-14 simply cannot teach it once the text is allowed to speak for itself instead of fitted into a theological framework)

[quote:842b531756] First off, you can agree as far as what you THINK they menat by something. Since they are not hear you don't know what they MEANT....for sure. [/quote:842b531756]

That's true that the Westminster Divines are not here but does it really follow that I cannot tell what they meant?

[quote:842b531756] Also, I asked some pointed questions in my last post. Can you answer those please? What I want to do is have YOU explain your system. Please stop giving me the "footnote refutation."

-Paul [/quote:842b531756]
What do you want to know that I did not answer in my description of the regulative principle that I have already given you on a past thread. How about this you define the practice and I will see if I agree with it or not.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Tertullian]

Tertullian,

I understand your argument, but I don't really know quite how to respond. I think we're just simply drawing completely different conclusions from the same facts. Here is how I think this is the case:

My sets of syllogisms:
OT
1.)All males in covenant are required to receive the initial sign.
2.)Infant males are in the covenant.
C.) Therefore, infant males receive the initial sign.

NT
1.)All males and females in covenant are required to receive the initial sign.
2.)Infant males and females are in covenant.
C.) Therefore, infant males and females receive the initial sign.

Notice that in my set of premises, the only change made is that females are now given the sign. In your application of the facts, you conclude that there is a change in the requirements of receiving the sign (i.e. only by a profession of faith). You base this from a completely different application of the same scripture. Since women didn't receive the covenant sign in the Old Testament, you argue that covenant membership can't determine who receives the signs but require, like all "elements of worship," a command or provision from scripture.

This isn't a bad line of reasoning but I don't think it reflects the relationship between the sign and the covenant accurately. The basis for males receiving the sign according to scripture was the covenant itself. Consequently, there was a very strong connection between the sign and the covenant. I am going to suggest that the difference between the old and the new is not the requirement for children to make a credible profession of faith but rather that females are now given the initial sign whereas before they were not. Taking this view maintains the integrity of God's covenant relationship with the family and also gives a balance connection between the sign and the covenant. It seems to me that taken your position a person loses an important dynamic and connection between the covenant and its corresponding ordinance. Your position makes the sign connected to the profession of faith more than any connection with the covenant itself. Personally, I think the paedobaptist treatment of the covenant and the sign to be more cohesive.

I don't expect this to be very persuasive but I hope you see where I'm coming from. By the way, I think your ability to defend the baptist position is pretty good. I had to really chew on your argument before responding.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-14-2004 by Goosha]

Thanks for that excellent explanation of how you view the Covenant in relation to the Covenant signs. Personally I do not think that being part of the visible church puts in you in the New Covenant but I still feel that even a Reformed Baptist does think that infants are part of the "external Covenant of Grace" I still do not think that they would be inconsistent to withhold baptism from infants.


I think TE Watson's observation however is still very impressive:

[quote:86cdc69ded] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and [b:86cdc69ded]the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God [/b:86cdc69ded]. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:86cdc69ded]

I mean it is not the full story to say that males and females in Covenant are baptized in the New Covenant for adult males and females must also "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and we are to baptize Disciples (Mathew 28:19) so to be precise we are to baptize women and men who meet the qualifications Discipleship which include faith and repentance in adults and are in Covenant.

Now of course the qualifications of these verses have no reference to infants so they cannot be used to say that infant baptism is prohibited because they do not meet these qualifications but that fact does reveal that what God's commands about baptism has no reference to infants.


The Jews ultimately circumcised males because of God's Covenantal commands to circumcise males and felt no burden to circumcise females in the absence of a Covenantal command from God even though women were in Covenant. Likewise a Reformed Baptist need feel no burden to baptize an infant in the absence of a Covenantal command to baptize them.

Just some food for thought-

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[quote:30f6bd459b][i:30f6bd459b]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:30f6bd459b]
Thanks for that excellent explanation of how you view the Covenant in relation to the Covenant signs. Personally I do not think that being part of the visible church puts in you in the New Covenant but I still feel that even a Reformed Baptist does think that infants are part of the "external Covenant of Grace" I still do not think that they would be inconsistent to withhold baptism from infants.


I think TE Watson's observation however is still very impressive:

[quote:30f6bd459b] Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and [b:30f6bd459b]the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God [/b:30f6bd459b]. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99) [/quote:30f6bd459b]

I mean it is not the full story to say that males and females in Covenant are baptized in the New Covenant for adult males and females must also "repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38) and we are to baptize Disciples (Mathew 28:19) so to be precise we are to baptize women and men who meet the qualifications Discipleship which include faith and repentance in adults and are in Covenant.

Now of course the qualifications of these verses have no reference to infants so they cannot be used to say that infant baptism is prohibited because they do not meet these qualifications but that fact does reveal that what God's commands about baptism has no reference to infants.


The Jews ultimately circumcised males because of God's Covenantal commands to circumcise males and felt no burden to circumcise females in the absence of a Covenantal command from God even though women were in Covenant. Likewise a Reformed Baptist need feel no burden to baptize an infant in the absence of a Covenantal command to baptize them.

Just some food for thought-

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:30f6bd459b]

Now that was better. Great observation, Of course I thoroughly disagree but that was very relevant and touches the main details of disagreement between the two camps, Good job:thumbup:

Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC

[quote:722122a6b4][i:722122a6b4]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:722122a6b4]
Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:722122a6b4]

And the Reformed Congregations says "AMEN!"

[quote:4a9a54fadb][i:4a9a54fadb]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:4a9a54fadb]
[quote:4a9a54fadb][i:4a9a54fadb]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:4a9a54fadb]
Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:4a9a54fadb]

And the Reformed Congregations says "AMEN!" [/quote:4a9a54fadb]

I guess I do not have enough pictures of reformers on my wall but I just do not see it nor will I accept the resolution that because the majority says so it must be true... I mean Calvin also said that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe... so much for the infalliablity of Calvin.

Hi Tertullian,

I have not given up on the discussion yet. I think we are now done with clarifying our positions and I would like to make another point before throwing in the towel. Now, I think I fully understand your argument and the argument T.E. Watson makes when he writes:

"Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99)"

This argument is quite clever. In fact, should I decide to change from discussing the covenant to discussing the church, the same argument would apply. You could simply say that women not being circumcised in the Old Testament proves that not everyone in the Old Testament church received the sign simply on the basis of their membership with the church. Unfortunately, this argument indicates to me that it would be a complete waste of time to even make an argument for infant baptism from their church membership based on the above argument. Honestly, I don't know how Watson came up with the argument but its quite ingenious!

My response:

I think Watson's position, on its own terms, is possible. A person could very well draw yours and Watson's conclusion that since women weren't circumcised that that proves the covenant membership doesn't require the covenant sign.

I think that a better conclusion could be that when God makes a corporate covenant that all covenant members are required to receive the covenant sign unless God makes some qualification to it.

In other words, the reason women didn't receive the sign based on their covenant membership was because God made that particular qualification. I think this makes better sense of the New Covenant with its expanded blessings. The Old Testament had its limitations that where eliminated in the New Covenant. For instance, only men were priests in the Old Covenant but now both men and women who believe are priests in the New Covenant.

At this point, I think Watson's interpretation leads to a problem in the New Testament whereas the interpretation that I'm suggesting tends to make better sense of both old and new. The fact that there were no explicit commands aimed at women to partake of the Lord's Supper nor is there any examples in scripture that women ever did proves to be an interpretive conundrum for Watson. I know what someone might say, "Women are disciples and therefore they should be given the Lord's Table." But what is this? Nothing more than a CORPORATE command applied to individual classes. Yet, Watson has proven that such can never be the case. He has to prove that WOMEN disciples are required to partake. It is no longer enough to say that women are disciples and therefore they should be given the table. After all, there is no substantial difference with me arguing that a child should receive the sign because of his or her covenant relationship with God than Watson arguing that because a woman is a disciple or that she is a believer that she should be given the table. Even if it were argued that the table is made for believers, he could not prove that this includes women. Based on his own criteria, he has to show that women believers are commanded to partake of the Lord's Table. What Watson has done is he has eliminated all inferences made from corporate covenants and promises. Since the family composes subclasses, he has required that covenants made with the families must have explicit reference to the individual subclasses in order to apply to them. I believe this point has already been brought up and I only mention this because I think it's probably the best way of demonstrating which approach to the Old Covenant bests helps us to understand the New Covenant.

In summary:
I am postulating that all covenants with the family require the individual members to participate in the signs of the covenant unless God says otherwise. I think this better expresses the way God functions in the bible and also allows us to have a basis for giving women the table of the Lord and not doing damage to the Regulative Principle.

For further interest, there are some very fine theologians who would argue that women were in fact circumcised (non-physically of course). While this isn't my argument, I think it deserves a hearing and so I'll post a friend's argument below:

It is true that only the males in Israel received the physical rite of circumcision. But should we conclude that because the women in Israel did not receive a cutting in their flesh that they were not considered to be circumcised? I believe the answer to this is no. But let us consider what the result would be if this conclusion did follow. In Exodus 12:43-50, the LORD gives Moses and Aaron commands concerning the institution of the Passover feast. In this passage, one of the explicit requirements of celebrating the Passover was that the feast be given ONLY to those who were circumcised. "But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it" (Ex 12:48). Now, if it is true that females in the Old Testament were not circumcised, then all the women of Israel would have been excluded from the Passover meal. But we know that this is not true. So we must reject the idea that women were not circumcised in the Old Testament. The women in Israel were circumcised, not in their flesh, but because of the federal headship of the father of the household. Because God makes his covenant with individuals and their households, he counted the female children in Israel as circumcised on the basis of the circumcision of the Father.

So we see that Tertullian's argument fails because the first premise is false. Women did receive the covenant sign of circumcision, though the sign was not literally cut in their flesh.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

[Edited on 3-16-2004 by Goosha]

Thanks for your humble thoughts and questions. May our Lord grant us wisdom and humility as we submit together to the rule of Scripture as amateurs desperately in need of grace to guide us through this most difficult of subjects.

I thank you for reading my response and hope that my response is adequate.

You are correct in recognizing the significance of Watson's argument when you write:

[quote:69b86f4ce0] Unfortunately, this argument indicates to me that it would be a complete waste of time to even make an argument for infant baptism from their church membership based on the above argument. Honestly, I don't know how Watson came up with the argument but its quite ingenious! [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

Whereas as you seem to think that the problem with Watsons argument is that it would make the whole argument from Covenant membership a complete waste of time, I see this part of Watson's argument to be the strength rather then the detractor. This is precisely the point I want to emphasis for I see no reason how Covenant Membership has anything to do with the administration of the Covenant sign, only God's command affords the basis for the administration of the Covenant sign. Reformed Baptist who think that infants are included in the Covenant need feel no more pressure an infant then the Jews did for women and therefore in order to establish the practice of infant baptism a command from God must be produced and the whole argument form Covenant membership becomes irrelevant and misdirected.

In response to the two objections raised I will reply to each one separately as follows:

[quote:69b86f4ce0] I think Watson's position, on its own terms, is possible. A person could very well draw yours and Watson's conclusion that since women weren't circumcised that that proves the covenant membership doesn't require the covenant sign. [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

I agree with your summary but I just thought that we could expand the argument further by saying that the Covenant of Grace since it began directly after the fall proceeded for years without any Covenant member receiving a Covenant sign but this only expands upon the original observation that you can be in Covenant and still not receive a sign (this expansion will hopefully become more relevant throughout the rest of this post because I think it helps make your own unique formulation of the relationship between the Covenant membership and the Covenant sign inadequate to explain the biblical evidence).

You outlined your position very nicely and theologically well when you said,

[quote:69b86f4ce0] I think that a better conclusion could be that when God makes a corporate covenant that all covenant members are required to receive the covenant sign unless God makes some qualification to it. [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

But this is where I will have to ask for proof because I think that it is dangerous to just presume without a command that a vassal has the right to a Covenant sign that the Lord of the Covenant must honor unless He says otherwise. Where exactly is the prohibition to not circumcise women, where exactly was the prohibition for Covenant members like Enoch and Noah to not receive a sign, I think a search of Scripture reveals that there is no prohibition, so then did these Covenant members get a great disservice when they did not get a Covenant sign would they have a just compliant against the Lord of the Covenant for not receiving a sign? No God was perfectly just and they would have not right to launch a complaint why? Because Covenants do not require members all Covenant members to get Covenant signs, in fact, only the Covenant Suzerain has the right to command whom gets the Covenant sign if any and only those whom he commands have the "right" to get that sign.

The fact that God no where prohibits infant Covenant of Grave members from receiving the sign puts no more pressure on the Reformed Baptist than the Jews had to circumcise females even though no express command prohibited females from getting the Covenant sign.

I know that you would object to this and say:

[quote:69b86f4ce0] At this point, I think Watson's interpretation leads to a problem in the New Testament whereas the interpretation that I'm suggesting tends to make better sense of both old and new. The fact that there were no explicit commands aimed at women to partake of the Lord's Supper nor is there any examples in scripture that women ever did proves to be an interpretive conundrum for Watson. I know what someone might say, "Women are disciples and therefore they should be given the Lord's Table." But what is this? Nothing more than a CORPORATE command applied to individual classes. Yet, Watson has proven that such can never be the case. [/quote:69b86f4ce0]

But if your argument is sound (for I disagree with its premise) I could always just agree with you and say that women ought not to receive the Lord's Supper for just because we do not like were Scripture takes us is not a reason not to go there. However, Scripture does clearly teach "Discipleship Lord's Supper" therefore any Disciple may receive the sacrament and since some women are defined in Scripture as Disciples these same group may receive the sacrament- but only that group- hence I reject women Lord's Supper because just because you are a women it does not mean that you have the right to the lords table, but if you are a Disciple and on "accident" are women then you can be a participant in the table just like Disciples who on accident are "men"- Note no command ever commands men to have the Lord's Supper either (that I know of). Therefore, I think the Discipleship answer satisfies the command creita laid out in Watson's original argument and we do not have to go the "CORPORATE command applied to individual classes" route after all.


As for the final possible objection- that women were counted "circumcised" because some alleged connection to the federal male. The Reformed Baptist who thinks infants are Covenant members simply goes on to say, well if that is true for women in the Old Covenant than I think it is true for Babies in the New my federal baptism covers the infants until he has come of age and therefore he does not have to be baptized like the women did not have to be circumcised. Remember the Reformed Baptist might add it would have been wrong for a women to get circumcised without a Covenant command and in the New Covenant we can assume that it would be wrong to baptize infants without a command, especially when they are federally coved by the baptism of their parents. Therefore this objection is helpless because it is a two way street which could just as easily be used by Reformed Baptist- this argument is therefore irrelevant at best- or at worst back fires and supplies more ammo to the Reformed Baptist.

Hence I think Watson's argument deserves a second chance:

"Thus, people may be in covenant who are without the sign of the covenant, and the sole reason for giving all or some the sign of the covenant is the command of God. It follows that even if the children of believers were in some special covenant relationship, this of itself does not entitle them to the sign of that covenant. The sign is to be given only as the Lord commands - perhaps to males only, perhaps to females, perhaps to both, perhaps to neither. In previous chapters we have seen that the Lord has not commanded that babies should be baptized, whether male or female, so that Christians are no more required to baptize their babies than the Jews are required to circumcise their females (Should Babies Be Baptized? p. 99)"

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-16-2004 by Tertullian]

Tertullian,

I just wanted to jump in and say that you are very good at debating the credobaptist position. However, you previously said concerning the above federal circumcision argument:

[quote:028e7cccc0]
As for the final possible objection- that women were counted "circumcised" because some alleged connection to the federal male. The Reformed Baptist who thinks infants are Covenant members simply goes on to say, well if that is true for women in the Old Covenant than I think it is true for Babies in the New my federal baptism covers the infants until he has come of age and therefore he does not have to be baptized like the women did not have to be circumcised. Remember the Reformed Baptist might add it would have been wrong for a women to get circumcised without a Covenant command and in the New Covenant we can assume that it would be wrong to baptize infants without a command, especially when they are federally coved by the baptism of their parents. Therefore this objection is helpless because it is a two way street which could just as easily be used by Reformed Baptist- this argument is therefore irrelevant at best- or at worst back fires and supplies more ammo to the Reformed Baptist.
[/quote:028e7cccc0]

The women in the Old Testmant were not "allegedly" circumcised. God counted them as being truly circumcised, otherwise they would not have been able to partake of the Passover. Federal headship is a clear reality in the Scriptures.

Now, if you try to say that infants today are federally baptized, then this means infants are truly baptized. Thus, they have no need of later baptism after they make a profession of faith. If you baptize them with water, you have baptized them twice. The federal circumcision was real circumcision in the OT. Likewise, if you argue for federal baptism, your infants are really baptized. This is not consistent with baptist theology.

Furthermore, since we have an example of a woman being baptized in Scripture (Lydia), there is no need for a "federal baptism" since we can give baptism with water to our female and male infants alike.

[quote:23ea75a4cd] The women in the Old Testmant were not "allegedly" circumcised. God counted them as being truly circumcised, otherwise they would not have been able to partake of the Passover. Federal headship is a clear reality in the Scriptures.

Now, if you try to say that infants today are federally baptized, then this means infants are truly baptized. Thus, they have no need of later baptism after they make a profession of faith. If you baptize them with water, you have baptized them twice. The federal circumcision was real circumcision in the OT. Likewise, if you argue for federal baptism, your infants are really baptized. This is not consistent with baptist theology. [/quote:23ea75a4cd]

I am not sure that if follows that it would be wrong to baptize a Disciple because of a federal baptism they received as an infant from their parents, without doubt if the federal circumcison applied to female infants it would just have equally applied to male infants, yet even though male infants were circumcised federally they still had to be circumcised personally because God commanded them to be, so the Reformed Baptist who for some reason accepts this position that has yet to be proved from Scripture could just say that Disciples are like males under the Old administration, when infants they are covered federally but when they become Disciples they must be baptized personally because they have been commanded by to do so.

I know that may sound awkward but the awkwardness comes from the whole concept of federal circmusion, in truth, females did not have to be circumcised and so they could still participate in the passover because qualiticiations about circumsion had no refrence to them.

All in all, I think this federal circumsion is a two way street reformed Baptist could just as easily use it to prove that infants can be in Covennat and not be baptized as you have to say that women could be in covenant and not be circumcised.


[quote:23ea75a4cd] Furthermore, since we have an example of a woman being baptized in Scripture (Lydia), there is no need for a "federal baptism" since we can give baptism with water to our female and male infants alike. [/quote:23ea75a4cd]

Lydia is also a "Disciple," and it was because of her faith not her gender that she was given the sacrament, so all this verse really proves is Lydia's baptism was a Discipleship one.

Also, to say that females had to get federal covering because they could not be circumcised is untrue (Egyptians females were circumcised). Females were not circumcised in Israel because God had not commanded them to be.

Thanks for the comments though,

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[quote:cf4bc646dd][i:cf4bc646dd]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:cf4bc646dd]
I am not sure that if follows that it would be wrong to baptize a Disciple because of a federal baptism they received as an infant from their parents, without doubt if the federal circumcison applied to female infants it would just have equally applied to male infants, yet even though male infants were circumcised federally they still had to be circumcised personally because God commanded them to be, so the Reformed Baptist who for some reason accepts this position that has yet to be proved from Scripture could just say that Disciples are like males under the Old administration, when infants they are covered federally but when they become Disciples they must be baptized personally because they have been commanded by to do so.
[/quote:cf4bc646dd]

First of all, there is no federal baptism in the New Testament because baptism can be given to all in the household, male or female. In the OT, the male infants were circumcised in their flesh, not federally. Women were circumcised via the federal headship of the father and not in their flesh (Female circumcision is a mutilation of the woman's genitals. Even in Egypt in recent years there has been a ban on the practice. Though they are both called "circumcision" the two acts are very different from one another). Women are not federally baptized today because we know baptism can be administered to females (which was why I brought up Lydia to begin with).

Furthermore, in baptist theology, "federal baptism" in an anomaly because it contradicts the baptist meaning of baptism, which is to be given upon an individual's profession of faith in Christ. It is unthinkable that one person's baptism could "count" for or cover another person in baptist theology.

Also, you have made a great deal of the idea that God has COMMANDED "discipleship baptism" as you have called it. But there is no single verse in the NT that says anything like, "you shall only give baptism to a person who have first made a profession of faith in Christ and have become disciples". Yes, baptists can point to texts that speak of adults being converted and then being baptized, but this is not the same thing. Baptists INFER from these texts that baptism should only be given to disciples. So the baptist positions rests on inference, just like the paedobaptist position, and they should be willing to admit this much. If a practice requires the COMMAND of God, then even the baptist position is excluded by your use of the RPW. Thus, you are applying the RPW too rigidly.

[quote:cf4bc646dd]
I know that may sound awkward but the awkwardness comes from the whole concept of federal circmusion, in truth, females did not have to be circumcised and so they could still participate in the passover because qualiticiations about circumsion had no refrence to them....

.....Also, to say that females had to get federal covering because they could not be circumcised is untrue (Egyptians females were circumcised). Females were not circumcised in Israel because God had not commanded them to be.
[/quote:cf4bc646dd]

Do you believe that a female from the house of a man that was uncircumcised would be allowed to partake of the Passover meal? Of course not. It is because no uncircumcised person could eat the Passover.

There is much more that can be said, but I'm sure my reasoning will not convince you, just as yours is not convincing to me. But because I do believe T. E. Watson's argument is lacking, I wanted to at least chime in and give a reason why.

Tertullian,

"But this is where I will have to ask for proof because I think that it is dangerous to just presume without a command that a vassal has the right to a Covenant sign that the Lord of the Covenant must honor unless He says otherwise. Where exactly is the prohibition to not circumcise women, where exactly was the prohibition for Covenant members like Enoch and Noah to not receive a sign, I think a search of Scripture reveals that there is no prohibition, so then did these Covenant members get a great disservice when they did not get a Covenant sign would they have a just compliant against the Lord of the Covenant for not receiving a sign? No God was perfectly just and they would have not right to launch a complaint why? Because Covenants do not require members all Covenant members to get Covenant signs, in fact, only the Covenant Suzerain has the right to command whom gets the Covenant sign if any and only those whom he commands have the "right" to get that sign.

The fact that God no where prohibits infant Covenant of Grave members from receiving the sign puts no more pressure on the Reformed Baptist than the Jews had to circumcise females even though no express command prohibited females from getting the Covenant sign."


I think its funny that when I read my own writing that it seems clear but as soon as there is a response made I am able to immediately see its obscurity. I didn't intend on suggesting that every covenant requires a sign. I apologize if that's what was communicated. I was simply taking a moral perspective from this. If God makes a conditional covenant with a group of people, every individual person should understand that a corporate command applies to individuals within the group unless there is some provision made for certain people (i.e. women and circumcision). For instance, God made a conditional covenant with Israel during the time of Moses and it was understand that the terms of the covenant applied to everyone. Of course, God never leaves us wondering exactly how these promises apply and if there is a qualification that needs to be made, it will be made.

You ask where there is a prohibition to circumcise women. First of all, women can't be circumcised. When people claim some sort of circumcision for women, they are breaking God's law which does not provide the liberty of self-mutilation. Simply put, this so-called woman circumcision breaks God's law.

You say that Covenants do not require all members to receive the covenant sign. Is that true for all covenants? Is that true for all covenant signs? Using the regulative principle, I could simply say that the New Testament doesn't provide the basis for unbaptized church members in the New Covenant Church. Thus, the Regulative Principle proves that everyone in the New Covenant Church must be baptized or else the Regulative Principle is broken. Once that is established, one could further argue from Old Testament Prophecy and the general ecclesiastical pattern of scripture that believers and their children will be apart of the New Covenant Church.

Thus, the argument goes as such-

1.) Everyone in the New Covenant Church is baptized as per the Regulative Principle.
2.) The Bible teaches that the children of believers are apart of the New
Covenant Church.
Conclusion: The children of believers are to be baptized into the church.

Now, you may make your argument that covenant membership does not entitle a person to the covenant sign; fine, you are now required to prove that there could be such a category as unbaptized church members in the New Testament. Since the regulative principle shows us that there is no basis for unbaptized New Covenant Church membership, I am suggesting that only baptized individuals compose the visible church. I like taking this line of reasoning a little more than what I have previously written for at least two reasons: 1.) I don't have to address the issue of whether women were circumcised federally (My friends can debate that much better than I ever could) 2.) I use the Regulative Principle to prove my point. Whether this is convincing or not doesn't really matter, I found the entire discussion profoundly edifying.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

To all my dearly loved Paedobaptist brothers in General,

This debate is really starting to get deeper into the issues but please understand that a lot of the stuff you guys might assume is not assumed by me. For example I reject the premise that "every Covenant member is required to carry the Covenant sign" (this premise has yet to be proved from Scripture but has so far just been assumed). Hence, the whole "necessity" for some how devising a way that women could be "circumcised" in the Old Covenant so that we can continue to hold to this "theological framework" (i.e. everyone in Covenant receives the sign) is not very compelling to someone like me who does not have to go through mental gymnastics to preserve what he feels is a human tradition anyway. I mean it could be argued that "undetectable space aliens move the planets and therefore everything will stop unless acted upon by a moving force" but for anyone who does not feel a predisposition for the belief that "everything stops unless something moves it" the space alien explanation is not very compelling for the case of Aristotelian metaphysics. Sure no-one could really refute the "undetectable space alien" theory but does that mean that we must accept belief in it? (I see no reason to think so, especially when most of us today think that things will continue to move unless something stops them- as Newton taught).

I am looking at this whole issue from the perspective that only God's commands can give a person the right to have the Covenant sign administered to them (I think the same arguments advanced for the Regulative Principle of Worship can be advanced to defend this position, God's commands are not to be added or subtracted)... you may hold the different assumption that God's command is not really the issue but Covenant membership is... but the point is that we must first address the question of which is the case... if you cannot prove that Covenant membership is a sufficient reason for the administering of a sacrament from Scripture then no argument advanced from that premise will be impressive from someone who wants to base his doctrines upon Scripture.

From a logical perspective: It only takes one counterfactual to disprove a universal negative. Hence, I only need to present a counterfactual to disprove that "No Covenant members can receive the Covenant sign unless God specifies" proposition. Watson provides such a counterfactual when he lists women in Old Covenant - it does not really matter why they did not get the sign the point of Watson's argument is that this assumption "You cannot be in Covenant and receive the sign unless God directly says otherwise" is not true.

Just like if I said "There are no pink pigeons in the world" but you had produced through some sort of wired lab experiment a "pink pigeon" my original statement would be wrong- period. In the same way it is just wrong to say that all Covenant members get the sign... because they are Covenant members... unless God says otherwise" for Old Covenant members who were women are a clear counterfactual- period (Whatever reason for women in the Old Covenant that reason is irrelevant the point is that we can no longer assume that just because you are a Covenant member you must get the Covenant sign).


Therefore not only is there no compelling reason to just assume that people get the Covenant sign because they are in Covenant but there is also strong reason to reject that assumption- we must therefore judge each case of Covenant members individually (i.e. did God command this group to the sign or not) that is the only safe way to arrive at the truth. Hence, this route is a dead end in the debate because it ultimately brings us back to where we started did God command this group (in this case infants) to be baptized.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

Thanks for the enlightening and warm posts. You seem not to put a lot of weight on the "Covenant membership=Covenant sign" arguments and you have never seemed quite satisfied with the "federal circumcision of women" hypothesis (I only say this because you presented it with the disclaimer that this was a suggested of your friend that you did not necessarily endorse) and I understand your hesitancy in using these arguments. So I was wondering if you thought that these arguments still left a reasonable doubt in regards to proving the idea that we can just argue infants are Covenant members and then baptism them even though we do not have a command?

I regard to your other point which seems to take a different route then the other arguments I think that it still will not ultimately get passed the reasonable doubt phase because it seems to flounder upon the same rock that the other ones did in the end.

[quote:f20fd1e8de] 1.) Everyone in the New Covenant Church is baptized as per the Regulative Principle.
2.) The Bible teaches that the children of believers are apart of the New
Covenant Church.
Conclusion: The children of believers are to be baptized into the church. [/quote:f20fd1e8de]

I think I understand the argument but what I do not understand is why the only disproof of this syllogism would be an argument that shows "you are now required to prove that there could be such a category as unbaptized church members in the New Testament" for the other disprove of this argument would be a rejection of premise 1- for where exactly does God command all Church members to be baptized? I see where he commands adults to be baptized and repent and believe and work for their food but obviously these commands do apply to infants unless we want to say that infants must confess Christ as Lord, believe and repent to be saved and work for their food. Now it is reverse is true in regards to the regulative principle- for according to the regulative principle it is just as bad to subtract as it is to add to God's command so if this syllogism is based of a premise which commands something extra than what God commanded then the regulative principle requires us to drop the syllogism.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[quote:9665de2e74][i:9665de2e74]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9665de2e74]
[quote:9665de2e74][i:9665de2e74]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:9665de2e74]
[quote:9665de2e74][i:9665de2e74]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:9665de2e74]
Thanks for your analysis of my arguments. I must defer the balance of my statements with orthodoxy. I am sorry that you do not make the logical correlation from Colossians 2. All other Reformed divines do. I'll stick with them.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:9665de2e74]

And the Reformed Congregations says "AMEN!" [/quote:9665de2e74]

I guess I do not have enough pictures of reformers on my wall but I just do not see it nor will I accept the resolution that because the majority says so it must be true... I mean Calvin also said that the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe... so much for the infalliablity of Calvin. [/quote:9665de2e74]

First, I am not claiming infallibility for anyone. But I will not say that all are wrong on a particular point of doctrine.

We would not call into question any of them for their trinitarianism would we? Then why is it that we can lump them all together when it comes to infant baptism and say that each of them was wrong on this point? How do we know that? By what standard are we judging? By the Word? Well then it is our interpretation vs. theirs, and who is going to win?

The majority. The rule of faith is what is going to win. Otherwise, we have dissented merely because we believe we're right and they're wrong. Who are we to say that the Spirit has taught us and not them? We're not infallible either.

The majority believes Jesus is Lord. The majority believes that salvation is by grace alone. The majority believes that the Scriptures are inerrant. So is the majority always wrong in the church of God? They are right more than they are wrong.

So I reject your notion that we are merely following a majority who is wrong. There is no standard you can show to prove they are wrong because you stand relatively alone against them.

I am sorry you do not like to be a dissenter, but this is exactly what comes along with it.

And, while you may think that you are now the majority because of loose evangelicalism, you need to realize that most of the people you stand with, you do not agree with, except for the one point of baptism. In soteriology, most all of the rest baptistic types believe that we are saved by our choice and our works.

The Reformation was right on infant inclusion. I didn't say they were infallible, but on this point, they are correct. The burden of proof is upon you.

Further, how do you know that the Earth is not the center of the universe?

In Christ,

KC

Tertullian,

You wrote:
"I see where he commands adults to be baptized and repent and believe and work for their food but obviously these commands don't apply to infants unless we want to say that infants must confess Christ as Lord, believe and repent to be saved and work for their food."

What conclusion can you possibly draw from this? Do you think this proves that only believers ought to be baptized? God may have commanded adults to be baptized, but there is no scripture indicating that ALL water baptisms require a profession of faith. Are you suggesting that based on the regulative principle the above observation proves that God has authorized only baptism by a credible profession of faith? I hope you see where I coming from. I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. Similarly, you observe only adults baptized on the basis of their profession of faith and conclude that God has only authorized those who profess faith the rite of baptism. Honestly, I don't see any difference between both of our uses of the regulative principle. Perhaps I am mistaken and you don't conclude water baptism requiring a profession of faith, but it seems unfair for you to require of me something that you yourself don't seem to be following. Do I really need a command that says that all church members are baptized? If I do, then don't you need a command stating that all baptized people are those who have professed faith? Or maybe, both of us are using the regulative principle correctly but have drawn different conclusions based on our interpretation of scripture.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins

Tertullian,

I don't know if Jayson will respond or not, but I have some thoughts concerning what you have said thus far.

First of all, the command of God is very important to me and all paedobaptists alike. Paedobaptists love the RPW. It is a part of our heritage. It is God's requirement for how he is to be worshiped. But you need to understand (maybe you already do) that we as paedobaptists do not see ourselves as breaching the RPW because we do believe paedobaptism has been commanded by God. The command is not necessarily explicit, but it is very implicit in the texts of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession says concerning the RPW:

21:1: But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

But the same confession also says the following:

1:6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

So the fact that infant baptism allegedly has no explicit command in Scripture is not a problem because God's commands and requirements for us can also be inferred through good and necessary consequence.

You yourself said in a previous post a while back:

[quote:8f6240dce8]
but I for one have not problem with inference persay so long as it is warranted.
[/quote:8f6240dce8]

And I presume by the word "warranted" here, we can substitute the phrase "good and necessary". And thus we would be in agreement here. If the RPW does not allow for us to infer God's commands by good and necessary consequence, but to only practice what is explicitly commanded, then not even credobaptism is possible because there is no explicit command in the Bible that says "baptism can only be given to a person who has first professed faith in Christ and has become a disciple" (and as I said before, I hope you are honest enough to admit that BOTH paedo and credobaptism build their positions on inferences from Scripture).

I realize this all may be nothing new to you but I bring it all up for a reason. You have alleged that the practice of paedobaptism breaches the RPW. Paedobaptists disagree with this assertion because we believe our position is derived via good and necessary consequence, and thus the RPW is still satisfied. The point I am making is that this debate really has nothing to do with the RPW but with our interpretation of biblical texts. Both parties believe and are attempting to adhere to the RPW. Nobody is trying to sidestep the RPW to save their position, not even paedobaptists. When I first read Fred Malone's critique of paedobaptism using the RPW, my immediate thoughts were, "This guy can't be serious. Being a former paedobaptist himself, he should know better than to argue this way". Fundamentally, the reason you disagree with paedobaptism is not based on the RPW, as you may assert. The debate is really due to the fact that you disagree with the paedobaptist exegesis of texts from which, by good and necessary consequence, we infer our position (I trust that you are honest enough to admit that paedobaptists formulate their position from Scripture and not just because they are following the ideas of mere mortals like Calvin, Owen, et al). It does no good for you to argue that paedobaptists err because they practice something the RPW doesn't permit because I could also argue that Baptists err because they do NOT practice something that the RPW REQUIRES. The RPW argument against paedobaptism is question-begging because it assumes the truth of the Baptist position at the beginning (and likewise with a paedobaptist who may try to use a similar argument against Baptists). So this brings us back to the texts of Scripture to settle the issue.

Moving to another issue, I believe Jayson's syllogism is valid (obviously), and of the two premises you could have challenged, I was surprised you chose the first, considering that it is by and large the mainstream view in almost the whole of Christendom that one must be baptized to be a member of the church. And what is more is that we have no single example in the NT of a person being added to the number of the church who did not first receive Christian baptism. There is no explicit command that says "any person seeking membership in the church must first receive baptism", but the command is implicit all throughout the NT. Nobody was added to the church until they had first been baptized. Show me one verse, one instance of a person being added to the number of the church without first being baptized, and this premise is overthrown.

Also, if the church was to accept unbaptized persons into its number, this would also require the command of God, would it not? But where is this commanded either implicitly or explicitly in the NT?

But if the first premise is true, and the syllogism is sound, then it sounds the death knell for credobaptism.

Finally, you said:

[quote:8f6240dce8]
please understand that a lot of the stuff you guys might assume is not assumed by me.
[/quote:8f6240dce8]

Believe me, I understand this as well as anybody. In fact, this is one of the reasons this issue is so frustrating to discuss at times. It seems impossible sometimes to find a common ground to build from where our assumptions are the same. This is why I have refrained from debating the baptism issue for quite a while because too often it seems like too much energy is wasted trying to break through all the assumptions. This is the first time I have seriously interacted with somebody on this issue for months, and to be honest, I don't know how much longer I will continue. Don't be offended if I don't continue much longer in this discussion. Consider me as pulling a Michael Jordan, briefly coming out of retirement only to exit the game again (I'm 99.9% sure I'm done).

[quote:0990a0c05a][i:0990a0c05a]Originally posted by Goosha[/i:0990a0c05a]
Tertullian,

You wrote:
"I see where he commands adults to be baptized and repent and believe and work for their food but obviously these commands don't apply to infants unless we want to say that infants must confess Christ as Lord, believe and repent to be saved and work for their food."

What conclusion can you possibly draw from this? Do you think this proves that only believers ought to be baptized? God may have commanded adults to be baptized, but there is no scripture indicating that ALL water baptisms require a profession of faith. Are you suggesting that based on the regulative principle the above observation proves that God has authorized only baptism by a credible profession of faith? I hope you see where I coming from. I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. Similarly, you observe only adults baptized on the basis of their profession of faith and conclude that God has only authorized those who profess faith the rite of baptism. Honestly, I don't see any difference between both of our uses of the regulative principle. Perhaps I am mistaken and you don't conclude water baptism requiring a profession of faith, but it seems unfair for you to require of me something that you yourself don't seem to be following. Do I really need a command that says that all church members are baptized? If I do, then don't you need a command stating that all baptized people are those who have professed faith? Or maybe, both of us are using the regulative principle correctly but have drawn different conclusions based on our interpretation of scripture.

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins [/quote:0990a0c05a]

To be honest I do agree with your arguement and mine- All those baptized are church members (your arguement based on the regulative principle) and all those baptized are believers (my arguement based on the regulative principle)- So all those baptized become church members and only Disciples are baptized. Note these two arguements are parrallel being justified by the same arguements.

Now I hope you can see the reverse:

Paedobaptist arguement women received federal circumsion therefore they did not have to be circumcised, the Reformed Baptist arguement babies received federal baptism therefore they do not have to be baptized. (Note the these two arguements are parrallel being justified on the same logic)

All in all, to follow the regulative principle leads us to the credo position and to follow the federal circumicision (which I do not think is not taught in Scripture) could also lead us to a credoposition

Hope this helps.

To the glory of Christ, Tertullian

[quote] [quote:f0fe8624ed][i:f0fe8624ed]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:f0fe8624ed]
Tertullian,

I don't know if Jayson will respond or not, but I have some thoughts concerning what you have said thus far.

First of all, the command of God is very important to me and all paedobaptists alike. Paedobaptists love the RPW. It is a part of our heritage. It is God's requirement for how he is to be worshiped. But you need to understand (maybe you already do) that we as paedobaptists do not see ourselves as breaching the RPW because we do believe paedobaptism has been commanded by God. The command is not necessarily explicit, but it is very implicit in the texts of Scripture.

The Westminster Confession says concerning the RPW:

21:1: But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.

But the same confession also says the following:

1:6: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

So the fact that infant baptism allegedly has no explicit command in Scripture is not a problem because God's commands and requirements for us can also be inferred through good and necessary consequence.

You yourself said in a previous post a while back:

[quote:f0fe8624ed]
but I for one have not problem with inference persay so long as it is warranted.
[/quote:f0fe8624ed]

And I presume by the word "warranted" here, we can substitute the phrase "good and necessary". And thus we would be in agreement here. If the RPW does not allow for us to infer God's commands by good and necessary consequence, but to only practice what is explicitly commanded, then not even credobaptism is possible because there is no explicit command in the Bible that says "baptism can only be given to a person who has first professed faith in Christ and has become a disciple" (and as I said before, I hope you are honest enough to admit that BOTH paedo and credobaptism build their positions on inferences from Scripture).

I realize this all may be nothing new to you but I bring it all up for a reason. You have alleged that the practice of paedobaptism breaches the RPW. Paedobaptists disagree with this assertion because we believe our position is derived via good and necessary consequence, and thus the RPW is still satisfied. The point I am making is that this debate really has nothing to do with the RPW but with our interpretation of biblical texts. Both parties believe and are attempting to adhere to the RPW. Nobody is trying to sidestep the RPW to save their position, not even paedobaptists. When I first read Fred Malone's critique of paedobaptism using the RPW, my immediate thoughts were, "This guy can't be serious. Being a former paedobaptist himself, he should know better than to argue this way". Fundamentally, the reason you disagree with paedobaptism is not based on the RPW, as you may assert. The debate is really due to the fact that you disagree with the paedobaptist exegesis of texts from which, by good and necessary consequence, we infer our position (I trust that you are honest enough to admit that paedobaptists formulate their position from Scripture and not just because they are following the ideas of mere mortals like Calvin, Owen, et al). It does no good for you to argue that paedobaptists err because they practice something the RPW doesn't permit because I could also argue that Baptists err because they do NOT practice something that the RPW REQUIRES. The RPW argument against paedobaptism is question-begging because it assumes the truth of the Baptist position at the beginning (and likewise with a paedobaptist who may try to use a similar argument against Baptists). So this brings us back to the texts of Scripture to settle the issue. [/quote:f0fe8624ed]

We are in complete agreement here, but this has not be useless this has been monumental we have now established who has the "burden of proof" if Paedobaptist wish to baptize infants then where is the command to baptize infants... Reformed credo Baptist do not need to prove that Scripture prohibits infant baptism... Reformed Paedobaptist need to prove that Scripture commands it. Now we are in a position to begen to examine the evidence since it has been established what needs to be proved and by who... The reformed Paedo needs to prove that God has commanded the baptism of infants with Christian parents and they can prove God has Commanded this either by inference or a direct quote.

[quote:f0fe8624ed] Moving to another issue, I believe Jayson's syllogism is valid (obviously), and of the two premises you could have challenged, I was surprised you chose the first, considering that it is by and large the mainstream view in almost the whole of Christendom that one must be baptized to be a member of the church. And what is more is that we have no single example in the NT of a person being added to the number of the church who did not first receive Christian baptism. There is no explicit command that says "any person seeking membership in the church must first receive baptism", but the command is implicit all throughout the NT. Nobody was added to the church until they had first been baptized. Show me one verse, one instance of a person being added to the number of the church without first being baptized, and this premise is overthrown.

Also, if the church was to accept unbaptized persons into its number, this would also require the command of God, would it not? But where is this commanded either implicitly or explicitly in the NT?

But if the first premise is true, and the syllogism is sound, then it sounds the death knell for credobaptism. [/quote:f0fe8624ed]

Actually I as a Reformed Baptist agree with this but not all the arguements you used to prove baptism=Church membership are the same arguements Reformed Baptist use to prove that only Disciples should be baptized. So all I can say is why if you accept the same logic to justify one position will you not apply that same logic in Scripture to the question who gets baptized?

Personally I do not think that "Scripture commands all Church members to be baptized" but if the arguements you guys advanced to prove it were true then you guys would have to accept credobaptism because all the arguements work for the credobaptist position also.


[quote:f0fe8624ed] Finally, you said:

[quote:f0fe8624ed]
please understand that a lot of the stuff you guys might assume is not assumed by me.
[/quote:f0fe8624ed]

[quote:f0fe8624ed] Believe me, I understand this as well as anybody. In fact, this is one of the reasons this issue is so frustrating to discuss at times. It seems impossible sometimes to find a common ground to build from where our assumptions are the same. This is why I have refrained from debating the baptism issue for quite a while because too often it seems like too much energy is wasted trying to break through all the assumptions. This is the first time I have seriously interacted with somebody on this issue for months, and to be honest, I don't know how much longer I will continue. Don't be offended if I don't continue much longer in this discussion. Consider me as pulling a Michael Jordan, briefly coming out of retirement only to exit the game again (I'm 99.9% sure I'm done). [/quote:f0fe8624ed] [/quote:f0fe8624ed]

Note I am saying that we cannot just assume that because somebody is in Covenant we have to assume that he or she gets the sign we need to look at each Covenant seperatly to see how God has set each Covenant administration up... now if you guys are going to agree with that and say fine we will look and see how pnly New Covenant adminsters who is a member and from that evidence we will prove that all New Covenant members get the sign- I only ask you to be consistent and allow the New Covenant to define how it administers the sacraments... (as a Credobaptist I encourage it, please show me where in the New Covenant God commands infant baptism)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

PS remember that I am not fully convinced that the New Testament teaches that all Church Members get the sign (I not it teaches only Church members get the sign but these two propositions are different)... I think this point will be important latter on in this discussion)



[Edited on 3-18-2004 by Tertullian]

[quote:d18bae1a26][i:d18bae1a26]Originally posted by paul manata[/i:d18bae1a26]
Tyler,

I am working on something that I think you will like. I will try to post it this weekend.

you said:

[quote:d18bae1a26]
the Reformed Baptist arguement babies received federal baptism therefore they do not have to be baptized.
[/quote:d18bae1a26]

Whoa! Every baptist I have ever talked to has said that one can receive nothing by mere [i:d18bae1a26]birth![/i:d18bae1a26] in the current admisnistration of cog. Are you saying now that by nature of their BIRTH infants are federally baptized!?!? ....But isn't it a baptist maxum that "All who are children of Abraham are children by FAITH and not by BIRTH?" Don't the baptist teach that familial ties are done away with?-"the sins of the fathers will not be passed on to the children." How could [i:d18bae1a26]mere physical relationship[/i:d18bae1a26] do anything? I think your response was [i:d18bae1a26]ad hoc[/i:d18bae1a26] and is not consistant with baptistic doctrine. Therefore, you are wrong that "federal baptism" could lead to a credo position.

-paul

[Edited on 3-18-2004 by paul manata] [/quote:d18bae1a26]

Remember I was arguing that if we accept the premise that "all Covenant members get the sign" we still do not have to go to the Paedobaptist side. Why?

because even though I Personally do not teach "federal baptism" but if you guys are allowed to teach "federal circumcison" to exclude women from getting the sign in the Old Covenant. I see no reason why a Reformed Baptist could not just use the same logic to exclude infants... my point was not that this is an arguement for credobaptism but that the Covenant membership=Covenant sign route is a dead end for both sides.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian