Let's get this started: 11 vs 3000!

Seriously, we really need a formal baptism debate in which the two participants are not allowed to leave the ring until all arguments and counter-arguments are answered!

__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. (Romans 11:36)

Apropos the conjectures regarding the immersion of the 3,000 in Jerusalem, I submit the following as evidence to the contrary. The author, F.G. Hibbard, was a Methodist pastor in the early part of the 1800s, and apparently quite exercised in the matters of minute detail pertaining to infant baptism, and to the mode of baptism.

This is from the book, Christian Baptism, by Rev. F.G. Hibbard, (NY: Carlton & Lanahan. 1841).

The account of Luke (Acts ii) goes to prove that three thousand persons were baptized and added to the church on the day of Pentecost; but does not specify the mode. If, however, we attend critically to all the circumstances of the occasion, we shall find the weight of evidence to lie against the idea of their being immersed. Proceed we then to notice—

1. Their time for baptism. Peter began to preach “about the third hour of the day;” i.e., nine o’clock, A.M. Ver. 15. Judging from the nature of the occasion and from the drift of his discourse, as given by Luke, he continued at least an hour. Luke says, “With many other words Peter testified and exhorted,” &c. Ver. 40. Peter’s sermon being ended, the converts must be selected from the multitude, and questioned as to their faith and experience. This was not the work of a moment. If they were immersed, they must have been provided with a change of raiment: This must have occasioned great delay. For when the multitude came together, at first, it was with some confusion and no expectation of Christian baptism or conversion. Then, apartments for men and women must be procured adjacent to the place of baptism. Before all these preliminaries could be disposed of with decency, it must have been afternoon; say one o’clock. The Jewish day closed at six P.M., and Luke says they were baptized and added to the church “the same day.” Consequently they had but five hours left, in which to perform their labour. But if the twelve apostles baptized three thousand persons in five hours, they must have averaged for each apostle two hundred and fifty; which would be, for each, fifty persons per hour, or five persons in every six minutes. This, I need not say, would have been impossible. But if the apostles baptized by aspersion [sprinkling], they thereby saved much time, and might have performed the task with comparative ease....

2. They had no place for the immersion of such a multitude. The brook Kidron (Cedron), which ran along the east side of the city, was, at its maximum, but a turbid stream,—always dry in the hot season, and it was now about June; so that its waters must have been failing fast. Besides, soon after it issued from its source, it received, from a common sewer, all the blood and ordure of the sacrifices, and the common filth, both of the temple and the northern section of the city. This alone would have rendered it unfit for baptism. As to public pools, we have account of only two, Bethesda and Siloam. The latter was three-fourths of a mile from the spot where the apostles had preached. We have no account of their marching off three thousand persons, with all the multitude of spectators that would naturally follow, this distance. Besides, their time would have failed them. Bethesda lay within the precincts of the temple, and was used in the temple service for the washing of sacrifices, &c. It was, therefore, in the hands of the priests, the avowed and mortal enemies of Christ and his apostles; and I believe it will not be pretended that the dignitaries of the Jewish church, after their recent hard-earned and diabolical triumph over Christ and his followers; their concerted and undisguised hostility to the Christian name; their settled and incurable malice, now newly festered by the alarming success of the apostles,—it will not, I say, be pretended that, under these circumstances, they would have peaceably surrendered their claims to the use of Bethesda, in order to have accommodated the apostles of Christ with a place for Christian baptism; particularly, as the time for the evening sacrifice came on between three and four o’clock, P.M., when the use of the pool was always needed; and it being now Pentecost, and the sacrifices numerous and important, its use would have been wholly indispensable. In addition to all this, (if any additional remark be necessary,) both Siloam and Bethesda were probably of inadequate dimensions to admit twelve men...for the purpose of immersing. In the porches of Bethesda, the sick constantly reclined, waiting to receive the benefit of its healing waters. Where, then, did the apostles immerse three thousand converts? Are there not difficulties attending that hypothesis? (Part II, pp. 111-114)

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

...and one admits defeat

__________________
B.Howes
Framingham, MA

I think a cage match free-for-all would be much more entertaining. Or better yet, king of the ring. 1v1 until one drops out, then another takes his place. The last party standing is the winner.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

I am sorry but I really don't have much time to spend with this due to other things. But let me just say this. I do not think that Circumcision is necessarily the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace. It is a sign and seal of the righteousness of Abraham's personal faith as mentioned in Romans.

I have discussed this in previous discussions. There are differences in the two signs as I have mentioned before.

Anyways, You guys have a great week.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I found the book Steve reference online, wow, he was quite exercised. It looks like it may be worth the read. What do you think, Steve?

__________________
*

Ken, you said in post #43,

Yes, it was so preached to them by Peter, that if they would be saved in the new covenant of Messiah, it would be through obediently receiving the new sign of baptism. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you…” (Acts 2:38) They didn’t falter. And yes, there is much that Peter said we do not have recorded: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation.’ ” (2:40). Earlier he had included “sons and daughters...servants and handmaidens” (2:17, 18) in the manifesting of the Spirit of God among them. No doubt (there I go again!) he made it clear to them in the sermon we do not have that it was so to be – women were now to receive the mark of the covenant.

You are right, though, Ken, that some will doubt. I suppose my use of that expression is rhetorical – and I used it loosely, thinking of those with paedo leanings! Or perhaps I thought too highly of the (supposed) inexorable logic of my argument!

I suppose also that I was assuming the understanding that there would be a mixed crowd that day during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), per Deuteronomy 16:11, where it is written of this feast,

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 in thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.

It was to be a festive occasion, a family day, if you will, rejoicing in the goodness of God not only in giving them a good harvest, but in delivering them from Egypt (v. 12) – the which was also typical of the great deliverance from the world the Savior had now obtained for them in Him.

But thanks for calling me on that!

Steve

Paul, thanks for that link. It is a great resource, and I would highly recommend it for baptism issues in great detail. Being a Methodist he will certainly fail of the Reformed standards in other respects.

-------

Randy, the lead sentence in your quote, “Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience...” sounds a lot to me like New Covenant Theology, which posits a radical discontinuity between the two covenants, including Abraham’s. This is certainly far from Reformed, and even from Reformed Baptist!

Jesus said that circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers (John 7:22). Later in your quote of Coxe he says that the old was “abolished” – but that refers to the Mosaic, not the Abrahamic – for the Abrahamic was not abolished (as was the Mosaic) per Paul saying that we are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs of the promise of his covenant.

I don’t have time now to take apart his remarks – I mean, how much time can one give to this stuff!

I must sign off for a while, as I have other things to attend to.

And Randy, I'll be praying for the operation.

Zenas, you said,

"I think a cage match free-for-all would be much more entertaining. Or better yet, king of the ring. 1v1 until one drops out, then another takes his place. The last party standing is the winner."

Baptists are the tough-guys of the Faith -- they don't give up, they die of illness or natural causes or martyrdom -- so it wouldn't pay to get in a cage with one. No, the way to co-exist with Baptists is to agree to disagree agreeably. There is no other way. And some paedos are cut of the same cloth. You keep such as these out of cages, they'd just go on and on till they depart for glory!

That's the beauty of having moderators -- they turn it off after a while.

I have a great story about the toughness of Baptists -- but it'll have to wait till tomorrow, and I find the book.

This was after all a drinking supply as well. I don't suppose the others around the Temple that weren't convinced (including the leaders of the Temple) would mind too much that 3000 dusty people were fouling the water supply.

But it's still theoretically possible.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Well this isn't New Covenant Theology. It is a view that Reformed Baptists hold to. The New is New. To understand our position you would have to look at how John Owen views the differences between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Check out his view by reading his Hebrews chapter 8 commentary.

The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31,32) There are elements of continuity and discontinuity. We all think that is true. The Reformed Baptist and Reformed Community just disagree on what is continued and what isn't. Circumcision is one of those areas. We believe that sometimes some people are trying to put New wine into Old wineskins. Better Covenant Better Promises. Might I add that the Promises in the New are better. Therefore they are not the same.



And I believe Nehemiah Coxes first statement is biblical. Circumcision did bind the Jews to the law and condemnation. Is that not what St. Paul said in Galatians? Circumcision was mandatory for those who wanted to dwell with Abraham also. If you were born under his household and were not circumcised you were to be cut off. There is a binding in circumcision.

This is not New Covenant Theology. If it is than John Owen is a New Covenant Theologian. New Covenant Theology usually denies the Covenant of Works. It also denies the Old Testament law as a guide for the Christians life. They say if it isn't in the New Testament it doesn't apply to the Christian. We don't hold to that view.

Yes we believe the Old is fulfilled in Christ's coming and that he instituted the New Covenant and is the Head of it. New Head, New Covenant. The Promises in the Previous Covenants are fulfilled in Christ and He is made the Head of a better Covenant as per what Hebrews says.



I believe Nehemiah Coxe is just using the language of Hebrews chapter 8 if I am not mistaken. We are children of Abraham in that we have like precious faith with this Father of the faith. With that we agree. It was promised to him and when the seed came the promise was fulfilled. Part of the Abrahamic was transformed into the New Covenant. The Spiritual part not the physical. The physical is done away with.


Thanks for the prayers JB. BTW, I love reading your responses. They edify me greatly.

I am not as concerned about the immersion debate even though I hold that immersion was the practice of he Early Church as a norm.

I've been laughing about an assembly-line baptism throughout the day.

I have to say, the tone of this thread has been humble, gentle and loving despite the topic and the zeal of adherents.

I am a baptist but I always admire my Presbyterian brothers argument even though I, and it will always be the case, can't see the switch from circumcision to baptism. I will say, being single and childless plays a part in my opinion I am certain.

If I could see the children getting baptized in the text (Acts 2 (gesundheit)) I would say, "you guys were right!"

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Layman
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

"Seek the Kingdom of God first."

Rich,
We have been here before. But let me ask you a question? How can we have elders or deacons? With your reasoning we cannot know anyone is saved, Confession or profession is always doubtful! We cannot rejoice when an adult professes faith, we cannot see the work of the Spirit.
We can only "know" That Jesus saves some persons called the elect.His work was perfect, but it might not be for any of us?
Brother, if you are comfortable with this so be it.
I believe this is not the pattern described in the Nt. I am not claiming some special ability to see the heart {that is God's domain} What I do see is 1Jn saying he writes these things that we may know we have eternal life.
Jn 5;24 says the person believing has eternal life.
The fact that the church has false professor's among it, does not stop it from being the church , that is God's called out people. The false professor's were never part of it,their apostasy shows it.
Even with your view of the church- visible/invisible, out ward administration of the covenant, you have to come to grips with the same issues.

I do want to thank you, Bruce , Matthew, Rob , and the other's who continue to faithfully hold to your convictions. Many times you men will take the time to try and instruct and take a stand for the truth of God. If we all agreed all the time we would not have as much need for this forum,and online fellowship. Last week Bruce offered up some really good verses in one of the posts and I never got to thank him, some time the little thank you box is not there to press it?
Rich, I do understand to some extent what you men are getting at even if I do not share that view . I had posted earlier about a sermon from sermonaudio, by Hal Brunson
I know you are vey busy, but if any of you padeo brethren can give it a listen, I would like to hear what you think on it, also he has two recent sermons where he commented on the fact, that the word's for sprinkle, or pour were not used in any of the baptism contexts.
Also I just picked up the book by Nehemiah Coxe, have not had a chance to work through it yet. Have you read it?

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Matthew, I've often wondered if Paul deliberately included the definite article at that place for theological reasons, not just for grammatical ones. He's in the middle of a very important theological argument there; perhaps he wanted to emphasize the importance of the basic covenantal promise - thus, his inclusion of the definite article.

If that be true, perhaps more translations should translate the definite article there...

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.alexandermaclaren.wordpress.com
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.spurgeonswords.wordpress.com

Devout souls do not take offence at the depths and difficulties of God's Word, but are, thereby, drawn to intenser contemplation of them. - Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910)

Perhaps; or it could make a translation look something other than English to have "the" inserted before most nouns which are already definite by nature. If you look on Eph. 6:2 it will be seen why the definite article is required with such nouns. The absence of the article is an indicator of indefiniteness, but its presence does not necessarily mean what is definite is referring to a specific or well known object.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I do come to grips with the same issues. In classic Reformed theology there is a visible/invisible distinction that covers this.

The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.

Hence, it doesn't do much good to have a discussion on the actual identity of those in the New Covenant in a discussion about the administration of the ordinance of baptism from a Baptist perspective. Why? Because that topic is distinct from the decision to baptize.

What I was pointing out to Randy is that he wanted to go to that discussion (as Baptists are wont to do) to state that the CoG cannot consist of somebody who is not Elect. OK, fine. If I grant that point, then it still doesn't bear upon the decision to Baptize.

As I have noted repeatedly, when Baptists get into discussions about the subjects of baptism, invariably they begin talking about an invisible people that they cannot name and move, actually, away from the topic of who is the proper subject of the administration of a visible ordinance. I was trying to pull Randy (and others) back to the discussion of who one would baptize since the composition of the New Covenant says nothing about who to baptize from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

Here is a context where a baptism is spoken of and the word pour is utilized:

Acts 2:33
Acts 10:45
In fact, the only actual mode that is ever clearly identified is pouring with respect to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Of course I agree with Randy and Bill here.

Also, doesn't excommunication relate largely to who can come to the table? If so, then it seems that the confessional Reformed are guilty of keeping these baptized church members from the table as well. That is of course the charge of the FV paedocommunion advocates, that the traditional Reformed position in effect excommunicates baptized children since they are not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper unless they have made a profession of faith. Indeed Peter Leithart's book was entitled Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated. I haven't read the book, but I don't think it was aimed at Baptists.

Where in the Bible do we find an example of someone who is baptized but who doesn't partake of the Lord's Supper as well?

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Well, I don't have any problem participating. I just don't have time to spend hours on the board now the way I did in the past, which is a good thing. Iron sharpens iron and as Randy (I think it was) noted, we haven't had a good baptism debate in a while on the PB. My concern was that it would degenerate into ad hominem attacks, insults, whining, etc. and would in general generate more heat than light the way some more recent baptism threads have.

This aspect opens up a whole other dimension to the argument. Some Baptists have also noted that where you come down on this issue has some effect on soteriology as well. A former pastor of mine says infant baptism leads to "backdoor Arminianism" because of the common (though not universal) idea that God is somehow more obligated to save the "covenant child." In the recent book Believer's Baptism SBTS Professor Shawn Wright argues that the Reformed teaching on paedobaptism implicitly undermines sola fide.

Interesting. It's funny how one's perspective is shaped by the side of the fence you sit on. In my estimation, Baptist theology either tends toward hyper-Calvinism or a self-determining Arminianism.

Why do I say this?

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

Understood correctly, the paedo position does not postulate that there is any halfway mode of salvation for the children of believers but simply recognizes that for any member, including a professor, baptism is applied to those who are to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. An adult disciple, no less than a child, is to be trained in such things and the Church has no infallible visible information for either category. The sign marks both out as visibly connected to the institution where catechesis in the things of God occurs and the sign promises salvation to those who lay hold of the Promise by evangelical faith that is born and nurtured by the means of Grace therein.

The whole nonsense, in fact, that a person would argue that you wouldn't say "know the Lord" to a person in your Church assumes that those in your Church are of the NC but that presumes you know they are elect upon profession according to a Credo. How silly to assume this when baptism was intended to be the means to bring them regularly near the means of grace. Many professors baptized are not converted and the means of grace may yet convert them if we don't foolishly presume that they are all converted already: professor or child.

The Spirit of God then blows where it may. Neither the child nor the professor is said to be in any position to presume upon election but both are called to strive to enter the narrow path and the Church administers the means of Grace that might convert either. Baptism cannot be viewed by either professor or child in the Reformed schema to point within them but is always a sign external to them to the Promise of God. It is an external promise in both cases of child and professor and avoids the pitfall that the Baptist schema contains that places the nexus of the significance of actual baptism within the individual himself. It's all God in our schema - Promise and means - the individual must respond in evangelical faith born from above.

Rich, I am more concerned here with your extreme view of Baptists.

First, let's differentiate between confessional Baptists and the majority Arminian-leaning Baptist churches. When Baptists are referred to on this board we should have in mind the former, not the latter. Confessional Baptists are first in line to point out the many deficiencies of their wayward brethren. It has been my experience on the PB that confessional Baptists are given ownership (by paedos) of what the majority Baptist churches believe. For the sake of discussion the word "majority" applies to unconfessional Baptist churches.

Some of what you say (above) is accurate, although a bit of a mischaracterization. We do baptize on the basis of profession. "Believe and be baptized." You do the same with adult converts, so the practice itself is not foreign to paedos. The underlying cause of the disagreement is the matter of who is in the covenant. That we know. But believers baptism is not a reprehensible practice for the paedo when it comes to adult converts.

You are making the accusation that Baptists separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. Rich, I have to ask, which Baptists? Confessional Baptists like Randy, Chris and myself; or Baptists of the kind you are used to at Central Baptist Church? Confessional Baptists do not separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. A profession of faith is really a confession by the individual that they are a believer. Entrance into the New Covenant is on the basis of faith alone. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant but does not initiate the New Covenant. In other words, Baptism is not the key that turns on the engine of the New Covenant. The confessional Baptist believes the New Covenant is entered into by faith and then is signified by baptism. That local church membership is predicated on both a credible profession of faith and its corresponding sign is logically consistent. How does this differ from the paedo practice with adult converts? Do you baptize an adult convert on the basis of the promise without ascertaining whether the person believes? It almost seems that there is a categorical difference between infants and adults when it comes to the qualifications for baptism. I know, I know. It stems from your view of the covenant. But does baptizing the adult believer stem from that same view or from "believe and be baptized"?

An absoulte, "Yes!" to the first part of this charge. Baptism is a promise of nothing, or at least nothing positive for the visible church, inasmuch that the visible church does not guarantee inclusion in the New Covenant. The credible profession (decision) is a confession by the individual that they believe. So how can you say that we believe the decision itself procures salvation, or were you referring to unconfessional Baptists? You must have because you know that confessional Baptists do not believe that. The decision does not procure salvation. Salvation is on the basis of faith. The decision is a confession of that faith. Truthfully, I hate the word decision in this context. It makes me think of the evangelists who scream, "Have you made your decision for Christ?!" Those Finney-type preachers would be the accurate recipients of your charge. For the confessional Baptist, baptism is the sign of the New Covenant administered to a person who confesses faith in Christ. We must assume that the person has been saved based on their confession. Neither paedos or credos can know with certainty that a person is saved. You baptize infants on the assumption they are part of the covenant unless they prove otherwise as they grow up. But you baptize adults on basis that they have believed. You certainly wouldn't baptize one who said they didn't believe. Therefore you appply the sign to adults on the basis of their profession, but I wouldn't think for a moment that you do so for any other reason than you believe the person has come to faith in Christ. So it is on the basis of faith, not profession. Profession is simply a confession of saving faith.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Bill,

Your concern stems from the fact that you completely missed the nature of my interaction with Chris. If you follow the argument, I am interacting with Chris' assertion that Calvinism's baptism of infants is a "gateway drug" into Arminianism. I was demonstrating that this is a misunderstanding of the nature of the sign on the one hand but also attempting to demonstrate how credo-baptism's formulation tends to elevate decision to the center in the life of the Church and lead to Arminianism. You really need to read my argument much more carefully to note where I jump to a "...this could lead to this..." as opposed to "...this is what Reformed Baptists Confess." I understand what your Confession reads. I also know that Chris knows full well what our Confession reads but that did not mean that he might not attempt to state that paedo-baptism might undermine what we confess. I didn't presume to tell him that he had a warped view of our Confession but argued against the slope he was arguing for and presented my argument for the natural pressure that exists within the credo schema to fly apart.

Nor did I ever state that baptism upon profession in the case of adult converts was unwarranted.

Do you see what you just did?

You stated that I erroneously stated that Baptist separate local Church membership from New Covenant membership. I actually stated that local Church membership is not to be confused with participation in the New Covenant and you confirmed my very words above.

You stated very clearly that Baptism does not initiate into the New Covenant. Yet, Bill, how do you know who your local Church members are? Are they not the baptized in your congregation? Hence you do make a class distinction where local Church membership is not to be confused with New Covenant membership or else you would have to say that all baptized are in the New Covenant, which you have repudiated above.

You are confusing again between the things invisible, acting as if they are visible to you, then stringing the visible things with it and acting as if your Church is baptizing upon the basis of the two things put together. I know that's confusing so let me explain. You state that the New Covenant is entered into by faith (invisible) and that is signified by baptism (visible). You see, what you did? You continue the argument as if you had warrant to jump from the thing that only God knows and then because you know that some profess you think the Church has some warrant to apply the sign by connecting the two.

Why not construct the same argument by saying that some people have a false faith that doesn't join them to the New Covenant (invisible), the Church thinks they have real faith, and that is signified by baptism. You could have just as easily made that connection.

The difference, again, is that the Reformed Confessions are able to keep the sign as pointing to the Promise of God and administer it to a professor without trying to say that we're saying something about the individual's faith when we baptize. You see how you desire to state something about the individual's faith above but all you really know is a profession. We say we are not saying anything about the individual's faith at the time of Baptism but that does not change the nature of the Promise that holds out the thing signified if the person has faith. Time of administration or nature of the faith of the individual at administration is immaterial. The Promise of God is timeless.


Well, there is a categorical difference. One is a child and the other an adult. From one standpoint, however, there is no difference with respect to the Church's knowledge of the election of the individual. Baptists try to convince themselves otherwise by stating that profession is the key but that is not a guarantor of election.

Well, of course one must state this if New Covenant = Elect. What I actually stated though is that, by your reckoning, Baptism is stripped of its visible Promissary value (which you heartedly agree to). This is actually sad because you actually agree that Baptism becomes less about what God Promises in terms of His salvific and elective activity and becomes more about the individual, which confirms my assessment of the Baptist view of the ordinance.

Again, you missed the original point of my post to demonstrate how a slide might occur from the Confessional to an Arminian view here. Re-read what I originally wrote.

In one sense, though, you have already confirmed your agreement that there is no real objective visible Promissary value to the sign so the sign tends to attach itself to the individual in your view (it only has value if the individual has faith in other words). Baptism, then, visibly says much about the profession and elevates profession (decision) to a primary position in your scheme. I deliberately used the word "decision" provocatively because it is not a huge leap to move from profession to decision since that is how we existentially understand a profession in our own minds. Thus, because profession takes center stage in all the Baptist ordinances, in one sense decision takes center stage in the ordinances and it is not the Promise of God that is central.

It is not that the Presbyterian would state that the profession of a man is immaterial but the significance of baptism is not tied up visibly in the profession of the individual but remains grounded in the Promise of God and never loses its mooring in God's Elective purposes. Hence, I maintain that the Paedo position both invisibly and visibly remains Calvinistic from start to finish while the Credo position invisibly does but visibly does not.

Randy & Co., I want to stay with the quote of Coxe you gave in your post #125 for a while. He said (in part),

I wonder how many Reformed Baptists here on PB will subscribe to this statement? Consider what David Kingdon in his, Children of Abraham (pp. 27, 28), says:

“Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham and his family before ever Israel became a nation. It was not a legal ordinance, but the sign in Abraham’s flesh of God’s gracious covenant with him and his seed...It is my considered opinion that Baptists must recognize the analogy between circumcision and baptism.”

I will grant that, in Hanko’s words, “the administration of the covenant in the old dispensation was in close connection with the law and the principle of the law....[and] Circumcision was inseparably connected to this administration of the law” (We and Our Children, p. 21), and thus had to be replaced as a sign of the covenant when the law was made obsolete. In essence, however, both signs were of the covenant of grace.

The hermeneutical issue involved here pertains not, primarily, to infant baptism, its proofs or lack thereof, but to how the covenant is understood. And in this context, what is the relation of Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church? Is there a unity between them in essence (though not in administration and outward governance)? And is there a unity in the covenants peculiar to each despite outward differences?

The way I understand it, this is the crux of the disparity between the respective paradigms, Reformed and Reformed Baptist. Infant baptism is but symptomatic of the underlying systemic differences.

(Those who desire to have an in-depth analysis of and interaction with the Reformed Baptist view vis-à-vis the Reformed I would recommend Herman Hanko’s excellent, We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism. In this he responds in great detail to Kingdon and his book. I will agree with the Baptists, there is much confusion and division within the Presbyterian and Reformed teachings on this subject, which I have not found in Hanko & company.)

Reformed Baptists (Kingdon included) will assert that the primary significance of the Covenant of Grace (the Abrahamic) in the Old Testament pertains to Israel’s national and natural status, not its spiritual, and thus, when the covenant comes to its fulfillment in Christ and His spiritual kingdom, the “national and natural” aspects of the covenant – notably its inclusion of infants into it – are annulled.

The Reformed, to the contrary, affirm that the primary significance of the covenant with Abraham – and his progeny, Israel – is spiritual, to the extent that the people of God in the Old Testament are identical (in essence) with the church of the New. The Baptists are loath to acknowledge this, despite Stephen (by the Holy Spirit) denominating it so in Acts 7:38. And in Galatians 6:16 the church is called Israel.

So part of the disparity between Reformed and Baptists concerns the nature of the church. Was it because of the abuses of Rome that they moved to their view of a “pure church” comprised only of regenerate individuals?

This discussion then involves the nature of the church, and the people of God up through the ages, from Adam till now.

I re-read it and thought one more thank you was deserved.

__________________
Conscience may lash us, but it cannot replenish a languishing life. Conscience may be God's word and minister to you, telling you of your faults and your follies and your destitution. It may point out, but it will never supply you. Christ must give you new life. Hart has well expressed it: "He to the feeble and the faint, His mighty aid makes known; and when their languid life is spent, supplies it with His own." - J. K. Popham

I agree that one shouldn't go into print immediately with massive theological changes. That's why I posted the OP in this thread 3 weeks after my change in views.

Those who are awaiting some "superstructure" will likely be disappointed. It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a "superstructure" to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT, as has been noted by many paedos on this board and elsewhere. As Louis Berkhof wrote, "Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of Scripture, but on a series of considerations." The Baptist view is based on a plain reading of the Scriptures and needs no such superstructure in order to reach its conclusions. But this does not satisfy some, especially those who may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of Baptist life and may be looking over the fence at what appears to be greener pastures on the confessional Presbyterian side, as was the case with me several years ago. I'll be the first to admit that the Reformed paedobaptist system is internally consistent and often appears persuasive compared to what sometimes appear to be simplistic Baptist arguments. I recall Dr. R. S. Clark posting on here about remembering Dr. Al Martin repeating (maybe it was shouting) over and over that the Bible says "believe and be baptized!" I think this was shortly before RSC became confessionally Reformed. Apparently the lack of superstructure offered by Al Martin was eventually found wanting. I don't think I can do any better than Al Martin did.

The "superstructure" can be found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession and any number of Baptist works like the aforementioned "String of Pearls Unstrung" by Fred Malone, Alan Conner's "Covenant Children Today", Greg Welty's "Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism," John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology" and many others.

Acts 2:41 says that those who gladly received his word were baptized. It doesn't say those who received his word and their children. This is in the context of a key passage of the paedos. Other credo sounding verses can possibly be explained away in various ways. But v. 41 specifically states who was baptized, and it was those who received Peter's word i.e. those who personally repented and professed belief.

To be perfectly frank IMO someone who doesn't see that this passage, and especially v. 41, teaches the baptism of disciples alone is probably already on the road to being paedo or at best is deliberately trying to maintain a stance of objectivity prior to studying the issue. Or am I just having a continual dense moment for these past 3 weeks?

Chris, you said,

"It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a 'superstructure' to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT..."

This view you state is due to our different hermeneutic. Paedos say that a "superstructure" runs plainly though both the Old and the New, that God's people are one, His covenant of grace is one, His salvation is one, His promise is one, albeit constantly being unfolded / expanded throughout redemptive history. The Old and New Testaments (Covenants) are also one unity, although reflecting different administrations. We do not posit a disunity between the Old and New Testament Scripture.

What you say about Acts 2:41 might be a "plain [21st century] reading", but it does seem to ignore the mindset of the Jew listening to Peter's sermon, which mindset is full of the "superstructure" of God's dealing with His people for millennia. Given the "historical-grammatical" approach to exegesis, should not how Peter was understood by his listeners be taken into account?

"Or am I just having a continual dense moment for these past 3 weeks?"

I won't bite at that one, though I perceive humility in it!

Steve

Do you need a superstructure or not Chris?


I don't know why this strikes me in such a way but it reminds me of Martin Luther pounding the table "This is my Body! This is my Body!"

I still remember the first time I was exposed to Reformed Baptist theology around 8 years ago. I didn't even know the species existed having only been Reformed for a couple of years but I became friends with James White after reading his interactions with Dave Hunt and thanked him for his interaction.

I remember asking him for information as to why he believed in credo baptism having been exposed to Covenant Theology. He pointed me to a couple of sermons he had delivered on Hebrews 8.

I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"

I'm still wondering.

It's funny that you state that the Reformed Baptist position is this simple presentation of "Believe and be baptized" but the plain fact is this: When was the last time a Reformed Baptist simply stuck to that argument and argued simply that we are baptizing on this plain issue and nothing more? In fact, I have never seen a debate like that. What is the debate always about? It is an elaborate presentation trying to prove to all that the New Covenant consists of the Elect alone. In the end, however, the discussion of who to baptize is completely left on another table. The issue that you consider is simple, that one must repeatedly pound the table upon, is scarcely scratched.

I'm sorry, Chris, I just don't really think anyone who has witnessed these arguments (even in this thread) can really agree that "Believe and be baptized" has really carried the water for the Baptist presentation. The superstructure for the Baptist is the insistence that the NC is with the Elect alone but, again and again, I'm still wondering what this has to do with the decision to baptize since Baptism does not confer membership into the New Covenant once this is admitted.

Off to bed!

CALLING ALL BABDISTS!!!!

Enlist for your duty!

The Pentecost Re-enactment Society seeks 3000 babdists to prove once and for all that it is possible to immerse 3000 folks in one day. To those who are concerned that this might lead to them being baptised twice, just remember, as the good book says 'you can't have enough of a good thing' (Hezekiah 4.1).

Apply now, and if in doubt, just ask yourself...

__________________
Jonathan Hunt

Elder holding forth the word of life at:
Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Confessionally Based)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
-- Thomas Elsworth

Concerning the immersion of the 3000:

I apologize in advance if my following point has already been mentioned here and I missed it.

It would be an inmodest display to immerse 3000 people that day. Not only inmodest, but possibly pornographic! Look at the cultural dress of the people in those days. Women did not wear bras, panties, etc. (neither did the men...). Dunking a women of that type of dress in water, then having her walk around the city would be extremely inmodest. I don't think I need to go into details do I? A 3000 person wet t-shirt contest in front of the whole city does not seem to be consistent with Christian modesty.

__________________
Shawn
Orthodox Presbyterian
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.

And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.

__________________
Raymond Victor Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

I think there is a big difference between someone who is properly dressed in a more private setting, then 3000 people who were suddenly immersed in front of the whole city.

Just my opinion.

In reading the thread, it seems you don't recognize a principle that I assumed most baptists held, though now I wonder as nobody has brought it up in response to this critique.

The Elect-only New Covenant is relevant to baptism in this way:

1) We do view baptism as the sign of the NC, which is entered into by faith.
2) The NC is invisible, with no one having perfect knowledge of who is in it.

So your question remains...if genuine faith (invisible) enters us into the covenant, how can the composition of the NC be relevant to the real-world application of baptism (visible), when we don't know who is genuinely regenerate?

The last principle connects them:
3) All professions are taken as legitimate, without some serious I Cor. 5 justification against it, and we treat that individual as if we had perfect knowledge of their salvation.

This is simple belief in part of the classic invisible/visible distinction. We address all professors as if they are elect - until shown otherwise. That is why pastors can, and should, address their entire congregations - and each member - as holy, as saints, heirs of good promises, etc.

In fact, a professor's actual status in the NC is only for God to know, and is not relevant to church procedure/policy at all, except when their lack of faith manifests itself in ways deserving excommunication. We know there are wolves, but we don't know who they are. And all members are treated as "innocent" until they prove themselves guilty.

So, that all NC members are elect is entirely relevant.

If that is the case, and we assume a professor's faith is real, and treat him as if we had perfect knowledge that he is a covenant member, then we can apply baptism as a visible sign of the invisible NC and be entirely consistent.

It may turn out in eternity that he was no NC member - but that is on his head, and taking the NC sign without faith will only heap more judgment on him, and and so will his greater exposure to the gospel. The church will not, however, be judged in any way for applying baptism to a professor who showed no outward Biblical signs of being unregenerate. That is what we are to do. This is in the same way that a pastor who addresses a disguised wolf as a saint, holy, saved, etc. will not be judged for it.

Does that satisfy, at least to show that in our view, an all-elect NC actually is relevant to the physical application of baptism? I know you disagree with aspects of it - but we are not internally inconsistent or following non-sequitors.

__________________
Jeremy Gage
First Baptist Church
Durham, NC

"No heart can conceive that treasury of mercies which lies in this one privilege, in having liberty and ability to approach unto God at all times, according to his mind and will." - John Owen

Rich,

I should have read your post in context with your dialog with Chris. I don't know whether that makes a substantial difference in how I understood your post, only that it was more directed at Chris than to Baptists in general.

Yes, you did use provocative language. If it was to solicit a response it accomplished its intent. I only responded to your post because I believe it misrepresented confessional Baptists. Not so much on the facts but the conclusions. If it was simply a response in the never ending litany of baptism posts I would have withheld my opinion. Without tooting my own horn I believe you and I did a yeoman's job of alliterating the differences we face in regards to adult baptism, the nature of the covenant, the significance of the sign etc. Instead of continuing the ad infinitum/ad nauseam back and forth I am quite content to let our theological differences stand on their merits. To counter point my disagreements with your last post will only serve to have you counter in return and I believe that will be covering ground that has changed hands numerous times over many different discussions.

Blessings.

uurrrk.. {pssst..} Vic, I don't think you want to go there. It was mandatory that those baptisms were sans togs, of any kind. Not kidding, its part of the historical record.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Rich,
I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this
In another post you added a similar thought
Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.

Iconoclast,

I don't mean to be the child at the adult table in this long, intelligent thread, (I don't even know how to just quote a portion of someone's post yet) but I must ask you this in how I understand the above post. You said that water baptism is a sign of what has happened inwardly and then said that we paedos would affirm this for the adult...OK, here's my question: If you object IN PRINCIPLE to putting the sign of faith on an infant of believers, why did God command Abraham to do it? If we acknowledge that circumcision was a sign of faith (Rom 4), why is it WRONG to put the sign of faith on a child?

Thanks and I'm enjoying the discussion. You guys are awesome.

Daniel

__________________
Daniel Franzen
Church Creek Presbyterian (PCA)
Charleston, SC

Jeremy,

There's no real connection, however, and this is my point. That you treat a professor with the judgement of charity confirms precisely what I have noted repeatedly. It's actually a form of presumptive regeneration because you are treating a member of your Church as if they are regenerate but, in point of fact, you don't have that information and so you rightly treat the individual as if they are.

On the one hand, a sober Baptist ought to criticize anyone then who would present the facile argument that a Paedobaptist Church knowingly baptizes unregenerate people when they would understand full well that no Church either knowingly does this nor can knowingly do something known only to God.

On the other hand, what you haven't established in this formula is the necessity that connects professors only to this category. I would argue that you are baptizing a person into the Church with a judgement of charity that they are capable of responding to the teachings of Christ and then you make the Word and ordinances available to all indiscriminately.

In point of fact, it would be foolhardy to treat a professor as if you had "perfect knowledge" that they were regenerate (as you put it). Why? What if they were not truly believers when they first professed and were baptized? Don't the Scriptures repeatedly enjoin the believer to make their calling and election sure? Is it not the role of the Church to continue to preach the Word with the belief that even those baptized believers sitting in the pew might be converted to the Gospel if, in fact, they never were to begin with?

Put another way, Reformed Baptists certainly don't require that a professing believer be re-baptized in their Church if they were immersed earlier in life at an age of sufficient mental capacity. Well, what is to give the Church "perfect knowledge" of the circumstances of that individual's baptism or what was taught them? I certainly would never presume to have perfect knowledge of the circumstances of the men and women I teach but I must, nevertheless, teach them as if they can respond to the Gospel and I always ever pray that, if they never believed before, that today might be the day that they hear and believe.

Well, yes, I agree with this and again it only goes to show the limitations of trying to connect election to actual practice. You don't base the baptism upon election but upon desire to be a disciple and then you have a certain expection of fruit and you hope the best for all things. Never, while the person is willing to be taught, do you give up.

What is interesting about your presentation thus far is that there is absolutely nothing that precludes that the children of believers could be given the exact same status. As you note, repeatedly, you're not really saying of your people that you know they are elect or regenerate. You are simply stating that their union with Christ is only for God to know. Welcome to the paedo position.

I don't think you've made it as relevant as you believe. You actually haven't stated anything with respect to how you treat them that necessitates that either the baptism was administered, Word preached, ordinances administered, or discipline initiated on the basis of the persons election. Everything was on the basis of visible profession and willingness/desire to grow.

I think you really need to retreat from the "perfect knowledge" language as you have demonstrated that you don't treat as if you had perfect knowledge. Even in Church discipline the fact that you would pray for a person's restoration would hold out the hope that you have no perfect knowledge but trust that God does.

Once again, something that can be easily said of a child in the paedo schema.

We would not agree with this. In fact, you make my point beautifully about how a Baptist views the ordinance of baptism of saying something about themselves while the Presbyterian says that Baptism is God's declaration of what He promises to do for all who have faith.

You almost present the idea as if the person may simply walk up to the Church and announce: "I am in the New Covenant and elect. I require that you baptize me so that I can declare to the rest of you by my baptism that I have Evangelical faith."

Baptism is something that is done to a person not something that the person performs as the Church looks on. One of my biggest pet peaves is when I see Baptists treat Baptism as if it's their own very personal expression and choose a special place, outside the Church, to celebrate their personal declaration.

I believe Baptism is much more objective and timeless than this and reflects the Scriptures that see Baptism as something administered by the Church and announced to the individual. Yes, it is personal in one respect. The devotion I draw from my Baptism, in fact, is that I believe that God made a promise to me in my Baptism. The Church was the ministerial agency that announced that Promise but it was backed up by the authority of God who said to me: "As surely as you feel the waters washing the filth of your flesh, so will your sins be washed away if you trust in Christ."

When I was immersed as an adult, I have to say that I am not entirely convinced I even had the first clue about the Gospel at the Church I attended. If Baptism was my declaration of my faith and union with Christ then I suppose I would have to agree with those who believe Baptism has to be performed repeatedly until one is absolutely certain that the faith possessed at the time of Baptism was true.

But, in point of fact, because God was at my baptism and declared the promise through the minister, I can trust the Promise. I am able to know that I have faith and God and so I look at my baptism where the Promise announced salvation to me if I simply cling to Christ. In other words, you want baptism to look at me but, instead, I look away from me to my baptism where the benefits of Christ are promised on condition of faith.

Note the bolded and underlined highlights. Once again, it is crystal clear that the difference between the two positions is WHO is doing the "talking", WHO is making statements. Is it fundamentally a heavenly, gospel declaration respecting a promise God makes to save believers? Or, as in this answer, is it fundamentally a human-statement?

Does baptism announce monergistic salvation? Who is doing the talking?