CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
If I have it right, and those who hold to the position can correct me, the main argument of credo-baptism is that the New Covenant is given only to the Elect. Consequently, the sign of the New Covenant should only be given to those who make a profession of faith in Christ - Believers only.
In order to substantiate this belief the credo-baptist argues that in every instance of Baptism in the New Testament we can only deduce Believers to have received it. Son's and daughters, (infants), servants, and other members of a household were not baptized except on their own personal profession of faith.
Putting aside the fact that these credo-baptists neglect the testimony of half the Bible (the Old Testament) concerning circumcision. I will stand on their ground - a ground that I used to occupy - and, Lord willing, show them the errors of their ways.
First, the New Testament clearly states that New Covenant Baptism was present in the Old Testament:
Second, conservative estimates of the population of Israel at the time was about 1.5 million people. The Bible tells us that 600.000 men "besides children" travelled out of Egypt, Ex. 12:37. Children were among those who were Baptized unto Moses. I would also dare say that if you took any random population of 1.5 million people you will find some infants among them. What? Infants being Baptized from a text in the New Testament?
Next,
Is the New Covenant given only to the Elect? The confusion of the credo-baptist position becomes evident at this point. There is a subtle switch in their argument that is innocently deceitful. To tease this matter out a simple question must be asked:
Who are the Elect?
The Elect, as I understand it, are all true Believers in Jesus Christ. Many Divines refer to the Elect as the "invisible" or "universal" or "catholic" (small c) Church. What Divines call the "visible" Church is what you see every Sunday. A group of people composed of both the Elect and non-Elect. The example of the disciples of Jesus illustrates this idea. Of the twelve disciples eleven of them were Elect and one of them was not-Elect. We know this because God tells us it in the Scriptures. We are not given sufficient information from the Scriptures to determine who is Elect and who is non-Elect in the visible church (outside of those persons revealed in Scripture like: Judas, Simon the sorceror, and Demas). Thus, people "outside" of the church who make a credible profession of faith are allowed membership into the church. The 1689 Baptist confession upholds the idea of a "visible" and "invisible" church:
When the New Covenant is preached the promises of the Covenant are given to all who hear the Word of God. Thus, the New Covenant is given not only to the Elect, but to the non-Elect as well. This explains within the Calvinistic framework all of the universal statements in the Bible:
Since the promises of the Covenant are not given only to Elect members of a church, but also to non-Elect members as well, then what is the hinderance of giving Baptism to infant members of the church? Especially since we have both Old and New Testament warrant to do so?
The question to be answered then is: Are the children of believers considered members of the visible church?
This really is the only point that need be proved to end credo-baptism - that children of believers are considered visible members of the Church. Not only are believers, both Jews and Gentiles, as they are the Seed of Abraham to be baptized, but also their households as well.
Certainly, there can be no argument that the children in the Old Testament were considered members of the visible church? Is there? That circumcision was given to an infant eight days old, and that circumcision was the sign of the Everlasting Covenant given to Abraham? Gen. 17:13.
The credo-baptist argues that the promises to Abraham stop at the personal profession of the New Testament believer, and that it does not extend to his/her household.
There are three good and necessary answers that show children of believers are to be considered members of the visible church:
First,
1) It has been pointed out that the disciples of Jesus were considered members of the visible church.
2) Everywhere in the Bible we are commanded to disciple our children: The most obvious is Matthew 28:19.
3) Children of believers, then, are considered members of the visible church. Consequently, they are rightful recipients of New Testament Baptism.
Second,
1 Cor. 7:14 states that the children of believer(s) are considered "holy."
Third,
If we take the credo argument that there is no New Testament evidence of infant baptism at face value, then we come to a quandry when it comes to the Lord's Supper. There is no New Testament evidence that women were given the Lord's Supper. Consequently, if we are to be consistent with the Baptist hermeneutic, women should be forbidden the Lord's Supper on the same grounds that children are to be forbidden Baptism.
Silence in the New Testament does not necessarily mean "forbidden." Yet, the Baptist would have us think so concerning our covenant children.
Grace and Peace,
-CH
If I have it right, and those who hold to the position can correct me, the main argument of credo-baptism is that the New Covenant is given only to the Elect. Consequently, the sign of the New Covenant should only be given to those who make a profession of faith in Christ - Believers only.
In order to substantiate this belief the credo-baptist argues that in every instance of Baptism in the New Testament we can only deduce Believers to have received it. Son's and daughters, (infants), servants, and other members of a household were not baptized except on their own personal profession of faith.
Putting aside the fact that these credo-baptists neglect the testimony of half the Bible (the Old Testament) concerning circumcision. I will stand on their ground - a ground that I used to occupy - and, Lord willing, show them the errors of their ways.
First, the New Testament clearly states that New Covenant Baptism was present in the Old Testament:
All Israel passed through the sea and were Baptized. First, this militates against the idea of "dunking" as the people of Israel were said to pass through the Red Sea on dry land. No doubt the sea spray or the rain from the cloud "baptized them unto Moses." Or, the simple act of going down into the sea bed and coming back up out of the water was enough for them to be considered baptized.Moreover Brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10:1-4.
Second, conservative estimates of the population of Israel at the time was about 1.5 million people. The Bible tells us that 600.000 men "besides children" travelled out of Egypt, Ex. 12:37. Children were among those who were Baptized unto Moses. I would also dare say that if you took any random population of 1.5 million people you will find some infants among them. What? Infants being Baptized from a text in the New Testament?
Next,
Is the New Covenant given only to the Elect? The confusion of the credo-baptist position becomes evident at this point. There is a subtle switch in their argument that is innocently deceitful. To tease this matter out a simple question must be asked:
Who are the Elect?
The Elect, as I understand it, are all true Believers in Jesus Christ. Many Divines refer to the Elect as the "invisible" or "universal" or "catholic" (small c) Church. What Divines call the "visible" Church is what you see every Sunday. A group of people composed of both the Elect and non-Elect. The example of the disciples of Jesus illustrates this idea. Of the twelve disciples eleven of them were Elect and one of them was not-Elect. We know this because God tells us it in the Scriptures. We are not given sufficient information from the Scriptures to determine who is Elect and who is non-Elect in the visible church (outside of those persons revealed in Scripture like: Judas, Simon the sorceror, and Demas). Thus, people "outside" of the church who make a credible profession of faith are allowed membership into the church. The 1689 Baptist confession upholds the idea of a "visible" and "invisible" church:
This asks the question as to whether the New Covenant is given to the Elect only?All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted, chapter 26, section 2 (see also section 1 and 3 as well)
When the New Covenant is preached the promises of the Covenant are given to all who hear the Word of God. Thus, the New Covenant is given not only to the Elect, but to the non-Elect as well. This explains within the Calvinistic framework all of the universal statements in the Bible:
And other such like passages.Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Since the promises of the Covenant are not given only to Elect members of a church, but also to non-Elect members as well, then what is the hinderance of giving Baptism to infant members of the church? Especially since we have both Old and New Testament warrant to do so?
The question to be answered then is: Are the children of believers considered members of the visible church?
This really is the only point that need be proved to end credo-baptism - that children of believers are considered visible members of the Church. Not only are believers, both Jews and Gentiles, as they are the Seed of Abraham to be baptized, but also their households as well.
Certainly, there can be no argument that the children in the Old Testament were considered members of the visible church? Is there? That circumcision was given to an infant eight days old, and that circumcision was the sign of the Everlasting Covenant given to Abraham? Gen. 17:13.
The credo-baptist argues that the promises to Abraham stop at the personal profession of the New Testament believer, and that it does not extend to his/her household.
There are three good and necessary answers that show children of believers are to be considered members of the visible church:
First,
1) It has been pointed out that the disciples of Jesus were considered members of the visible church.
2) Everywhere in the Bible we are commanded to disciple our children: The most obvious is Matthew 28:19.
3) Children of believers, then, are considered members of the visible church. Consequently, they are rightful recipients of New Testament Baptism.
Second,
1 Cor. 7:14 states that the children of believer(s) are considered "holy."
The unbelieving spouse is not sanctified for his/her own sake (otherwise we would be required to baptize them), but they are sanctified for the sake of their children. Thus, the children of the believing parent(s) are considered "holy" or "saints" as the word is rendered in other places in the Bible. The Baptist confession, as quoted earlier, states this about those who are considered "visible saints":For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, otherwise were your children unclean, but now they are holy.
The confession acknowledges that those who are "visible saints" are rightly considered members of the visible church. I would call those Baptists who proudly proclaim themselves to be "Bible Believing" to acknowledge the Biblical teaching in both the Old and New Testaments that children of believers are not only 1. Disciples of Jesus Christ, and thus members of the visible church, but also, 2. Considered by the Bible to be "holy" or "saints" and are considered members of the visible church....are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
Third,
If we take the credo argument that there is no New Testament evidence of infant baptism at face value, then we come to a quandry when it comes to the Lord's Supper. There is no New Testament evidence that women were given the Lord's Supper. Consequently, if we are to be consistent with the Baptist hermeneutic, women should be forbidden the Lord's Supper on the same grounds that children are to be forbidden Baptism.
Silence in the New Testament does not necessarily mean "forbidden." Yet, the Baptist would have us think so concerning our covenant children.
Grace and Peace,
-CH
Last edited: