non dignus
Puritan Board Sophomore
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised..."
Acts 2:38
Acts 2:38
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised..."
Acts 2:38
This title was suggested to me in support of credo but it's written by paedobaptists, Baptism in the Early Church by Hendrik Stander and Johanes Louw.
If you're looking for answers try Reformed Reader.
The Jews back at Pentecost would have baptized their infant by intuition too. They might not have a highly developed covenant theology at that time, but they had understood the covenant of grace this way for more than a thousand years, that their children are part of the covenant community. There would be riot if now in the New Covenant their children are excluded.
Susan, remember the apostles view the New Covenant in light of their understanding of the Covenant of Grace established with Abraham, not the other way round. So, you should probably study the Covenant of Grace in the OT first in order to understand baptism, not the other way round.
We can also argue from a logical standpoint: That since circumcision has been done away as the administration of entrance to the outward Covenant of Grace, then there had to be something to take its place. Baptism fits the requirements perfectly for this new administration. This is the teaching of the great Baptist theologian John Gill on Col. 2:12:In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead, Col. 2:11,12.
One would argue that if the connection between circumcision and baptism is "spiritually" made, than the physical representation of each cannot be logically denied. I believe that Credo-Baptists would agree that not all those who receive the physical sign of baptism are saved. The classic example of this would be Simon the Sorceror who was baptized by the Apostles, but was later found to be, "in the gall of bitterness" as Peter put it.The apostle goes on to observed how complete and perfect the saints are in Christ; that they are not only circumcised in him in a spiritual sense, and the body of the sins of their flesh is put off, and removed from them in allusion to the cutting off and casting away of the foreskin in circumcision; but that they and all their sins were buried with Christ, of which their baptism in water was a lively representation, Commentaries, vol. 9, pg. 188.
Now, is there any objection by the Credo-Baptists that Circumcision and Baptism represented the same thing in their respective Covenants?Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament (i.e. Circumcision is an ordinance of the Old Testament), ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life, ch. 29, Of Baptism, parenthesis mine.
If the children of believers are considered, "members of the kingdom of heaven," than how much moreso should they be considered members of the kingdom here on earth? Which is greater heaven or earth? In the parallel passage in Luke 18:15 the word "infants" is used as well as "children."Then were there brough unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven, Matt. 19:13,14.
This much disputed passage includes the children of believers as inheritors of the "promise." To whom is referred to in the phrase, "For the promise is to you..." but those who respond to the calling of God in the preaching of the Word. All those of whom, "the Lord our God shall call" and their children are encompassed in the promises of God. Since Baptism is given to "you," then it should be given to "your children," and to "those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and your children, and for those who are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call, Acts 2:38,39
The children of at least one believing parent are considered "holy." How can that be? If the New Covenant is for individual professing believers only, then how can one consider the child of a believer "holy"? In other parts of the New Testament the word "holy" here is rendered "saint."For the unbelieveing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy, 1 Cor. 7:14,
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised..."
Acts 2:38
Just wondering:
Why would children of believers have fewer privileges (no baptism, covenant seal) in the New Covenant than they did in the Old Covenant, when the new covenant is usually associated with more privileges/light/revelation?
I know that isn't a kill-shot argument, but I heard it from Gerstener and thought it was neat.
Originally Posted by non dignus
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptised..."
Acts 2:38
Brothers and sisters, I want to understand infant baptism SO much right now that it's driving me to tears! I just don't get it. I'm credo, and I just don't get it and it's so frustrating!!! Please help
Susita,
Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.
Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)
In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.
In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".
In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.
To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.
The Ancient Mode Of Baptizing, BY IMMERSION, PLUNGING, OR DIPPING INTO WATER
There is plenty of evidence that the Church performed both. If an unbaptized convert in my congregation felt it necessary to be dipped, then I would not violate his conscience by not dipping him.Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person, ch. 28, sect. 3.
Furthermore, it's a non sequitur argument, since after all, the Eastern Orthodox practice immersionist infant baptism.Greetings:
When the non-Biblical views of the Credo-Baptists are exposed for all to see they then turn to immersion vs. sprinkling in order to avoid the obvious error of their thinking. The WCF does not forbid baptism by immersion:
There is plenty of evidence that the Church performed both. If an unbaptized convert in my congregation felt it necessary to be dipped, then I would not violate his conscience by not dipping him.
I have yet to see a cogent Baptist answer to my previous post. Has their inordinate pride in being "Biblical" finally been silenced?
Blessings,
-CH
Dr Matt,Susita,
Always remember in anything you study not to start at the end of the story, but the beginning.
Paul the Apsotle is a very smart fellow, and a hard fellow to follow if you don't understand what he understood in the Hebrew Scriptures. (Remember - his Bible was the Old Testament.)
In order to to understand baptism, you have to understand the covenant sign.
In order to understand the covenant sign, you have to go back to Genesis and find out what God was doing with father Abraham when he instituted the "covenant sign".
In order to understand father Abraham, you have to understand what happened with Adam and Eve and the fall in the Covenant of works.
To understand baptism, you first have to understand "covenant" or all this will be very frustrating.
Dr Matt,
I have spent much time on this very topic upon reading your book along with may others. Including Herman Witsius(which is indeed a great work). I must state that New Covenant is NOT like the old and CANNOT be broken by men. God is indeed faithful to in His people (ie. the true seed of Abraham). I believe in INFANT baptism (spiritually speaking). Please correct me if I am wrong but is not the TRUE circumcision on that is made without hands? Israel was continually called to circumcise the foreskin on their hearts. Please help me out with this question, In your understanding how is it that God looks upon the unregenerate child differently upon baptized than he did prior? An other way of asking the question is "How does God see that child differently upon baptism then prior to?" I hope you understand the question.
Hi:
Was the New Covenant broken by Simon the Sorceror? If not, then does that mean we only baptize the Elect?
Blessings,
-CH
Greetings CH,
I do not believe Simon the Sorceror was IN Christ therefore I do not believe he was in the NC.
Do you believe that man can break the NC? (If so please explain).
From Scripture:Again, I would like to know how you believe God looks upon an unregenerate child/infant/adult differently upon baptism than He does before baptism.
The child of a believer is considered "holy" or "set apart." As I have noted in other posts the term used here is translated in other places as "saint."For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now they are holy, 1 Cor. 7:14.
How is one "holy" before one "believes"? I am not doubting scripture, just looking for an explanation. For example, my daughter. She is clearly NOT a "believer", at what time, or age was or is she no longer holy? When it is "evident" that she does not "believe"? Up until that point she was "holy"? If so, that means what exactly?