The Case for "Believer's Only" Baptism

[ChristianTrader]

So, you know that Lydia had children (and infants) how? It seems that paedos assume infants to be there while we credos assume infants to not be there.

Actually one group assumes continuity and the other assumes discontinuity just cause.

CT

 

[Davidius]

So, you know that Lydia had children (and infants) how? It seems that paedos assume infants to be there while we credos assume infants to not be there.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating that the same terminology is used to describe those household baptisms that was used in the Old Testament to describe the circumcision of, watch this now, not just infants but households. So whether or not Lydia had any small children, the continuity of the application of the covenant sign to all members of the household is starkly evident here.

 

[Calvibaptist]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just stating that the same terminology is used to describe those household baptisms that was used in the Old Testament to describe the circumcision of, watch this now, not just infants but households. So whether or not Lydia had any small children, the continuity of the application of the covenant sign to all members of the household is starkly evident here.

So be consistent. Only apply baptism to male children. But paedos change the word "households" in the case of baptism to mean female children as well, which is discontinuity, not continuity.

 

[blhowes]

I know its just a matter of time, but I need to get back to work now. Can somebody contact me when you've reached a consensus?
Thanks,

 

[Davidius]

So be consistent. Only apply baptism to male children.

Were it not for the apostolic example of baptizing women and other didactic passages such as Paul's statement that there is no longer male or female in Christ, his description of the passage through the Red Sea (by males and females) as a baptism, and Peter's description of the passage of Noah and his family through the flood as a baptism, I would.

 

[Pilgrim]

As Adam stated earlier, part of the problem is the dearth of explicit examples one way or the other in the NT, like "they then brought their infant daughter to be baptized" or "young Timothy was then baptized upon profession of his faith."

I finally accepted the paedo arguments and joined an OPC church last year. But to this day I wonder if it's just because I couldn't find a baptistic alternative in my area. I can see the logic behind the Reformed position, but I still have doubts sometimes as to whether it is biblically warranted. With all the reading I've done pro and con on this subject, at this point, I can probably argue both sides equally well.

In my mind at least, the following passage from Acts 2, which is often cited by paedos actually provides some challenges for paedos (see bolded sections especially). I'm not saying they have been handled, just that I haven't seen it.

38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Good post brother Chris.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Adam, thinking along the sentiment above, if the Reformed doctrine of peadobaptism isn't true, don't you think the Jewish believers of the day deserved a PLAIN and easy to see explanation as to why their children were no longer brought into covenant by virtue of their own profession?

I think

Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

and

Romans 9:6-8 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

and

Galatians 3:7-9 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.

should be sufficient. Notice that these passages deal with the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant which the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) would signify and seal. Notice that they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone. Notice that they are given to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

 

[Davidius]

Notice that these passages deal with the blessings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant which the sign of the covenant (circumcision or baptism) would signify and seal. Notice that they are not passed down to physical descendants of anyone. Notice that they are given to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

Are you saying that circumcision was only given to those who were of the faith of Abraham?

 

[Philip A]

CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31....

The reason we don't recognize your argument is the same reason that we haven't beaten our swords into plowshares, and we still separate wolves from lambs in the zoo. Its the same reason that there are still tares among the wheat, and bad fish caught up in the net with the good fish. Old Testament prophecies about the coming kingdom are all both already and not yet fulfilled; this is OT 101, and even Baptists understand it; it's a pattern that all orthodox believers understand. The reason we don't take this argument seriously is because you've yet to give us a good reason why the already/not yet principle of the kingdom applies everywhere else but here. Not to mention the other occurences of "New Covenant" prophecy that specifically include children.

Don't assume that we're ignoring the argument. In fact, if you'll go back far enough in the archives, you'll find me beating all of these paedo's over the head with this passage too. I used it all the time. There's nothing wrong with what you say about the passage. The problem is the when of the passage.

This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.

Oh, you caught us! That's right, we paedobaptists don't really believe the bible anyway. We just blindly follow our creeds and confessions

 

[Philip A]

I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...

To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a PLAIN and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?

...

Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.

Adam,
The New Testament tells parents to disciple their children. (Eph. 6:4)
The New Testament tells the church to baptize disciples. (Matt 28:19)

It really is all that easy. We'd never need to talk about the covenant, sacraments, means of grace, and sign and substance if there weren't people questioning the doctrine.

Why in the world would any parent (particularly a Jewish parent in the time of the New Testament) not think of their children an disciples? If this seems strange, veiled, or difficult to us, it's because we're two thousand years removed from that time and culture. The baggage of all of these cultural assumptions we bring to the argument is huge. The reason for all the deep theological studies, lengthly debates, and entire books, is to get us to see the situation in some way other than a modern American evangelical would by default.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Are you saying that circumcision was only given to those who were of the faith of Abraham?

No, I am saying that the New Testament sign of baptism was only given to those who believe. This is the advancing of God's plan through the New Covenant.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Oh, you caught us! That's right, we paedobaptists don't really believe the bible anyway. We just blindly follow our creeds and confessions

Actually, Philip, I was the one being accused of not using my Bible. That is why I made the comment. I was told that we credos just blindly follow our prejudice without having Scriptural support.

Honestly, sometimes in this discussion I feel like I am debating an Arminian who keeps trying to score a point by quoting John 3:16 as if I'd never read that before. I'm sure you feel that way as well. We all have our biblical reasons for our views. I certainly don't think you or anyone else blindly follows creeds or confessions.

 

[tellville]

Can you name me one paedobaptist on this board who does not also believe in believer's baptism?

You know what I mean

It's like the term "classical music". Sure, it can (and does technically) mean the classical era of music, but in everyday conversation when I say I listen to "classical music" people assume everything from Bach to John Williams. Just as when somebody says they believe in "Believers Baptism" in everyday conversation it is assumed to be the credobaptist position as opposed to the padeobaptist position.

But I appreciate your attempt at clarity.

 

[Philip A]

Is it a "new" covenant? If it is, then why would there be discontiniuty? Does new mean discontiniuty? I also find it very unfair to label this "dispensational" the bogey-man word amongst us all.

It absolutely is a new covenant. No question about it. But the question is, new in comparison to what? We don't have to look very far to find out: "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke". Just to be clear, that's the Sinai covenant. Paul's whole point in arguing for justification by faith apart from the works of the law is to point out the discontinuity between Moses and Abraham, and the continuity between Abraham and the New Covenant. "This is what I mean: the law (Mosaic Covenant), which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant (Abrahamic) previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void."

So yes, we're under a New Covenant, and thank God for that. No sacrifices, no levitical law - yup, sounds like something new to me! But despite all of that newness, there are still some things that are the same. God putting the law in our minds and in our hearts and forgiving our iniquity are certainly not new; it was that way under Moses, and it was that way under Abraham. What else about the "New Covenant" is the same as under Moses and Abraham? "Their children shall be as they were of old." (Jer 30:20)

So you'd better agree with me, or you're a dispensationalist....

 

[Calvibaptist]

Adam,
Why in the world would any parent (particularly a Jewish parent in the time of the New Testament) not think of their children an disciples? If this seems strange, veiled, or difficult to us, it's because we're two thousand years removed from that time and culture. The baggage of all of these cultural assumptions we bring to the argument is huge. The reason for all the deep theological studies, lengthly debates, and entire books, is to get us to see the situation in some way other than a modern American evangelical would by default.

But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.

 

[KMK]

I think the word "every" here [Mr. Weiland is referring to Gen 17:12,13 which says, "And every man-child of eight days old among you shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised so my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant...] means "every" and not "some" for the context tells us that even slaves, and the children of slaves in the house of Abraham were to be circumcised.

I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.

I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV.

Originally posted by Me Died Blue:

One necessary clarification here from the paedo view is that baptism (or circumcision) itself does not actually bring the children of believers into the visible covenant, which they are already in from birth. Rather, the sign serves as the commanded recognition of that status by the parents and the Church.

Then why does Mr. Weiland write:

Children in the OT were circumcised and *brought into* the Covenant when they were 8 days old.

I would agree that *some* of the children in the OT *received an external sign.*

 

[Calvibaptist]

I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.

I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV.

I think to clarify, you are asking how some (male) becomes every (male and female).

 

[Davidius]

I understand that the command was to circumcise *every* man child. But that means that only *some* children were actually circumcised. You say that "the children of slaves were to be circumcised." But surely you mean *some* of the children of slaves were to be circumcised.

I am still left in the dark as to how you get from *some* infants in the OT received the sign and *every* infant in the NT receives the sign. Once again, I am not attacking anyone, I am simply wanting to understand the Paedo's POV.

Hey Ken,

I provided a short answer to this question earlier in the thread. I'll quote it here:

Were it not for the apostolic example of baptizing women and other didactic passages such as Paul's statement that there is no longer male or female in Christ, his description of the passage through the Red Sea (by males and females) as a baptism, and Peter's description of the passage of Noah and his family through the flood as a baptism, I would [only believe that infant males should be baptized].

 

[aleksanderpolo]

Were it not for the apostolic example of baptizing women and other didactic passages such as Paul's statement that there is no longer male or female in Christ, his description of the passage through the Red Sea (by males and females) as a baptism, and Peter's description of the passage of Noah and his family through the flood as a baptism, I would [only believe that infant males should be baptized].

Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)

If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Josh

Pastor Doug lists why I cannot stop being a Credo, and why it seems plainly stated to me that baptism is indeed only for confessing believers.

But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Actually one group assumes continuity and the other assumes discontinuity just cause.

CT

Actually all groups have some discontinuity. It just depends at what level. That is one reason why theonomy is argued about so much.

Just a few points...

Circumcision was done away with, for Paul said it availed to nothing now in Galatians.


When circumcision is spoken about it never is said to be replaced by Baptism or that would have been expounded on I am sure. Paul was very thorough in Galatians.

God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation" (Gal 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because is baptism the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)

If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.

I am sorry but you are making no sense to me.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Jer 31 has been brought up repeatedly, the question is, is Jer 31 completely fulfilled now? If so, we should only baptize the elect, (know of anyone whom we are 100% sure is one of the elect?), and since not all professors of faith are elect, we shouldn't baptize any at all. We should also remove Sunday School or any classes in church (Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord.)

If Jer 31 is not completely fulfilled now, then I don't see how this passage has anything to do with whether infants of believers should be baptized or not.

That's real insightful, except that Acts 2 is often brought up (as well as Genesis 17 when talking about whom circumcision (and now baptism) should have been applied to. Since Genesis 17 wasn't fulfilled at the time, why bring it into the discussion of baptism? Since Acts 2 has an "already/not yet" aspect to it, why use it to discuss baptism?

The reason is that the question involves who is actually in the covenant. Who is the covenant made with? Dispensationalists point to Jeremiah 17 and say, "See, physical Israel is who the New Covenant is made with so there has to be a fulfillment of land promises to them." We all rightly point out that Paul says that physical Israel was never in view, but Spiritual Israel, those who are of faith. Why do paedos suddenly want to then ignore that passage when dealing with the sign of the covenant when they slobber all over it when arguing against Dispensationalists?

BTW, I did not see anyone discuss my point that, according to Galatians 3, all the promises to the seed are found in Christ and that, therefore, the blessings (and the sign) are only to those found in Christ.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Josh

Pastor Doug lists why I cannot stop being a Credo, and why it seems plainly stated to me that baptism is indeed only for confessing believers.

But this is precisely the point a lot of the New Testament epistles were making. Jewish believers were wondering why all the Jews (who supposedly were already in the covenant) were not disciples. What happened to the passing down of blessings through physical birth? Paul, in many of his letters stresses to those out of a Jewish background that the promises are not passed down to physical descendants, but to those who are of the faith of Abraham.

If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.

These parents did assume their children were automatically in the covenant. Paul corrected their assumptions by bringing faith into the argument.

Since one has always been able to be in the covenant and then show themselves to be unregenerate, how is this a counter to the old way?

CT

 

[ReformedWretch]

CT, you're going to have to clarify this-

If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.

 

[Davidius]

BTW, I did not see anyone discuss my point that, according to Galatians 3, all the promises to the seed are found in Christ and that, therefore, the blessings (and the sign) are only to those found in Christ.

What Paul said in Galatians 3 wasn't anything new, unless you're a dispensationalist (which it seems like you may still be, at least a little bit, according to your profile info). Therefore, if your interpretation is true, then it was wrong for believers in the Old Testament to circumcise their children, because many of them didn't have the blessings of Christ (see Hermonta's statement about Abraham, who gave his son Ishmael the sign of God's covenant even after being told that Ishmael wasn't going to make the covenant with him.).

Perhaps no one answered it before because we assume around here that dispensationalism isn't an acceptable Reformed hermeneutic. If salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT, then Paul's discussion of spiritual blessings and who gets them has nothing to do with water baptism. It's nothing more than a rebuke of those who think they are entitled to something because of a sacrament.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Again, this argument wins me over completely!

Dispensationalists point to Jeremiah 17 and say, "See, physical Israel is who the New Covenant is made with so there has to be a fulfillment of land promises to them." We all rightly point out that Paul says that physical Israel was never in view, but Spiritual Israel, those who are of faith. Why do paedos suddenly want to then ignore that passage when dealing with the sign of the covenant when they slobber all over it when arguing against Dispensationalists?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

If someone made this statement to Abraham, what would he have said? He would probably make mention of Ishmael.


CT

He would indeed, because God had just told him that Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant.
'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "'
Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

 

[ReformedWretch]

Can I make a request that EVERYONE stop calling ANYONE dispensational please?