A couple of baptism questions

[Notthemama1984]

I have a few questions that I hope someone can answer.

1) If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?

2) If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?


I ask out of ignorance.

 

[larryjf]

1) If Baptism is the new circumcision, then why do we baptize females as well as males?

Because the new dispensation has expanded to every nation, and under the expansive nature of the dispensation there is no distinction between male and female in this respect. That's why in the context of baptism we read...


Gal 3:27-28 - For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

2) If the Lord's Supper is the new Passover, then why are some against paedo-communion?

What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?

 

[Notthemama1984]

I am not sure of the exact age that children partook of the Passover, but I do know that children were active. For example, the oldest child would stand up at a specific point and ask the father why they observed the Passover. This would prompt the father to retell the story of the Passover to everyone.

This is what I am going on.

 

[larryjf]

I am not sure of the exact age that children partook of the Passover, but I do know that children were active. For example, the oldest child would stand up at a specific point and ask the father why they observed the Passover. This would prompt the father to retell the story of the Passover to everyone.

This is what I am going on.

And during the Lord's supper our children should ask what it means as well. And we should explain to them the sacrament. But teaching someone what the sacrament means through questions is not the same as partaking of the actual sacrament.

 

[Prufrock]

What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?

Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?

 

[Hippo]

The WCF states that:

"The sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new."

Is it possible that the passover meal was not a sacrament in the same way that the Lords Supper is, i,e, did it dispenses grace to the recipient in the same way that the Lords Supper does or is such a view unconfessional?

 

[Notthemama1984]

If we determine that the Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover, then how can paedo-baptists use the argument for infant baptism based on the fact that baptism is the same as circumcision? In my eyes I see how they are either the same or different. I cannot make the argument that they are the same, but also different at the same time. Would this not create a contradiction?

 

[larryjf]

What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?

Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?

I never said that they didn't.
I wanted to know why he thought they did.
Certainly they participated in parts of it, as our infants participate in parts of the Lord's Supper...asking questions and being taught. But did an infant eat the meat and drink the wine?

I don't know if they did or didn't, i simply would like some evidence to support that they did if that's a presumption that's being used in the discussion.

 

[larryjf]

The Galatians 3 passage that i quoted shows that in the context of baptism there is no distinction between male and female. So in that sense the NT itself broadened the sacrament to include women.

Regarding the Lord's Supper we are told...

1 Cor 11:27-29 - Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So the if in the OT infants completely partook of the Passover, the NT does limit the sacrament to those who can examine themselves and discern the body.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?

Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?

Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.

Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If we determine that the Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover, then how can paedo-baptists use the argument for infant baptism based on the fact that baptism is the same as circumcision? In my eyes I see how they are either the same or different. I cannot make the argument that they are the same, but also different at the same time. Would this not create a contradiction?

The Lord's Supper is not the same as the Passover. One is a sign of the Exodus while the other is a sign of the NC in Christ's Blood.

Also, Baptism is not, precisely speaking, Circumcision. In substance they signify and seal the same thing but that does not make them equivalent.

 

[Notthemama1984]

What makes you think that infants partook of the Passover and ate the meat, and drank the wine?

Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?

Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.

Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.

Reference?

Everything I am seeing currently is that the Passover was a family meal. I am not seeing anything that states that children did not eat. In fact does not the Bible say something along the lines that the entire sacrifice should be eaten and none left until morning? Would this not indicate a family meal? I do not know too many men who could eat an entire lamb by themselves. Sorry for not giving the reference. This is all off top of my head in between a few tasks I am working on.

 

[Prufrock]

Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.

Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.

Thanks, Rich. Does the work to which you are referring discuss the origins of this practice?

The law required males to bring offerings for the Passover, but it certainly didn't prohibit women and children from partaking in the meal though, right? Thinking strictly of the first Passover in particular -- all were involved. The whole idea is one lamb per house, or family.

Could you post more summary from the book to which you are referring that discusses this?

 

[larryjf]

If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
(Exo 12:48)


It's interesting that the stranger must have all of his males circumcised, yet only he would come and keep the Passover.
Does this infer that his household...he and his children...would be circumcised but only he would be permitted at the Passover table?

To which is added...

There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you."
(Exo 12:49)


And here we are told that they are to take "according to what each can eat" which would seem to exclude infants.

And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take according to the number of persons; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb.
(Exo 12:4)

 

[Notthemama1984]

maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.

 

[Pergamum]

The Galatians 3 passage that i quoted shows that in the context of baptism there is no distinction between male and female. So in that sense the NT itself broadened the sacrament to include women.

Regarding the Lord's Supper we are told...

1 Cor 11:27-29 - Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

So the if in the OT infants completely partook of the Passover, the NT does limit the sacrament to those who can examine themselves and discern the body.

Larry;

If Galatians 3:27-28 teaches that baptism is now open to women, does it not also teach that baptism is for those who have put on Christ and is one in Christ Jesus?

 

[larryjf]

maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.

And as the Corinthian passage points out, young children aren't excluded from the table of the Lord based on age either. They must be able to examine themselves and discern the body. There's no reason some young children couldn't do that.

But "paedocommunion" is about infants partaking, not children. And the OP asked:

why are some against paedo-communion?

 

[larryjf]

Larry;

If Galatians 3:27-28 teaches that baptism is now open to women, does it not also teach that baptism is for those who have put on Christ and is one in Christ Jesus?

Well...let's see...

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It says those who were baptized have put on Christ. If you are suggesting that one puts on Christ and is then baptized i can't see how you get it from the text.

 

[Pergamum]

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?

 

[charliejunfan]

1. circumcision and baptism are both the entry covenant signs, it should not be looked at as if one replaced the other.

2. communion is signifying much more than the passover meal (it signifies us being priests and us sacrificing Jesus Christ as our perfect passover lamb), but basically there were many meals in the OT so it is not possible to compare it the same way with every meal in the OT, therefore we go by the warning of being able to examine ones self when it comes to the Lord's supper.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just curious, why do you think they didn't? We are told that the house ate the Passover. Why would we think children were left out of this?

Am I mistaken here?

Check the Law of God. Only adult males were commanded to attend the feast. Women and children were not required to attend.

Edersheim notes this point well. Christ's attendance at the passover is when He was 12. It was common for Jewish males to attend the feast the year prior to their Bar Mitsvah where it would be thereafter mandatory for them to attend the feast of the Passover.

Reference?

Everything I am seeing currently is that the Passover was a family meal. I am not seeing anything that states that children did not eat. In fact does not the Bible say something along the lines that the entire sacrifice should be eaten and none left until morning? Would this not indicate a family meal? I do not know too many men who could eat an entire lamb by themselves. Sorry for not giving the reference. This is all off top of my head in between a few tasks I am working on.

What exactly is it that you are "seeing" re: the Passover? Do you know where the Passover was celebrated? It was not celebrated throughout Israel but at the Sanctuary in a central location during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Only the males were required to make the journey per the Law of God. Folks didn't just hop into their minivans and drive to Jerusalem but it was a multi-day journey for many.

Exodus 23:14-17

14(N) "Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. 15(O) You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of(P) Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt.(Q) None shall appear before me empty-handed. 16You shall keep(R) the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the(S) Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. 17(T) Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord GOD.

Exodus 34:23-24

23(AP) Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. 24For I will(AQ) cast out nations before you and(AR) enlarge your borders;(AS) no one shall covet your land, when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

Further, when Christ sent his Disciples to prepare a room for the celebration of the Passover was He violating what you've seen about the nature of the Passover in that He celebrated it with men who were not His blood relatives? In fact, hospitality was practiced by thousands in Jerusalem each Passover as hundreds of thousands of sojourners would descend upon the city to celebrate the Passover. Each household would celebrate the meal and it is hardly difficult for a room full of men to finish off a lamb.

Here is Edersheim

The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
Alfred Edersheim
1883

Book II
FROM THE MANGER IN BETHLEHEM TO THE BAPTISM IN JORDAN

Chapter 10
IN THE HOUSE OF HIS HEAVENLY, AND IN THE HOME OF HIS EARTHLY FATHER
(St. Luke 2:41-52.)​

Once only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ's early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there.1 It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of 'our feet' standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: 'Let us go into the house of Jehovah.' They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But 'glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God' - in the past, and in the near future 'the thrones of David' were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.2

In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called 'a son of the Commandment,' or 'of the Torah.'3 But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.4 It was in accordance with this custom, that,5 on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the 'company' of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont6 to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,7 Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.

1. Ps. ixxxvii. 5-7.

2. Ps. cxxii. 1-5.

3. Ab. v. 21.

4. Yoma 82 a.

5. Comp. also Maimonides, Hilkh. Chag. ii. The common statement, that Jesus went to the Temple because He was 'a Son of the Commandment,' is obviously erroneous. All the more remarkable, on the other hand, is St. Luke's accurate knowledge of Jewish customs, and all the more antithetic to the mythical theory the circumstance, that he places this remarkable event in the twelfth year of Jesus' life, and not when He became 'a Son of the Law.'

6. We take as the more correct reading that which puts the participle in the present tense (anabainontwn), and not in the aorist.

7. Jer Kidd. 61 c.

 

[larryjf]

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?

One can not put on Christ and be lost.

One can be baptized and be lost.
One who professes faith in Christ, goes to church, etc. can be lost (Jn 15).

The passage speaks of as many as were baptized have put on Christ...i don't think it is a reference to time frame. In other words, the scenario could be baptized as an infant, put on Christ as an adult.

However, in the immediate context it certainly is addressing those first generation Christians who came to faith and were baptized as adults...since they weren't raised in a Christian family.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?

I know Larry answered this but I'm not sure how this is relevant to your position since your Confession does not believe that the ordinance actually joins a person to the New Covenant nor does it unite to Christ.

Neither do Reformed Confessions teach this.

 

[Pergamum]

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?

One can not put on Christ and be lost.

One can be baptized and be lost.
One who professes faith in Christ, goes to church, etc. can be lost (Jn 15).

The passage speaks of as many as were baptized have put on Christ...i don't think it is a reference to time frame. In other words, the scenario could be baptized as an infant, put on Christ as an adult.

However, in the immediate context it certainly is addressing those first generation Christians who came to faith and were baptized as adults...since they weren't raised in a Christian family.

And yet Reformed Christians believe that there is the one and the same Church from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

If they were already members of the Church by virtue of their circumcision, why then do they need to be baptized into the Church again?

Paedobaptists accuse Baptists of "throwing out" children from membership in the church, but is not everyone "thrown out" if those previously in membership by circumcision need to be baptized into membership with the coming of the New Covenant?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So can any who put on Christ then in baptism then be lost?

One can not put on Christ and be lost.

One can be baptized and be lost.
One who professes faith in Christ, goes to church, etc. can be lost (Jn 15).

The passage speaks of as many as were baptized have put on Christ...i don't think it is a reference to time frame. In other words, the scenario could be baptized as an infant, put on Christ as an adult.

However, in the immediate context it certainly is addressing those first generation Christians who came to faith and were baptized as adults...since they weren't raised in a Christian family.

And yet Reformed Christians believe that there is the one and the same Church from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

If they were already members of the Church by virtue of their circumcision, why then do they need to be baptized into the Church again?

Paedobaptists accuse Baptists of "throwing out" children from membership in the church, but is not everyone "thrown out" if those previously in membership by circumcision need to be baptized into membership with the coming of the New Covenant?

Singular identification within the Church in no small part. There is one faith, one baptism for Jew and Gentile.

 

[Pergamum]

Rich, could you explain further - your reply was too concise for the thick-headed. Expand this a bit for my benefit.

 

[Herald]

maybe exclude infants, but small children can still eat.

1689 LBC 30.7,8

7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )

8. All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )

​

Age is not a requisite requirement for participation in the Lord's Supper - belief is. Additionally, the unbeliever is incapable of examining himself (1 Cor. 11:28) since he is already dead in sin (Eph. 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14). I require the ability to articulate one's faith in Christ before the Lord's Supper will be administered to that person.

 

[charliejunfan]

but we still don't actually know....just sayin...

 

[Herald]

but we still don't actually know....just sayin...

No, we don't know who is definitively saved, but the elder is to uphold the intent of scripture. We act to the best of our ability and the wisdom that God provides.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One can not put on Christ and be lost.

One can be baptized and be lost.
One who professes faith in Christ, goes to church, etc. can be lost (Jn 15).

The passage speaks of as many as were baptized have put on Christ...i don't think it is a reference to time frame. In other words, the scenario could be baptized as an infant, put on Christ as an adult.

However, in the immediate context it certainly is addressing those first generation Christians who came to faith and were baptized as adults...since they weren't raised in a Christian family.

And yet Reformed Christians believe that there is the one and the same Church from the Old Testament and the New Testament.

If they were already members of the Church by virtue of their circumcision, why then do they need to be baptized into the Church again?

Paedobaptists accuse Baptists of "throwing out" children from membership in the church, but is not everyone "thrown out" if those previously in membership by circumcision need to be baptized into membership with the coming of the New Covenant?

Singular identification within the Church in no small part. There is one faith, one baptism for Jew and Gentile.

Think of the Book of Galatians: part of the problem with the Gentiles is envy of the Jews that is a point of leverage for the Judaizers to cause them to be jealous for their false view of circumcision.

Imagine how difficult it would be for the Church if there had continued to be a point of separation where the Covenant sign for inclusion was different for two sets of people. You really would have a party for the circumcision and for the non-circumcision. Now, you could constantly explain that we're really one in Christ to everybody but there is something to be said, pedagogically, for everyone to participate in the same rite.

There's certainly more to the equation than just this point but Paul does underline the Gentiles' common possession by noting that there is one baptism.