Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Hello Chris,

A brief (for me) remark on your OP.

Those listening to Peter were both local Jews and "foreign" Jews, some with family present, some without. There would have been some women, for we know that a company of women were with Peter and the apostles that day, and likely others not of their number were present.

The announcement of the Promise fulfilled -- in Peter's sermon -- included women as recipients ("I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit..." Acts 2:17, 18); and this inclusion of women as direct recipients was remarkable.

And what was the Promise received? In essence it was union and friendship with God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. This commencement of the New Covenant promise was dramatic and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, in order to jar His elect from the corrupted religion: "Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation!" (2:40).

These were Jews, newly believing in the Seed, their Messiah, now themselves the spiritual seed of Abraham as well, so when Peter commanded them to be baptized, "every one of you" (38), "for the promise is unto you, and to your children..." it was clear that baptism was the mark (the "token", Gen 17:11 KJV) of submissive obedience to the administration of the New Covenant, without which one would not be counted a member, nor a friend of God.

It was not a new thing for it to be given the male infants / children; what was new was for it to be given to the girls / women! These were Jews, you would sooner tear their hearts from their bodies than tear their children from the Covenant of their God through disobedience to the ancient and irrevocable law, changed in token but not practice.

Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt. The women as well? No doubt. Had the children been denied, the newborn church would have aborted that day, for it would clearly not have been in continuity with the covenant and promise of Abraham.

About the baptized infants partaking the Lord's Table; when the infants and children were circumcised in Abraham's household, were they of a sudden weaned and begin to eat meat? Did they then join the men in the business of adults? Of course not! Neither did the babies newly circumcised with "the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11 ff.) of a sudden commence upon the business of men! They did not "continue in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42), nor did they eat the food the adults did at the table, neither did they have the wherewithal to join "in prayers" with the men and women. They were babies! New Covenant babies! Marked with the holy token of God's covenant people. Respectfully I must remark that Baptists would have been run out of Jerusalem that day! Salvation came to houses in the economy of God, not Lone Ranger individuals as we have in abundance today.

Yes, there were covenant breakers, who renounced the covenant (and its seal) their parents had sought to bless them with -- in both stages of the Covenant of Grace, the old and the new.

It is a strange thing to me, to see a fervent defense of the paedo position turn into its opposite, and the erstwhile defender become a detractor. For the paedo is of ancient time, built on the foundation of God's grace to a family, and to all the families of that spiritual line. It is an anomaly.

But I must present this caveat: The Baptists have walked in such godliness, and defended the Faith with such brilliance of intellect (as fruits of the Holy Spirit), that they have immeasurably enriched the church of God. And me personally, I owe my spiritual health to the Lord's ministry through the Reformed Baptists in general -- and Al Martin in particular -- in no small measure. And so I will own in this matter, as I do with respect to those who differ with me in textual matters, that many are the Baptists who are better disciples of our God than I.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Hello Chris,

A brief (for me) remark on your OP.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

he stated militated a clear proof that believer's baptism is clearly and necessarily inferred by Acts 2:41-42

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Apparently equally sincere, confessional, conservative Christians seeking to know and to do according to the precepts of the Word of God reach different conclusions on a matter (i.e., the sacraments) which should NOT be incidental or treated as unimportant.

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Frankly, if many of us were truly candid, we would admit that our convictions on any number of topics were formed and shaped in an environmental soup flavored with the strong salt of subjectivity.

A teacher we admired or found to be brilliant argued a case, we couldn't come up with a decent counter, and we embraced his thinking on the topic. Oversimplified to be sure, but that is not necessarily the best recipie for objective weighing of the evidence and coming to firm conclusions on the implications of any important doctrine or issue.

Whichever side you take on the baptism debate, unless you have studied it exhaustively and listened carefully to the strongest arguments for each position, I am not sure that we can say that we have dispassionately come to our convictions. For many of us, we will find ourselves struggling to come to clarity and conviction. Some of us will even find ourselves switching positions over time as different considerations impinge upon our thinking.

Originally Posted by shackleton

Ditto to Mcfadden's earlier comment. i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue. Think of the effect the church could have if they could lay aside these differences.

If I recall correctly, the early reformers parted ways over the same issues, baptism but more specifically the Lord's Supper.

Originally Posted by shackleton

i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.

Originally Posted by Reformed-Kermit

Be prepared to be slammed though. I think it is sad in a way though...seems to me like the Presbies feel they have "lost one of their own" and now they have to do damage control and start attacking your doctrinal position. Let the obligatory banter begin. Seems like everyone wants respect for their doctrinal position and the way they arrived at it (unless it differs from their own).

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

If people make a switch, AND they put it out there for comment, then it will get comments.

This happens both ways, and I think I've seen enough credos coming back on a C-->P switch by affirming their stands, and posting their exegetical defenses, that the suggestion that Pilgrim should expect to be "slammed" for moving is a bit melodramatic.

jpechin was a recent switcher to credo, and that was about the first thing he contributed to the board. In that thread, I asked him if his earlier move to paedo was more than rhetoric, had he actually presented his children for baptism? He had. I appreciated his testimony, even if I disagreed with it. Who slammed him?

When people come in, stating their views, explaining why they are correct NOW, and were in ERROR then, I think they are practically begging for interaction and dispute, as well as affirmation by their new fellows in thought.

Originally Posted by reformedman

That was his opinion, he wasn't requesting a debate. But anyway.

He said that it never hit him solidly enough to cause him to see a paedobaptist position.
I think he should be commended for standing on his convictions enough to voice it, and as friends we should understand that he continues to receive our encouragement, not get effected as if we are being pressed for a debate.

I don't say any of this with bitterness, it is only something that I saw that I'd like to say with all due respect to you.

To continue, I do not believe(strictly as an opinion) that if a credo said they saw the light and went to paedo, and a person responded inversely with defenses and prooftexts supporting paedo, that you would permit people bringing up defenses and prooftexts.

All under the bridge anyway, now that I see its been moved to the debate area of the forum. Again, I say this just as observation and opinion, not for slander or accusation.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Originally Posted by Justin Williams

Hi Guys

Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?


Thanks

Justin

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

There is no excommunication because there is nothing to be excommunicated from. You are placing children in Christ when they are not in Christ unless Christ has put them in union with himself.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with.

Originally Posted by Justin Williams

Hi Guys

Could some of you, from both the credobaptist and paedobaptist viewpoint, provide a list of books that discuss in detail the passages that are most commonly studied in regards to this issue?


Thanks

Justin

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The instruction is to bring them up IN THE LORD. The Baptist cuts them off from this privilege until such time as they can profess the Lord for themselves. The facts of the case are quite clear.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.

I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Rich, I have an equally difficult time in trying to understand how a paedo can look back at the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant (circumcision), use that to defend the New Testament sign (baptism), but claim the rest of the Abrahamic promises (land promises to be specific) become spiritual promises in the New Covenant. The paedo reasoning rings hollow in my mind.

Malone stated it more eloquently:

Originally Posted by Kevin

...baptist brothers...ilk...

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Ok, Reverend Winzer. My kids were born cut off. I didn't lie to them about it. I am sorry to inform you but I would say that John the Baptist was not normative. He was a special case. We are all born aliens to the Covenant of God as it says in Ephesians. We are all born in sin. That cuts us off.

Originally Posted by shackleton

Am I understanding it correctly that, to not baptize an infant is akin to excommunication since baptism makes one a member of the visible church?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Not akin to excommunication; it is excommunication. Not baptising infants makes the statement that they have no part nor lot in Christ's kingdom.

Originally Posted by mangum

Indeed, children of believers are called "holy" for a reason.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I apologize to and ask forgiveness from any Baptists I may have offended in the past with my previous PB posts on baptism and Baptists.

Originally Posted by satz

But why?

Simply because a child may be holy or part of the covenant does not logically imply they ought to be baptized.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

This passage is about marriage.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It may be worth your while to go back and read Ephesians 2:11ff with the Jew/Gentile divide in mind, carefully noting the "ye" and "our" distinction. The apostle himself was not a stranger to the covenant of God by birth. His readership, being Gentiles by birth, were strangers. But now, he says, they are brought near. Note, it is not that a different promise has been made to the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles have been incorporated with the Jews in the same promise. They now possess all the privileges of the circumcision. The New Testament does not restrict but enlarge the sphere of the covenant of grace.