A Case for Infant Baptism for Reformed Baptists

[Scott Bushey]

Wait! Scott said paedos aren't allowed in here!

Yea, that was dumb. I didn't realize that the thread was started by a Presbyterian. Oh well, add that one to the archives of stupid statements by SB.

Love the new tongue-goofy smiley!

 

[elnwood]

Elnwood,

The ESV (and other trnalations) don't capitalize *ANY* of the "h's."
So, if we went to the better translation it wouldn't tell us anything about wether the he was Jesus or not.

Granted. But Matthew Henry and John Gill (who must be reliable since you use cited him in an earlier argument, right? ) say that the sanctification refers to the apostate, not to Christ himself. Which was the point.

The elect will not be judged with "fury" and the juding you're referring to is not "terrible" and it does not "consume the adversary." Try again.

You're mixing up passages. Hebrews 10:26-27 is a hypothetical, "if we go on sinning ... there is an expectation of judgment and the fury of fire which will consume the adversaries."

Before you jumped to this verse, you were talking about the certainty that "God will judge his people" in Hebrews 10:30. But it does not say that with certainty God will consume his people.

The logic is as follows:
1) God will certainly judge his people.
2) If His people continue in sin (hypothetical)
3) they will be judged and consumed.

Where we differ is whether 2) is an empty set or contains New Covenant breakers.

As for the rest of my post, I'll assume you grant those points.

Sure, if you want to artificially inflate your ego, go ahead. But I didn't leave any points unaddressed.

 

[elnwood]

No, that's alright. I already dismantled his objection.

Not really. I still object, so it's not dismantled.

 

[Davidius]

Not really. I still object, so it's not dismantled.

The argument may or may not have actually dismantled but whether or not it was is definitely not contingent upon your objection.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My point, though, was trying to understand the "other" side and that would be hard to do on a board where everyone espouses my own view. Besides, the unfortunate thing about many evangelical boards is that many people don't know why they have the view they have. Many churches don't seem to teach basic hermeneutics, so their members don't have any idea how to even study to know what God has to say on a subject. (A woman on another board told me that Romans 9:20 was about being content with our own gifts and calling!) And, furthermore, it would seem that plenty of broadly evangelical boards include Presbyterians, Episcopalian/Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists, who all practice paedobaptism, so I might have good company in both camps!

Right. But my point is that, on a Reformed board, Baptists are always going to be in pretty small company - unless it's primarily for Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists rightly feel more comfortable theologically with Reformed Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed than they do with folks from Calvaray Chapel or Saddleback. That is, until we start discussing who the proper subjects of baptism are.

I'm not sure that "debate and discuss" means that sarcasm is appropriate, but I read it sometimes, as well as portrayal of credos as less logical thinkers or less willing to interact honestly with the texts, when it is possible that someone might hear all the arguments and still be honestly unpersuaded.

And we believe they are incorrect and interpreting the text improperly and being less consistent with the Scriptures or we would be Reformed Baptists. The only other conclusion would be for us to say: Well if it's true for you then that's OK. I may get along with a Reformed Baptist but I still believe the cognitive rest they have on the subject in un-Biblical and I rest on the Scriptures. I would expect no less from the Baptists on the board for me.

Also, one of the methods that a person uses in a debate is a reductio ad absurdum. It is used in the Scriptures as well. It demonstrates the absurdity of a position by mocking the outcome of its logic followed through. As long as it's not a straw man then the fact that it "bites" is the point. It's supposed to shake the person up and get them to re-think. This is not an inconsequential issue after all. We really believe you guys have got this all wrong that you withold a birth right from your children. I expect no less passion from a Reformed Baptist on this issue if they believe in Truth.

When I said I had a thin skin, I didn't mean that I couldn't stand when my argument was proven wrong. I meant I don't like sarcasm or the grand lumping of all Baptists into the dispensational-pretrib-alter call basket. It really isn't a good argument for the Scriptural support of paedobaptism to say something like, "mormons and JW's both practice credobaptism!" yet it's been done. At the puritanboard.

Yes. Both sides are guilty of this. I've even been guilty of it. I'm not going to defend it. There is a place for being uncomfortable however. What I appreciate about this place is that it's "safe". I can make mistakes here and learn from them and sharpen my arguments and repent when I'm a bonehead. It helps me in polite conversation when I'm actually among a body of believers that I'm celebrating the Lord's Supper with. Think of this place like a sandbox to refine your ability to defend something because most people don't know how to debate without getting emotional and this helps refine that out of you.

I agree: it was the old stuff that convinced me I don't want to participate, just read others' posts and try to learn from them!

But I see that chiming in here got the thread bumped and maybe the OP will continue it.
here's hoping!

Yeah, especially since Dad Bushey allowed me to post in here again!

I'm not trying to tell you that your concerns are completely unfounded but do try to look at them from a different angle. I am very strident in this board because I see myself as very sharply warning brothers and sisters of a serious danger in their theology. Maybe I'm a bulldog sometimes but I've gotten better at just challenging people and expressing my thoughts without always going for the jugular of the other guy.

In the end, however, don't ever think that this Baptism thing is a trivial thing and the stakes in this debate are pretty important.

In fact, they are so important that I would venture to guess that your Church would not allow my son to commune at the Lord's Table with you until he is baptized as a Confessing adult. We may cause you Baptists some discomfort here but at least we don't bar you from membership or the Table of the Lord and say: "You are not a real Brother."

 

[elnwood]

Paul, why are you so concerned about asserting your victory? You declare it over and over in every single post, and it seems to me that you are more concerned about "winning" the argument and humiliating your opponent than about understanding the other position and coming to the most biblical view.

It can often be edifying and enjoyable to discuss theology with brothers in Christ, and I often do, but I find your tone condescending and pugnacious such that I have no desire to continue this discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Paul, why are you so concerned about asserting your victory? You declare it over and over in every single post, and it seems to me that you are more concerned about "winning" the argument and humiliating your opponent than about understanding the other position and coming to the most biblical view.

It can often be edifying and enjoyable to discuss theology with brothers in Christ, and I often do, but I find your tone condescending and pugnacious such that I have no desire to continue this discussion.

Don,

Paul took time to put forward arguments, which you never refuted.

Then when he attempted to answer and close any objections you accuse him of just trying to be right.

If you do not wish to DEBATE the issue then that is fine. Nobody is twisting your arm. But refrain from pretending you're taking some sort of moral high road in this fashion. To call a man's argument fallacious without offering any rebuttal is offensive to those of us who are seeking Truth.

If you believe Paul was harsh then I would prefer you just be magnanimous about it and say: "I concede the point although I wish you would be more edifying."

 

[elnwood]

Don,

Paul took time to put forward arguments, which you never refuted.

Then when he attempted to answer and close any objections you accuse him of just trying to be right.

If you do not wish to DEBATE the issue then that is fine. Nobody is twisting your arm. But refrain from pretending you're taking some sort of moral high road in this fashion. To call a man's argument fallacious without offering any rebuttal is offensive to those of us who are seeking Truth.

If you believe Paul was harsh then I would prefer you just be magnanimous about it and say: "I concede the point although I wish you would be more edifying."

I did refute the arguments. It doesn't mean that you or Paul will be convinced by them, but if you read my posts, he did not post any argument that I have not addressed. So I have nothing more to say.

I do wish to debate, but I will only debate in a spirit of Christian gentleness and humility. I think Paul Manata's conclusion is incorrect, but I never called his argument fallacious (there's a difference).

I apologize if I offended you or anyone else by not continuing the discussion and giving another rebuttal. I am not trying to take the moral high ground, and I don't like being accused of doing so. I am being honest in what offends me, and the manner in which many paedobaptists on this board flippantly argue against credobaptists, including associating them with Arminians, dispensationalists, and even cults, offends me.

I have made this known many times, and rather than receiving apologies, the insults and accusations continue. I have better things to do with my time than continuing an argument with someone whom I believe holds me in contempt. So please pardon me if I do not wish to continue this discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Roger Don.

Like I said, you don't have to post. Where I have insulted you, I apologize. I do think you need to parse between being actually insulted in your person and having your position ridiculed. Those are different things though they might feel like the same thing.

I merely offered that you had not rebutted anything by merely claiming rebuttal. If you feel your job was satisfactory then we'll let the reader determine for themselves.

 

[elnwood]

Roger Don.

Like I said, you don't have to post. Where I have insulted you, I apologize. I do think you need to parse between being actually insulted in your person and having your position ridiculed. Those are different things though they might feel like the same thing.

I merely offered that you had not rebutted anything by merely claiming rebuttal. If you feel your job was satisfactory then we'll let the reader determine for themselves.

I accept your apology and your goodwill.

I do distinguish between being insulted personally (which has occurred) and having my position ridiculed (which has also occurred, obviously). The first, I think you would agree, is unacceptable, but the second I believe also to be unacceptable. I don't believe Christians ought to ridicule another Christian's position because it is insulting to the person.

There is a difference between "I think your position misunderstands the continuity of the covenant of grace" and "your position is ignorant, and held by Jehovah's Witnesses." There's a difference between "I don't think your post addressed this particular point" and "I peppered your argument with a plethora of bombs." There's a difference between "P.S. Check your spelling" (which I wrote to Paul because it would provide more clarity to his posts, and I was worried that he was posting in haste) and "You're such a bad speller. What kind of school did you go to?"

Granted, the line can be difficult to discern at times, but I have tried to the utmost to do the former, and not the latter. I do not want to needlessly offend any paedobaptists. God knows that many credobaptists have called paedobaptists "papists" and worse things, and I do not wish to carry on that tradition.

We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and while we can (and ought to) respectfully disagree in our deeply held positions, I don't think ridiculing the other position in a public forum is respectful to those who hold opposing views. There is room, of course, for mild jesting, but it frequently goes far beyond this, and we should not presume to jest with anyone unless we know that they won't take offense (and certainly not if we know they will or have taken offense).

 

[Scott Bushey]

Unless anyone has anything left to say, I believe this one is done.......

Closing.