Thread: Why I am now a Baptist

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Randy,

Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.

At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Here you make the very point you are contradicting. Paul himself was a child of wrath BY NATURE, Eph. 2:3, and a child of promise BY COVENANT, ver. 12.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Here you make the very point you are contradicting. Paul himself was a child of wrath BY NATURE, Eph. 2:3, and a child of promise BY COVENANT, ver. 12.

He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

And who said that the sin of the infants baptized has been forgiven before being saved?

Rob- you said this

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.

Did you mean to say OLD COV by circumcision?

Then you said-[QUOTE] The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism.

This is still the main point of disagreement. Randy and Bill have pointed it out already. Only Spirit Baptism does this, water baptism does not.
The view you hold says it does.That is why if you look back at virtually every padeo post, They never mention the new birth,or the Spirit quickening the child.
Yes, when pressed into it they will say something like - of course it depends upon the Spirit's work. Yet when not prompted you rarely will see this highlighted. Salvation is set forth as a methodical step by step procedure,dealing with mental ascent to the idea that all of the "promise" that the sign pointed to, will be just sort of infused into the child- because we cannot tell when where or How the Spirit moves?

Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

Again, you move further and further away from baptism as you yourself well know that neither the Baptist nor the Presbyterian view of Baptism confers union with Christ.

I enjoyed the rest we have had from this kind of discussion.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.

Hence, profession does not put you in either as baptism neither confers new birth to children nor to professors. Who to baptize then?

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

This passage is about marriage.

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

This is the point we arrive at in view of the apostle's teaching. But to the Corinthians the great problem was how they stood ceremonially before God in view of their sexual union with an unbelieving spouse, and what would be the status of their children as a result. Paul assures them the unbeliever is sanctified in the marriage bond for the purpose of making the sexual union legitimate so that their children are set apart to God in the same way that the children of two believing parents are set apart. Paul's statement only makes sense on the presupposition that the children of a believing marriage are set apart to God and not considered unholy as is the case with unbelievers' children.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by satz

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.

But why?

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

Why doesn't it imply that? Baptism is not merely an entrance into the institutional church, but into the church as the visible kingdom of Christ.

Again... but why. Not being a church member does not equal 'having no part in Christ's kingdom'.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular). The text also reads that the Gentiles were strangers to this plurality of covenants holding forth this singular promise, thereby negating any possibility of suggesting a plurality of covenants between the Old and New Testaments. He further says, not that God made a distinct covenant of promise with the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles were brought near and incorporated into Israel's promise. He proceeds to state clearly what this fulfilled promise is: "through him WE BOTH have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father, ver. 18. Jews and Gentiles are united in the fulfilment of the SAME SPIRITUAL promise.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It is about marriage as it affects one's ceremonial cleanness before God.

Marriage is legit. The marriage itself is not unclean as the two are made one by God's decree. But sin is not forgiven and union in Christ is not achieved if one is not in Christ.

Again, you move further and further away from baptism as you yourself well know that neither the Baptist nor the Presbyterian view of Baptism confers union with Christ.

I never said baptism conferred anything, did I? I think we were talking about marriage and what holy meant in 1 Corinthians 7:14 weren't we?

Now concerning Marriage to an unbeliever... God's word and declaration that marriage is not unclean makes it legit confers the truth of it. I think that was what we were discussing. This passage is about the sanctity of marriage. The holiness (sanctification) of the family unit and what that holiness is.

I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.

I am looking forward to seeing the superstructure. If I just started the paedo-credo research and saw someone reverse their theology on this verse I would say the reasoning looks shaky, too.

However, I believe there has been much more thought than the tip of this iceberg.

So please, Chris, when you have time, explain more thoroughly your thoughts.

There's a 5 second rule for candy that hits the floor and a 2 week rule for massive theological changes.

Originally Posted by satz

Again... but why. Not being a church member does not equal 'having no part in Christ's kingdom'.

If you consider the church in its institutional aspect, then obviously not; but the catholic church IS the visible kingdom of Christ on earth (WCF 25:2), and therefore to be denied baptism is to be denied recognition of being a member of this kingdom.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

He was made a child of the Promises. Not necessarily Promise. Remember Isreal had physical as well as spiritual promises. The Covenant of Grace is spiritual. He was a stranger to that until he was in Christ.

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular). The text also reads that the Gentiles were strangers to this plurality of covenants holding forth this singular promise, thereby negating any possibility of suggesting a plurality of covenants between the Old and New Testaments. He further says, not that God made a distinct covenant of promise with the Gentiles, but that the Gentiles were brought near and incorporated into Israel's promise. He proceeds to state clearly what this fulfilled promise is: "through him WE BOTH have access BY ONE SPIRIT unto the Father, ver. 18. Jews and Gentiles are united in the fulfilment of the SAME SPIRITUAL promise.

Your correct it does say Covenants of Promise. But that doesn't negate any possibility of suggesting a plurality of Covenants. It does say Covenants. And I believe the CofG does run through the Covenants as a Promise as the Covenant of Works run through a few of them also. And your are correct. The gentiles were brought near to the Promise of the Covenant of Grace as to where they were aliens in general till now. Christ is the Israel of God is he not? We who are placed in Him are of that same spirtual Promise as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are. Remember not off of Isreal was Isreal. Some were not included just as Ishmael wasn't.

I am stopping for now. I probably won't weigh in much more. I have to get ready for my return home from surgery and for the surgery itself.

You guys be Encouraged,

Thanks Reverend Winzer

Since the Holy Spirit wrote the book of Acts, then He knows quite well how many He baptized that day, and what their ages were. I don't think we'll ever find that out this side of heaven. I'm not saying that we can't take this literally, but I'm also not saying that 3000 men were immersed in full view of the Jewish leaders, who 50 days before, murdered the One in Whom these persons were supposed to be baptized. It could have been a mass (small m), hyssop-sprinkling event. It could have been a dry baptism in which the Holy Spirit can and does work. In any case, I think the Holy Spirit wrote exactly (through Luke) who He baptized.

Regardless, the promise was to these men of Pentecost, and to their children, and to as many as would be called in the same manner as they. What promise? Same promise as introduced in Genesis 3:15, and the same promise as was more fully developed in Genesis 17:1-8, and the same promise as repeated over and over again. The same promise that in Christ is Yes, and Amen, as are all God's promises. We can try to come up with empirical evidence and irrefutable scriptural proof. But, we'll never end up with agreement unless and until the focus is shifted off the physical sign and placed squarely within the promises of God. After all, we do not have faith in the sign, but in that which the sign signifies. If we all do that, then we'll be much closer to understanding the purpose of God in Salvation. Christ didn't come to save persons, He came to save a people. Why shouldn't that people include children? More importantly, when did God stop including children?

In Christ,

KC

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?

Originally Posted by staythecourse

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes

no offence, just struck the funny bone. I never thought someone would think to do the math.

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?

OK. The Pool of Siloam was within walking distance OK? (Never know!)

[quote=Iconoclast;407862]Rob- you said this

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism. Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.
Just because the mode has changed does not mean their status in the New Covenant has been changed.

Did you mean to say OLD COV by circumcision?

Then you said-

The children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant by circumcisin. The children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant by Baptism.

This is still the main point of disagreement. Randy and Bill have pointed it out already. Only Spirit Baptism does this, water baptism does not.
The view you hold says it does.That is why if you look back at virtually every padeo post, They never mention the new birth,or the Spirit quickening the child.
Yes, when pressed into it they will say something like - of course it depends upon the Spirit's work. Yet when not prompted you rarely will see this highlighted. Salvation is set forth as a methodical step by step procedure,dealing with mental ascent to the idea that all of the "promise" that the sign pointed to, will be just sort of infused into the child- because we cannot tell when where or How the Spirit moves?

Randy correctly pointed out that no child is excommunicated because unless they are born of the Spirit they are not in. It is not physical birth the puts you in,like OT. It is new birth the puts you in in NT.

Hi Brother!

Circumcision in the Old Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer - 8 days old.

Water Baptism in the New Testament is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant. The sign and seal are applied to the recipient whether or not the recipient is a Believer or the child of a Believer.

Just as the New Testament teaches that Water Baptism does not save you, so the Old Testament teaches that physical circumcision does not save you either:

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, Deut 10:16.

And the LORD thy God shall circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD thy God with all of your heart that thou mayest live Deut 31:6.

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God, Rom 2:29; see also Jer 4:4.

Water Baptism does not save a person - but it is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant.

Physical Circumcision did not save a person either - but it was a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace - the New Covenant.

Jesus angered the Jews because they claimed to be the descendents of Abraham, and Jesus acknowledged that they were physically descended from Abraham, but what did He say to them?

I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham, John 8:37ff.

Water Baptism and Physical Circumcision both needed the Work of the Spirit in order for the recipient to be a true child of Abraham. In the Old Testament language the one circumcised needed his "heart circumcised" which is analogus to being "Born Again."

I think there is a language barrier here: The New Covenant was promised to Adam and Eve after the Fall, Gen 3:14,15. It is found in the types and shadows of the Old Testament times until the coming of Jesus (the mediator of the New Testament). The types and shadows were then stripped away, and the New Covenant shown in all of its glory in the New Testament. The "Old Covenant" is the Covenant of Works - the "New Covenant" is the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Grace is called the "New" Covenant because it came after the Covenant of Works - the "Old" Covenant.

They are called "Old" and "New" testaments because they deal with the death of the testator, Hebrews 9:16,17.

The testator of the "Old" Testament was the blood of calves and goats, Hebrews 9:19,20. But these could not redeem man because they had to continually be sacrificed, were temporary, and were types of the perfect. The Bible calls this the "first" testament we simply use the word "old".

The testator of the "New" Testament is Jesus Christ, Heb 9:14-15, 23-28.

This is, partly, why my investigation into Jeremiah 31 and Paul's interpretation of it in Hebrews chapters 8-10 convinced me the credo-baptist position is incorrect. Membership in the New Covenant in both the Old and New Testaments are believers and their children. We know this to be true because the "holy" status of the children of believers has never been recinded in the New Testament, and, it has, in fact, been assumed, and declared, to continue in the New Testament.

Just as Abraham was required to "Believe in God" and then he was circumcised, but his infant children were not required to "Believe in God" and be circumcised: So, the head of a household is required to "Believe and be Baptized," but such a requirement is not necessary for his infant children.

Because the law stating that the children of believers are members of the New Covenant has not been repealed.

Hope this clears things up,

CalvinandHodge

Originally Posted by staythecourse

As an aside: How can 3,000 people be submerged by Baptism in one day? Only the Apostles had authority to baptize, and there were 12 of them. Each Apostle would have to baptize 750 people in one day? That in itself seems a bit far-fetched.

The 3,000 baptisms in a day is very feasible. It could be done between meals. 3,000/12 = 250 * 20-30 seconds/baptism = 5,000 - 7500 seconds = 83 minutes - 125 minutes

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.

Thank you kindly, Bill.

When I first saw this thread I said to myself, "Oh no, not again!" But the arguments do not run dull for me, and I hope, of late, my tone has not been offensive?

Fight the Good fight, brother,

CalvinandHodge

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).

In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of the promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

Robert,

The reason I haven't responded to your earlier post is because this thread has taken off into a full scale baptism debate. I figured that would happen when Chris posted his change of position, but I forgot just how much I disliked the tone of the baptism threads once they got rolling. I haven't read a compelling argument on either side that I haven't heard before. I decided to jump off the moving train and take my lumps. I don't want you thinking I ignored you.

Thank you kindly, Bill.

When I first saw this thread I said to myself, "Oh no, not again!" But the arguments do not run dull for me, and I hope, of late, my tone has not been offensive?

Fight the Good fight, brother,

CalvinandHodge

Robert, your tone has been fine. Rest easy.

Originally Posted by bookslover

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).

In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of the promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.

Richard, it certainly does; not that I would make too much of it because the Greek tends to prefer the article on certain nouns, so its inclusion is not necessarily an indication of definiteness. But in connection with the singular it at least substantiates the point that a specific promise is in view here, namely, the promise of Christ; which runs counter to the claim that circumcision was merely a national sign concerned with temporal promises.

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

[post #75] Hi:

In answer to JerusalemBlade - we are not looking at the Christian observance of the Feast of Weeks, but How the Jews celebrated it. Since they were the ones who were commanded to bring "all males" on the day, then it would follow that "all males" were there, c.f. Deut 16:16.

Rob, indeed all males were required to show up for this feast, as you noted. However, verses 10 & 11 in this chapter, talking of the feast of weeks / Pentecost, say,

10: And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God.... 11: And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place where the LORD thy God hath chosen you to place his name there.

This feast was to be a festive one, and although it was mandated all the males were to be there, the entire family, including servants, were invited in this time of rejoicing in the city of Jerusalem, and at the temple in particular. There were women and children in the milling crowds. And listening to Peter.

--------

Justin (post #56),

In answer to your request, here are 2 books and an online pamphlet. They are all from the Protestant Reformed Church, which has a coherent view of infant baptism. First, the pamphlet, The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers - David J. Engelsma

Then there is the book by Herman Hanko, We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism: Reformed Free Publishing Association

And lastly, Herman Hoeksema's: Believers and Their Seed [Check out the Standard Bearer book review at the bottom of the page.]

Note: because I use the PRC's books, and some of their doctrines, does not mean I adhere to all their views.

-------

Bill, in your post #66 you said,

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.

And then you quoted Malone:

It must be understood that just because there was an intermixture of physical and spiritual elements in the Abrahamic Covenant, it does not follow by implication that the same elements apply to the New Covenant. We all know that one became a member of the Abrahamic Covenant by physical circumcision, but God also called Abraham's seed to spiritually circumcise their hearts as well (Deut. 10:16). That the New Covenant emphasizes a spiritual circumcision does not automatically imply that there must be physical members in the New Covenant without such a heart. As Pastor Walter Chantry of Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, has well said, "In the Old Covenant, all that was spiritual was identified with an outward nation. In the New Covenant, all that is outward is identified with a spiritual nation." Therefore, those who apply the Abrahamic inclusion of physical children to the New Covenant as a basis for the infant baptism of the Christian's children must also honestly deal with the "forever" implications of Canaan, circumcision, and household adult membership in the New Covenant as well. There is too much inconsistency here to make a valid argument.

I think this is an important objection, that is, the "land promises". Was the promise of the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7; 15:7, 18-21; 17:8) given as "an everlasting possession" without qualification? O. Palmer Robertson, in his book, The Israel of God, writes,

In the process of redemptive history, a dramatic movement has taken place. The arena of redemption has shifted from type to reality, from shadow to substance. The land which once was the specific place of God's redemptive work served well in the realm of old covenant forms as a picture of paradise lost and promised. But in the realm of new covenant fulfillments, the land has expanded to encompass the whole world. (p. 30, 31)

Some Jews (of which people, according to the flesh, I am) and some Christians, assert that the physical land promise is Biblical basis for the Jewish state's dispossessing of the native Palestinians and establishing military hegemony over the region, and are fulfilling just these promises / prophecies. I have written elsewhere on this exegetical horror:

http://www.puritanboard.com/290145-post1.html

As pointed out by CalvinandHodge in post #75, Abraham, as well his seed Isaac and Jacob, looked for a city "whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10, 16), "that is, an heavenly [country]". So they also looked beyond the type, to the eternal reality.

When David says, in Psalm 37:9, "For evildoers shall be cut off: but they that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth", he presaged what Jesus said in Matthew 5:5, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."

If one says that the Jews living in Palestine now are doing so in prophetic fulfillment, consider the LORD's view:

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou should take my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest my words behind thee?" (Ps 50:16, 17)

It is also written, "Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and stablisheth a city by iniquity!" (Habakkuk 2:12) Those who are cognizant of what happened in and around 1948 in Palestine should realize that the "land promises" have been appropriated by those precluded from them. The only meek and righteous in that land now are believing Arabs, Messianic Jews and other indigenous believers (not including visiting Christians).

Will there be a physical land of Israel in the new world? Where will the New Jerusalem be located? We know there will be no sea (Rev 21:1), and maybe the earth will not look like it does now. Will my beloved Woodstock (NY) still exist in any fashion?

The entire world will be the land of Israel, for this is the name of Him who is its King, the only Israelite worthy to stand before the Almighty God in His own merit: Jesus of Nazareth. Herein will the land promises be fulfilled to their utmost, in a glory undreamt of by all its inhabitants-to-be.

In sum: there is no inconsistency in the paedo view of the covenant, seeing as the exegesis of types and shadows into fulfilled realities and substance has apostolic warrant.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Ken, what you describe was also Al Martin's experience. He thought that John Murray would convince him of paedo-baptism, but John Murray actually convinced him of credo-baptism.

Chris, it takes principle to reverse your position after arguing publicly for another view. You are to be commended for your honesty, and I trust God will bless you with ever fuller understanding of His word.

Actually, I do not find that very surprising. Prof. Murray's views on the covenant of grace and the non-validity of the invisible/visible church distinction are very difficult to reconcile with infant baptism.

Originally Posted by North Jersey Baptist

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.

Chris, all is fair in love, war and baptism threads.

I'm putting this in my quotes section on Facebook.

Originally Posted by reformedman

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

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.

For the record, this thread was always in the baptism forum, which is for debate and discussion.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

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.

Pilgrim,
If you get a chance listen to this sermon on Acts 2 and let me know, what you think.
it is on sermonaudio
153 What is a Covenant Child?
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • 46 min.
Hebrews 2; Acts 2 • First Baptist Church of Parker 100+ Play! | MP3

SUN 07/09/2006
Sunday - AM

Thanks for the heads up. I am familiar with Dr. Brunson because I know some men who belong to or have belonged to that church in the past but unfortunately I haven't listened to his preaching.

Ok. I don't have time to read all this now much less respond. I probably won't be able to interact much in this thread until toward the end of the week but I will try to respond to questions as time permits.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Assembly Line!!!

Where were the tubs?

Did anyone get exhausted?

Please investigate the water supply on the temple mount for your answer. I don't have the issue to hand but I do remember reading within the last 10 years or so in a Christian magazine specializing in archeological issues that, given the water supply to the temple mount area, such a mass baptism (by immersion) was possible.

Hi Tim,
I don't think my post makes much sense without reference to the immediate preceding one, for which it was meant to be a lighthearted reply. I believe it got a laugh from its intended recipient.

To your comment, I think most can assent to the theoretical possibility of thousands of immersions temporally, logistically, etc. Practically possible, politically possible, ... ? I think those are legitimate areas to bring questions to bear. Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?

Probably not. Looking forward to the book you've mentioned you are writing related to thnmy. Blessings.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?

Oh, brother, don't give us ideas like that!