To what extent should Baptism extend to children of believers? - Page 2

Semper Fidelis · #41 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

1 Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God. How can a child who does not profess faith in God answer him with a good conscience?

How can a reprobate man, who is baptized on the basis of a false profession, who does not have faith in God, answer him with a good conscience in your understanding?

I would say that such a man cannot answer God with a good conscience. I apologize, but I am not sure what you are getting at.

Hence, what difference does it make if it is a child or a false professor in your view. It seems that you cannot administer the ordinance for anyone for fear that the person professing may not really be giving an answer with a "good conscience" by your own admission.

timmopussycat · #42 (**permalink**) 05-24-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Not really, they can (if enabled by the Holy Spirit) obey their parents by repenting and believing the gospel. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for people over 30 to be living at home with their parents, this would mean that if their parents were converted, we would have to baptise them, then automatically excommunicate them for being unbelievers.

You are forcing providence into an either/or situation, whereas the terms of the covenant of grace allow them the opportunity to be learners of the Christian faith like every other covenant child living in a Christian home. The NT states the household as an entity came into covenant with God. You are reflecting the individualism of your times.

Point of Information, not debate:

Daniel is doing no forcing - the hypothetical situation, as originally given by Zenas created the specific situation that Daniel addressed.

satz · #43 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

How can a reprobate man, who is baptized on the basis of a false profession, who does not have faith in God, answer him with a good conscience in your understanding?

I would say that such a man cannot answer God with a good conscience. I apologize, but I am not sure what you are getting at.

Hence, what difference does it make if it is a child or a false professor in your view. It seems that you cannot administer the ordinance for anyone for fear that the person professing may not really be giving an answer with a "good conscience" by your own admission.

The original post concerned a child of at least 18 years of age and asked '...At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child and thus engage in credo-Baptism...'

I admit I was surprised to see some paedobaptists seem to say that an 18 year old could be baptized without having to make a profession of faith, which I believe is against this verse.

I do not believe you need to be 'sure' that a person is really giving an answer with a good conscience before you can baptize. In Acts baptisms happened very quickly after the receipient responded positively to preaching, which would leave no time to investigate the genuineness of a person's profession. However, there was a response to the preaching, and certianly for someone of the age of 18, a profession would at least be required before baptism could be administrated.

satz · #44 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The good conscience is the personal responsibility of the person baptised, not a pre-requisite for baptism.

Even if this is so, does that mean we should give baptism to a person who we know 100% lacks a good conscience - ie an 18 year old or older person who gives no profession of faith?

Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.

Because of the other NT verses on baptism, I do not believe that the covenant aspect of Noah's salvation, ie his unbelieving family members being saved through him, applies to determining the subjects for baptism. However, I guess a simple credo vs paedobaptism debate is beyond the topic of this thread.

Returning to the topic of the OT - which is an 18 or older child in the family of converted christian, it seems to be in every instance in the NT a person who was capable of making a profession of faith was only baptized after making such a profession - which is completely in line with 1 Pet 3:21 - they were answering God will a conscience made clean by hearing the gospel.

There were household baptisms, but on the strenght of this verse, why should we assume they included the baptism of unbelieving adults? For the jailor it tells us that Paul preached to all his house first (Acts 16:32), for Cornelius we are told he already feared God with his house before even meeting Peter (Act 10:2). When these examples are combined with 1 Pet 3:21, I see no reason to believe that all adults baptized in household baptisms in the NT had believed the gospel first.

Semper Fidelis · #45 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

I would say that such a man cannot answer God with a good conscience. I apologize, but I am not sure what you are getting at.

Hence, what difference does it make if it is a child or a false professor in your view. It seems that you cannot administer the ordinance for anyone for fear that the person professing may not really be giving an answer with a "good conscience" by your own admission.

The original post concerned a child of at least 18 years of age and asked '...At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child and thus engage in credo-Baptism...'

I admit I was surprised to see some paedobaptists seem to say that an 18 year old could be baptized without having to make a profession of faith, which I believe is against this verse.

I do not believe you need to be 'sure' that a person is really giving an answer with a good conscience before you can baptize. In Acts baptisms happened very quickly after the receipient responded positively to preaching, which would leave no time to investigate the genuineness of a person's profession. However, there was a response to the preaching, and certianly for someone of the age of 18, a profession would at least be required before baptism could be administrated.

It doesn't really matter what the premise of the original post was about. The real point here is that you have just acknowledged that there must be something more said about this "good conscience" as false professors come forward to be baptized and false professors cannot answer with a "good conscience".

Hence, a "good conscience" cannot be the basis for the administration of any baptism and that passage is really quite immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance.

armourbearer · #46 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Point of Information, not debate:

Daniel is doing no forcing - the hypothetical situation, as originally given by Zenas created the specific situation that Daniel addressed.

Mr. Ritchie was providing an additional criterion to the OP when he stated "not really," and proceeded to mention repenting and believing as necessary in order to avoid the sitation of excommunication after baptism. Quite clearly he created an either/or situation not mentioned in the original scenario. The fact is, the paedobaptist belief in household baptism is not age relevant; therefore we should not set age limits on the Holy Spirit.

armourbearer · #47 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.

That is something you will need to establish by exegesis, and cannot gratuitously assume for the sake of furthering your position. The apostle states baptism is a LIKE FIGURE of salvation; the burden therefore rests on the person who would introduce dissimilarities.

satz · #48 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Hence, what difference does it make if it is a child or a false professor in your view. It seems that you cannot administer the ordinance for anyone for fear that the person professing may not really be giving an answer with a "good conscience" by your own admission.

The original post concerned a child of at least 18 years of age and asked '...At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child and thus engage in credo-Baptism...'

I admit I was surprised to see some paedobaptists seem to say that an 18 year old could be baptized without having to make a profession of faith, which I believe is against this verse.

I do not believe you need to be 'sure' that a person is really giving an answer with a good conscience before you can baptize. In Acts baptisms happened very quickly after the receipient responded positively to preaching, which would leave no time to investigate the genuineness of a person's profession. However, there was a response to the preaching, and certianly for someone of the age of 18, a profession would at least be required before baptism could be administrated.

It doesn't really matter what the premise of the original post was about. The real point here is that you have just acknowledged that there must be something more said about this "good conscience" as false professors come forward to be baptized and false professors cannot answer with a "good conscience".

Hence, a "good conscience" cannot be the basis for the administration of any baptism and that passage is really quite immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance.

I don’t think that a verse from a New Testament epistle where an apostle directly addresses the nature of baptism can be described as immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance…

I am not sure what you mean by what more needs to be said about the good conscience. If you like, I can change it to say ‘a profession of a good conscience toward God’ is necessary for baptism. However, this is a principle that operates through all of our relationships with other Christians. Only God can truly see the state of the heart and soul. We as men are restricted to only looking at the external evidence of someone’s Christianity. But that does not mean we do not look for evidence.

It is a fact of the world we live in that false professors will come forward and join the church. Pastors may do all they can to prevent that, but they will never be able to be completely successful.

Similarly by this verse, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God, and pastors should do their best to ensure that those that come to be baptized are doing just that. Can they ever stop a false professor from being baptized? No. But that does not mean they should stop looking for evidence.

satz · #49 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Baptism and Noah's salvation may be figuratively connected, but that does not mean every aspect of Noah's salvation applies to baptism.

That is something you will need to establish by exegesis, and cannot gratuitously assume for the sake of furthering your position. The apostle states baptism is a LIKE FIGURE of salvation; the burden therefore rests on the person who would introduce dissimilarities.

Isn't the whole point of a figure to compare two things in a particular way that the speaker has in mind?

I do not believe when people use figures of speech to compare two things in everyday conversation they intend to mean every single aspect of the two things they are comparing is similar.

When I say that someone is like a bull in a china shop, I am meaning to compare only one aspect of that person to a bull - his clumsiness. I do not intend to liken him to a bull in any other way.

Jesus said many times the kingdom of God is like... That does not mean we should go into his argicultural metaphors and derive all kinds of teachings about the kingdom of God from farming. Each metaphor Jesus used was to teach about one particular aspect of the kingdom of God.

So I do not see that the burden should rest on me to prove that baptism and the ark are not alike in every single way. Peter had a particular point to make by bringing up the ark, and his figure should not be pressed beyond that without reason.

Semper Fidelis · #50 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

The original post concerned a child of at least 18 years of age and asked '...At what point do we require a profession of faith from the child and thus engage in credo-Baptism...'

I admit I was surprised to see some paedobaptists seem to say that an 18 year old could be baptized without having to make a profession of faith, which I believe is against this verse.

I do not believe you need to be 'sure' that a person is really giving an answer with a good conscience before you can baptize. In Acts baptisms happened very quickly after the receipient responded positively to preaching, which would leave no time to investigate the genuineness of a person's profession. However, there was a response to the preaching, and certianly for someone of the age of 18, a profession would at least be required before baptism could be administrated.

It doesn't really matter what the premise of the original post was about. The real point here is that you have just acknowledged that there must be something more said about this "good conscience" as false professors come forward to be baptized and false professors cannot answer with a "good conscience".

Hence, a "good conscience" cannot be the basis for the administration of any baptism and that passage is really quite immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance.

I don’t think that a verse from a New Testament epistle where an apostle directly addresses the nature of baptism can be described as immaterial to the decision to baptize in any instance…

I am not sure what you mean by what more needs to be said about the good conscience. If you like, I can change it to say ‘a profession of a good conscience toward God’ is necessary for baptism. However, this is a principle that operates through all of our relationships with other Christians. Only God can truly see the state of the heart and soul. We as men are restricted to only looking at the external evidence of someone’s Christianity. But that does not mean we do not look for evidence.

It is a fact of the world we live in that false professors will come forward and join the church. Pastors may do all they can to prevent that, but they will never be able to be completely successful.

Similarly by this verse, baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God, and pastors should do their best to ensure that those that come to be baptized are doing just that. Can they ever stop a false professor from being baptized? No. But that does not mean they should stop looking for evidence.

Mark,

Your post simply indicates, by its meandering, exactly the point. If you simply stick to you initial answer that a false professor cannot answer God with a good conscience then you make my point that your initial rejection of the baptism of a person on the basis that they cannot answer God with a good conscience is something that you cannot determine in its visible administration. All hand-waving aside to distract from that point about how "...well we try to do our best..." doesn't cut it. Why am I not permitted to simply answer you: "...well we try to do our best..."?

You see, these types of issues, where you try to insist that "...an answer to a good conscience..." is key to the reason why you baptize a professor are convenient until somebody points out that you have absolutely no idea what the real state of the conscience of a man is. You don't know your own heart much less the heart of a man on the basis of a profession.

I'm not stating that the verse is immaterial to the issue of baptism but it is immaterial with respect to the issue of who a Baptist has determined they will now baptize according to the manner in which the verse is typically understood by the same.

satz · #51 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Mark,

Your post simply indicates, by its meandering, exactly the point. If you simply stick to you initial answer that a false professor cannot answer God with a good conscience then you make my point that your initial rejection of the baptism of a person on the basis that they cannot answer God with a good conscience is something that you cannot determine in its visible administration. All hand-waving aside to distract from that point about how "...well we try to do our best..." doesn't cut it. Why am I not permitted to simply answer you: "...well we try to do our best..."?

You see, these types of issues, where you try to insist that "...an answer to a good conscience..." is key to the reason why you baptize a professor are convenient until somebody points out that you have absolutely no idea what the real state of the conscience of a man is. You don't know your own heart much less the heart of a man on the basis of a profession.

I'm not stating that the verse is immaterial to the issue of baptism but it is immaterial with respect to the issue of who a Baptist has determined they will now baptize according to the manner in which the verse is typically understood by the same.

Rich,

If my post was meandering I will humbly submit the deficiency was mine, and not the position.

Just in response to the part about 'trying our best' and the fact that we can never really know the heart of a man: As I tried to say in a previous post, while I believe the baptism requires the answer of a good conscience, from Acts, we see that baptisms took place very quickly after a positive response to preaching. So as far as the evidence for a 'good conscience' goes, the preachers did not take it that they needed to know 100% without any doubts that this profession was genuine.

Daniel Ritchie · #52 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:22 AM

But how can someone have a good conscience if they are unregenerate?

Semper Fidelis · #53 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Mark,

Your post simply indicates, by its meandering, exactly the point. If you simply stick to you initial answer that a false professor cannot answer God with a good conscience then you make my point that your initial rejection of the baptism of a person on the basis that they cannot answer God with a good conscience is something that you cannot determine in its visible administration. All hand-waving aside to distract from that point about how "...well we try to do our best..." doesn't cut it. Why am I not permitted to simply answer you: "...well we try to do our best..."?

You see, these types of issues, where you try to insist that "...an answer to a good conscience..." is key to the reason why you baptize a professor are convenient until somebody points out that you have absolutely no idea what the real state of the conscience of a man is. You don't know your own heart much less the heart of a man on the basis of a profession.

I'm not stating that the verse is immaterial to the issue of baptism but it is immaterial with respect to the issue of who a Baptist has determined they will now baptize according to the manner in which the verse is typically understood by the same.

Rich,

If my post was meandering I will humbly submit the deficiency was mine, and not the position.

Just in response to the part about 'trying our best' and the fact that we can never really know the heart of a man: As I tried to say in a previous post, while I believe the baptism requires the answer of a good conscience, from Acts, we see that baptisms took place very quickly after a positive response to preaching. So as far as the evidence for a 'good conscience' goes, the preachers did not take it that they needed to know 100% without any doubts that this profession was genuine.

Mark,

You're conflating "profession" with "good conscience" and simply begging the question. You haven't demonstrated that a profession is equivalent to or gives warrant to assume that the professor has a "good conscience", that the visible administration is based upon a "good conscience", or that Peter intended any of the above in his use of the term. You simply assume it all and then proceed as if it is established.

armourbearer · #54 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by satz

Isn't the whole point of a figure to compare two things in a particular way that the speaker has in mind?

The word is literally "antitype." It is not simply a word picture. It possesses "true likeness." That being the case, we assume similarity until it can be shown otherwise that there is dissimilarity.

armourbearer · #55 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

But how can someone have a good conscience if they are unregenerate?

He can't; but the apostle doesn't require them to have it in order to be baptised. The "answer" is not strictly speaking what the baptised person gives, but something baptism requires of the person. Baptism is an interrogation which demands a good conscience towards God. As such, the baptism comes first, and the answer of a good conscience follows.

satz · #56 (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 08:14 PM

Rev Winzer and Rich,

Thank you for the interaction. I think I will leave it at there for now.