At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A_Wild_Boar

Puritan Board Freshman
This is mainly for my Baptist brethren. I wondered when a child can be baptized. I have two children that have a great understanding of Gods Salvation and trust in Him completely. They don't know too much about the why and how of Baptism yet, but they are getting close.

If they are to fully understand what Baptism entails and they ask to be Baptized, what should I tell them?

Actually an opinion from the Presbyterian crew wouldnt hurt either.
 
I think the question is not what they understand but do you understand what your responsibilities to them? Richard Baxter has a great practical work called "Duties of parents to their children". It can be found at crta.org. But to answer your main question...yesterday. (as soon as possible)
 
[quote:3a56cc8f30][i:3a56cc8f30]Originally posted by Halliday[/i:3a56cc8f30]
I think the question is not what they understand but do you understand what your responsibilities to them? Richard Baxter has a great practical work called "Duties of parents to their children". It can be found at crta.org. But to answer your main question...yesterday. (as soon as possible) [/quote:3a56cc8f30]

Thanks for the link, I will study up on it some. I understand I have much to do as the parent in this matter. Right now I still see paedo baptism as a type of baptismal regeneration. I dont see how not having my children baptized will cause God to consider them unclean.

I still thank you for your information and I will certainly consider it.
 
[quote:d6d880bcb8]
Thanks for the link, I will study up on it some. I understand I have much to do as the parent in this matter. Right now I still see paedo baptism as a type of baptismal regeneration. I dont see how not having my children baptized will cause God to consider them unclean.
[/quote:d6d880bcb8]

You should go ahead and have your children brought before your church ( I'm not sure how Baptists do this) to be examined and baptized.

It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a "type" of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). In addition, God does not see your children as "unclean" because they have not been baptised yet. Where did you get this idea?
 
Originally posted by wsw201[/i]
[quote:23ec211d03]

It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a "type" of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). In addition, God does not see your children as "unclean" because they have not been baptised yet. Where did you get this idea? [/quote:23ec211d03]

I will admit the idea is bourne from ignorance. Like I said, I will certainly consider it and research it further.
 
At what age do we start baptizing are children?

This is a hard question because it is really asking who ought to draw the line?... but our Presbyterian brothers who try to make a mountian out of a mole hill have the same problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper... so if this mountain is unpassable for the Baptist in respect to baptism it is eqaully impossible to pass for the Presbyterian in respect to the Lord's Supper.


Reformed or puritan baptist have a ceremony for infants that does not involve baptism but a blessing... after all Jesus blessed the children not baptized them... and are we wiser than Jesus?


As a child who was baptized in a Lutheran Church as an infant, I could not in good conscience believe that I was actually baptized as a disciple because I had not yet repented and therefore I was baptized as a Disciple letter in life in good conscience, and I can relate to Charles Spurgeon who once testified from his own life,

[quote:f4655a2b70] "The Church of England Catechism has in it, as one of you may remember, this question, 'What is required of persons to be baptized?' and the answer I was taught to give, and did give, was,'Repentance, whereby they forsake sin, and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament.' I looked that answer up in the Bible, and I found it to be strictly correct as far as repentance and faith are concerned, and of course, when I afterwards became a Christian, I also became a Baptist; and here I am, and it is due to the Church of England's Catechism that I am a Baptist. Having been brought up among Congregationalist, I had never looked into the matter in my life. I had thought to have been baptized as an infant; and so, when I was confronted with the question,'what is required of persons to be baptized?' and I found that repenteance and faith were required, I said to myself,'then I have not been baptized; that infant sprinkling of mine was a mistake; and please God that I ever have repentance and faith, I will be properly baptized'... It led me however, as I believe, to follow the Scriptural teaching that repentance and faith are required before there can be any true baptism [/quote:f4655a2b70]


My humble advice is that it is better not to act against your conscience [so if you are not 100% sure that your children are to be baptized as infants do not do it]. The best approach is to allow your children the joy of chosing Christ in baptism once they meet the requierments of Discipleship, the point is you do not have to decide when to baptize your children let them make the choice... this is the method that works well in Presbyterian circles when it comes to the Lord's Supper and it also works will in the case of Baptism.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian :saint:
 
[quote:f68e8ca249][i:f68e8ca249]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:f68e8ca249]

You should go ahead and have your children brought before your church ( I'm not sure how Baptists do this) to be examined and baptized. [/quote:f68e8ca249]

Reformed or purtian baptist bless their children not baptise them following the example of Christ.

[quote:f68e8ca249] It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a "type" of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). [/quote:f68e8ca249]

Actually, the Lutheran Church does teach baptismal regeneration so some protestand churches do teach that... also Calvin and the reformed creeds argued that infant baptism could be given because God has promised to regenerate all children with Christian parents.

[quote:f68e8ca249]
[b:f68e8ca249]John Calvin[/b:f68e8ca249]

"God promises that he adopts our infants as his children before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation. Now will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment?" (Calvin)

[b:f68e8ca249]THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM[/b:f68e8ca249]

Q74: Are infants also to be baptized?

A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents


[b:f68e8ca249]THE BELGIC CONFESSION OF FAITH[/b:f68e8ca249]

...we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them [/quote:f68e8ca249]

Infant, according to Berkhof the only objective and certain reason to baptize infants would be a promise of God to regenerate our children [which could be argued to be a type of baptismal regeneration] or baptismal regeneration.

[quote:f68e8ca249] In addition, God does not see your children as "unclean" because they have not been baptised yet. Where did you get this idea? [/quote:f68e8ca249]

It comes from the fact that most infant baptist argue identity between circumcision and baptism, and if that is true "baptism = circumcision" then just as the parent in the Old administration became a Covenant breaker and their children became unclean and had to leave the household or land if they did not circumcise their children, so the arguement continues, parents in the New administration who do not baptize their children become covenant breakers and their children must be kicked out of church- the problem of course with this arguement is that it is based on a false premise, namely, circumcision=baptism.

to the glory of Chirst-Tertullian


[Edited on 2-29-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Tertullian, I see that you are back, couldn't resist could you?:tongue:

cool, I read a couple of things that can be easily refuted but will do so tomorrow for it is late and I am moving to my NEW house, praise God for His abundant blessings!:wr51:

Grace and Peace
 
[quote:55250fc72f]
This is a hard question because it is really asking who ought to draw the line?... but our Presbyterian brothers who try to make a mountian out of a mole hill have the same problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper... so if this mountain is unpassable for the Baptist in respect to baptism it is eqaully impossible to pass for the Presbyterian in respect to the Lord's Supper.
[/quote:55250fc72f]

Presbyterians do not have a problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper. We take seriously the admonish in 1 Cor 11:27ff. Because the Supper is for the Church, it is the responsibility of the Church to make sure that we do not feed God's judgment to our children.


[quote:55250fc72f]
The best approach is to allow your children the joy of chosing Christ in baptism once they meet the requierments of Discipleship, the point is you do not have to decide when to baptize your children let them make the choice... this is the method that works well in Presbyterian circles when it comes to the Lord's Supper and it also works will in the case of Baptism.
[/quote:55250fc72f]

FYI, in the Presbyterian Church children do not make the choice, the Session does.


[quote:55250fc72f]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a "type" of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, the Lutheran Church does teach baptismal regeneration so some protestand churches do teach that... also Calvin and the reformed creeds argued that infant baptism could be given because God has promised to regenerate all children with Christian parents.
[/quote:55250fc72f]

Let me clarify; Not in Reformed Churches. Regarding Calvin and the Reformed Confessions, it is true that the grounds for baptism is based on the command and promise of God, but the issue goes to who it will be effectual for. Baptism does not confer regeneration (WCF Chapter 28). Therefore, the Reformed position has never been "Baptismal Regeneration".


[quote:55250fc72f]
It comes from the fact that most infant baptist argue identity between circumcision and baptism, and if that is true "baptism = circumcision" then just as the parent in the Old administration became a Covenant breaker and their children became unclean and had to leave the household or land if they did not circumcise their children, so the arguement continues, parents in the New administration who do not baptize their children become covenant breakers and their children must be kicked out of church- the problem of course with this arguement is that it is based on a false premise, namely, circumcision=baptism.
[/quote:55250fc72f]

First, Baptism does not "equal" Circumcision. There are points of contact between the two but they are not "equal". Regarding the status of a child as to whether they are "unclean" or "holy" goes to 1 Cor 7:14.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by wsw201]
 
[quote:1dec579f29][i:1dec579f29]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:1dec579f29]
God decides..not man. This shows, I think, an inconsistancy by the baptists. The always say, the ONLY qualification is that one repents and believes. Now, if a 2 and 1/2 yr old "repents and believes" most (note: I said most) baptists say, "well, I'm not sure if it's credible." Show the verse that says, "repent, believe, and if your parent wants to "grill" you for 12 yrs because he thinks that you are not giving a credible profession, and be baptized." [/quote:1dec579f29]

If Presbyterian's can get across the river, (i.e. that there are faith qualifications before takening the Lord's Supper), why cannot the Baptist cross the same river of qaulifications when it comes to baptism. Is the Lord Supper some how less important or not as a big a sacrament as baptism?

Also, Presbyterians only put the problem one step back because they also baptizethe "ONLY qualification is that one repents and believes" principle- they just use make the qualification apply to parents instead of individuals. Hence, your arguement works against both sides because we both have the same qualifications.

[quote:1dec579f29]I actually feel sorrow for our covenant children. Man does not have the say-so over who gets the sign...it's God's covenant, and He decides. He has so decided that our children are to be marked out from the world at birth. Is there still an idea of covenant people here? Should we live like the nations? No! My child is set apart. I do not treat him like Johnny covenant breaker's family treats their children. God is the head of my household. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. But as for me [i:1dec579f29]and my house[/i:1dec579f29], we will serve the Lord.

-Paul [/quote:1dec579f29]

You seem to present a false dilemia. I mean is it really true that we either give children the "sign" or retreat them like Johnny the Covenant breaker would treat his children.

I guess God must have commanded the Israelites to treat their female children like Johnny Covenant breaker would- and then corrected His mistake in the New Covenant?

I think the answer is obvious no one has the innate "right" to the covenant sign. Even Covenant members do not have an innate right to the Covenant sign... therefore a person to prove infant baptism must do more than simply prove that infants are in the New Covenant to establish infant baptism... a person needs to prove that God commanded baptism to be given only to infants with parents with faith and where God says that both male and infemale infants can be baptized. As far as I know nobody has been able to show that God has commanded these things.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Tertullian]
 
I am not sure if you were trying to critique my post or agree with my post (since I agree with everything you wrote)

[quote:5056e88bd5][i:5056e88bd5]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:5056e88bd5]
[quote:5056e88bd5]
This is a hard question because it is really asking who ought to draw the line?... but our Presbyterian brothers who try to make a mountian out of a mole hill have the same problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper... so if this mountain is unpassable for the Baptist in respect to baptism it is eqaully impossible to pass for the Presbyterian in respect to the Lord's Supper.
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

Presbyterians do not have a problem when it comes to administering the Lord's Supper. We take seriously the admonish in 1 Cor 11:27ff. Because the Supper is for the Church, it is the responsibility of the Church to make sure that we do not feed God's judgment to our children. [/quote:5056e88bd5]

In the words of Presbyterian John Frame,

"Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments" (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.)

Hence, you must either start given communion & baptism to infants or you must give neither but you cannot do both consistently- hence if you are serious about your conviction that infants are not to be given communion because of (1 Cor 11:28) why not be consistent and use the same logic with baptism (see Acts 2:38).

But if your love for infant baptism is stronger than you love for Discipleship communion then just start given communion to infants- but at the very lest be consistent.


[quote:5056e88bd5][quote:5056e88bd5]
The best approach is to allow your children the joy of chosing Christ in baptism once they meet the requierments of Discipleship, the point is you do not have to decide when to baptize your children let them make the choice... this is the method that works well in Presbyterian circles when it comes to the Lord's Supper and it also works will in the case of Baptism.
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

FYI, in the Presbyterian Church children do not make the choice, the Session does. [/quote:5056e88bd5]

point well taken.


[quote:5056e88bd5][quote:5056e88bd5] [quote:5056e88bd5]
It is unfortunate that you have gotten the impression that baptizing infants is a "type" of Baptismal Regeneration, because it is not (atleast not in any Protestant Church). [/quote:5056e88bd5]

Actually, the Lutheran Church does teach baptismal regeneration so some protestand churches do teach that... also Calvin and the reformed creeds argued that infant baptism could be given because God has promised to regenerate all children with Christian parents.
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

Let me clarify; Not in Reformed Churches. Regarding Calvin and the Reformed Confessions, it is true that the grounds for baptism is based on the command and promise of God, but the issue goes to who it will be effectual for. Baptism does not confer regeneration (WCF Chapter 28). Therefore, the Reformed position has never been "Baptismal Regeneration". [/quote:5056e88bd5]

No but the historic "Reformed" position has been that God will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents... so in doctrine it is different but in practice the line is fuzzy.


[quote:5056e88bd5] [quote:5056e88bd5]
It comes from the fact that most infant baptist argue identity between circumcision and baptism, and if that is true "baptism = circumcision" then just as the parent in the Old administration became a Covenant breaker and their children became unclean and had to leave the household or land if they did not circumcise their children, so the arguement continues, parents in the New administration who do not baptize their children become covenant breakers and their children must be kicked out of church- the problem of course with this arguement is that it is based on a false premise, namely, circumcision=baptism.
[/quote:5056e88bd5]

First, Baptism does not "equal" Circumcision. There are points of contact between the two but they are not "equal". [/quote:5056e88bd5]

Amen... at last a Presbyterian who is willing to admit it.


[quote:5056e88bd5] Regarding the status of a child as to whether they are "unclean" or "holy" goes to 1 Cor 7:14.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by wsw201] [/quote:5056e88bd5]

the context of 1 Cor 7:14 is really in favor of the Reformed Baptist camp... for indeed it does call the children "holy" but it also says that the unregenerate spouse has that same identicial "holiness" (or santification). Hence, this verse ultiamtely proves that the type of holiness infants have is not enough to demand that infants have to be given the Covenant sign (indeed no group of people even in Covenant has that right unless God commands them to be given it).

We can ultiamtely see that just as the "holiness" of the adult unregenerate does not give them the right to be baptism, by analogy, we ought to conclude the same about infants because according to this passage they have the same type of holiness.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Tertullian,

I was simply attempting to clarify some points you made concerning Presbyterians. Since you agree with me it appears you are "closer to the Kingdom" than you might think :wink1:


[quote:9faf494a16]
In the words of Presbyterian John Frame,

"Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments" (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.)

Hence, you must either start given communion & baptism to infants or you must give neither but you cannot do both consistently- hence if you are serious about your conviction that infants are not to be given communion because of (1 Cor 11:28) why not be consistent and use the same logic with baptism (see Acts 2:38).

But if your love for infant baptism is stronger than you love for Discipleship communion then just start given communion to infants- but at the very lest be consistent.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

Fortunately, Dr. Frame does not set dogma for the Church. I know who Dr. Frame is but I am not familiar with his works. I pray that you have taken him out of context, or that this simplistic thinking is not representative of his efforts at scholarship. But in either case, the guiding principles for Presbyterians are the Holy Scriptures and subordinately the Westminster Standards. I am sure Dr. Frame and all Presbyterians are aware of the difference and similarities between the two sacraments as pointed out in the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 176. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree?
A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper agree, in that the author of both is God;[1137] the spiritual part of both is Christ and his benefits;[1138] both are seals of the same covenant,[1139] are to be dispensed by ministers of the gospel, and by none other;[1140] and to be continued in the church of Christ until his second coming.[1141]


[1137] Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread.

[1138] Romans 6:3-4. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 1 Corinthians 10:16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

[1139] Romans 4:11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. Colossians 2:12. 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. Matthew 26:27-28. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

[1140] John 1:33. And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1 Corinthians 11:23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. 1 Corinthians 4:1. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Hebrews 5:4. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

[1141] Matthew 28:19-20. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 1 Corinthians 11:26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

Q. 177. Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ?
A. The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ,[1142] and that even to infants;[1143] whereas the Lord's supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul,[1144] and to confirm our continuance and growth in him,[1145] and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.[1146]

[1142] Matthew 3:11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Galatians 3:27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[1143] Genesis 17:7, 9. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.... And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. Acts 2:38-39. 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 unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 1 Corinthians 7:14. 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 are they holy.

[1144] 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

[1145] 1 Corinthians 10:16. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

[1146] 1 Corinthians 11:28-29. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.


[quote:9faf494a16]
No but the historic "Reformed" position has been that God will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents... so in doctrine it is different but in practice the line is fuzzy.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

I don't know where you get this from, but it is not the historic "Reformed" position that God "will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents". This is no where in Scripture or in our Standards.


[quote:9faf494a16]
Amen... at last a Presbyterian who is willing to admit it.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

But they do have points of contact with the most important being as to what they both represent.


[quote:9faf494a16]
the context of 1 Cor 7:14 is really in favor of the Reformed Baptist camp... for indeed it does call the children "holy" but it also says that the unregenerate spouse has that same identicial "holiness" (or santification). Hence, this verse ultiamtely proves that the type of holiness infants have is not enough to demand that infants have to be given the Covenant sign (indeed no group of people even in Covenant has that right unless God commands them to be given it).

We can ultimately see that just as the "holiness" of the adult unregenerate does not give them the right to be baptism, by analogy, we ought to conclude the same about infants because according to this passage they have the same type of holiness.
[/quote:9faf494a16]

Much of the confusion about this passage is based on ecclesiology. Hodge does an excellent job of making the case regarding what is meant by "holy" as well as the status of children in the visible church. Here is a thread that includes Hodges commentary on the passage http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1867 I am sure that you will find Hodges presentation more than convincing :bouncy:
 
wsw201,

Thanks for the response, I always enjoy looking at this issue with those who have an open Bible and humble spirit as you appear to have. But I must respectfully disagree with your comments and hope to explain why I have to disagree.


[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416] Fortunately, Dr. Frame does not set dogma for the Church. I know who Dr. Frame is but I am not familiar with his works. I pray that you have taken him out of context, or that this simplistic thinking is not representative of his efforts at scholarship. But in either case, the guiding principles for Presbyterians are the Holy Scriptures and subordinately the Westminster Standards. I am sure Dr. Frame and all Presbyterians are aware of the difference and similarities between the two sacraments as pointed out in the Westminster Larger Catechism: [quotes the Westminster confession and proof texts] [/b:b156dd7416] [/quote:b156dd7416]

I am sure that Dr. Frame is familiar with what the confession states that is why he did not actually include his comments in the main text of his book but in the foot notes. Regardless, however, I my point was not to appeal to Frame's authority but to the force of his argument (that fact that Frame says only brings the issue into focus because it is becoming more apparent then ever before that both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist have found the Westminster confession to be inconsistent on this issue). Note Dr. Frame's argument again,

[i:b156dd7416]"Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments" (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.)[/i:b156dd7416]

Now the force of Frame's argument seems reasonable enough, if 1 Cor. 11:28 proves that infants ought not to be given the Lord's Supper than Acts 2:38 proves that infants ought not to be given baptism, on the other hand, if Acts 2:38 does not prove that infants can not be given the sacrament, then in turn 1 Cor. 11:28 does not prove that they cannot be given the Lord's Supper. Hence, Frame's argument reveals a embarrassing inconsistency that has been neglected by the majority of Presbyterians with only the few brace souls who like Frame have now begun to deal with it.

Hence I think it is clear, you either give both sacraments to infants or you do not and so live happily and consistently, but to give one sacrament but not another to infants is to defy consistency.

(To use the Westminster as proof that the practice is not inconsisent is a mistake because the truth of the Westminster in this matter is what is in question- hence it is a vicious circle to use the Westminster to justify itself.)


[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416]I don't know where you get this from, but it is not the historic "Reformed" position that God "will always regenerate and elect children with Christian parents". This is no where in Scripture or in our Standards. [/b:b156dd7416][/quote:b156dd7416]

I agree fully with you that Scripture does not teach that God regenerates all Children of believers. Most Presbyterians in America today are more careful when the attempt to infer infant baptism but historically this has not been the case. I agree that no truly reformed person has taught baptismal regeneration; my argument is that the historic reformers kicked baptismal regeneration out the front door but sneaked it in through the back by saying that God promised to regenerate all children of Christians without exception. To support this argument I quoted these normative sources: [quote:b156dd7416]
[b:b156dd7416]John Calvin[/b:b156dd7416]

"God promises that he adopts our infants as his children before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation. Now will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment?" (Calvin)

[b:b156dd7416]THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM[/b:b156dd7416]

Q74: Are infants also to be baptized?

A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents


[b:b156dd7416]THE BELGIC CONFESSION OF FAITH[/b:b156dd7416]

...we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them [/quote:b156dd7416]
[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416] But they [i.e. baptism and Circumcision] do have points of contact with the most important being as to what they both represent. [/b:b156dd7416][/quote:b156dd7416]
Yes, hence there is analogy not identity.

[quote:b156dd7416] [b:b156dd7416]Much of the confusion about this passage [i.e. 1 Cor 7] is based on ecclesiology. Hodge does an excellent job of making the case regarding what is meant by "holy" as well as the status of children in the visible church. Here is a thread that includes Hodges commentary on the passage http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=1867 I am sure that you will find Hodges presentation more than convincing [/b:b156dd7416][/quote:b156dd7416]

Why ought I to find this convincing? Hodge seem to offer nothing new to the table but just repeats the old "federal holiness" argument. Yet even Paedobaptist have found in this text nothing to support the practice of infant baptism. For example Albert Barnes writes:

[quote:b156dd7416] "This passage has often been interpreted, and is often adduced to prove that children are 'federally holy,' and that they are entitled to the privileges of baptism on the ground of the faith of one of the parents. But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections.

(1) The phrase 'federally holy' is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures, and what can be meant by it?
(2) It does not accord with the scope and design of the argument. There is not one word about baptism here; not one allusion to it; nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it. The question was not whether children should be baptized, but it was whether there should be separation between man and wife, where one was a Christian and the other was not.
(3) The supposition that this means that the children would be regarded as [i:b156dd7416] illegitimate [/i:b156dd7416] if such a separation should take place, is one that accords with the scope and design of the argument.
(4) This accords with the meaning of the word 'unclean' (He quotes Acts 10:28,] [/quote:b156dd7416]

And again Barnes concludes:

[quote:b156dd7416] I believe infant baptism to be proper and right, and an inestimable privilege to parents and children. But a good cause should not be made to rest on feeble supports, nor on forced and unnatural interpretations of the Scriptures. And such I regard the usual interpration placed on this passage. [/quote:b156dd7416]

I mean is it not even remarkable that Hodge was defending these verses from scholars who had found in these verses a reason to say that infant baptism was not practiced! (Yet these verses are alleged to be absolutely convincing of the practice though some have actually argued against infant baptism based on these passages?)

I propose a more modest but I think accurate interpretation of these passages. Actually I will quote someone who did his homework already, as he wrote:

[quote:b156dd7416]
1. Q. Doesn't I Cor. 7:14 teach that children of believers are covenantally set apart and thus eligible for baptism?
A. No. The term "sanctified" that describes an unbelieving spouse of a believer and the term "holy" that describes the children of believers are based on the same root word in Greek. Therefore, whatever holiness the children have is also shared by an unbelieving spouse. Since an unbelieving spouse is not in the covenant, one cannot use this passage to establish that the children are. Paul's whole argument is grounded in the similarity of the two cases. If unbelieving spouses and children of believers do not share the same type of holiness, the difference between the two cases invalidates Paul's entire argument from the holiness of the children to the holiness of the unbelieving spouse. In fact, Paul's argument actually implies an argument against infant baptism. If the children in Corinth were baptized but unbelieving spouses were not, then the Corinthians would never have accepted Paul's argument that the holiness of the children implied the holiness of unbelieving spouses.
I have elaborated on this argument in a separate article on I Cor. 7:14. [/quote:b156dd7416]
To see the elaboration of his argument go to http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html

PS I assure you I am by no means 100% on these issues, but I am just trying to seek the truth in the matter, and so far am being convinced more and more that the reformers were wrong on this issue and that the Reformed Baptist got it right.

In love in respect...

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian:saint:

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Tertullian]
 
OK, here is another question. Again not really desiring to turn it into a big debate (of course its not a bad thing as I often learn quite a bit from you all). My brother's wife wants their new baby to be Baptized, as well as my brother. She wants this, not my brother who is pretty much an atheist but has no problem with the baby being baptized.

Question is, should they do it even though one parent is an atheist and the mother is a new ager? Should I recommend a Presbyterian church to do this or another paedo church? And question is, will they do it regardless of the parents standing with God? They really want this done, but since I am a Baptist, I could not give an answer that tickled their ears in this matter. I gave my opinion on the matter, but she thinks the baby should be baptized. I asked her why and she said its traditional and she thinks it will save the baby. Even though she is a new ager, she believes in Baptismal regeneration (not her words of course).

As to my children? I am working on that as they are growing strong in the faith and see to have complete trust in an Almighty and Sovereign God.

Thanks for any advice.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by A_Wild_Boar]
 
[quote:16755a59fe]
I am sure that Dr. Frame is familiar with what the confession states that is why he did not actually include his comments in the main text of his book but in the foot notes. Regardless, however, I my point was not to appeal to Frame's authority but to the force of his argument (that fact that Frame says only brings the issue into focus because it is becoming more apparent then ever before that both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist have found the Westminster confession to be inconsistent on this issue). Note Dr. Frame's argument again,

"Small children cannot examine themselves (1 Cor. 11:28), but they cannot repent and believe either (Acts 2:38). It is reasonable to say that both passages are addressed to adults and do not set forth requirements for all recipients of the sacraments" (Worship in Spirit and Truth, p. 100.)

Now the force of Frame's argument seems reasonable enough, if 1 Cor. 11:28 proves that infants ought not to be given the Lord's Supper than Acts 2:38 proves that infants ought not to be given baptism, on the other hand, if Acts 2:38 does not prove that infants can not be given the sacrament, then in turn 1 Cor. 11:28 does not prove that they cannot be given the Lord's Supper. Hence, Frame's argument reveals a embarrassing inconsistency that has been neglected by the majority of Presbyterians with only the few brace souls who like Frame have now begun to deal with it.

Hence I think it is clear, you either give both sacraments to infants or you do not and so live happily and consistently, but to give one sacrament but not another to infants is to defy consistency.

(To use the Westminster as proof that the practice is not inconsisent is a mistake because the truth of the Westminster in this matter is what is in question- hence it is a vicious circle to use the Westminster to justify itself.)

[/quote:16755a59fe]

Needless to say, I don't see any inconsistency within the Westminster Standards and neither does any Presbyterian who has studied the Standards, comparing them to the truth of Scripture, and fully subscribes to them as a confession of their faith. Each question in the Catechism and each Chapter in the WCF cannot be taken in isolation, they must be understood as a whole, just like Scripture, of which they are based on. The Standards are a system of biblical doctrines and must be looked at as such. I usually find those who see inconsistency within the Standards look at them in a disjointed way, much like people do with Scripture when they find inconsistencies.
The force of the argument that Frame makes may seem reasonable but it is simplistic. That is why I included the Larger Catechism questions (and Scripture) to show that though both are Sacraments, they are different in how they are administered, and who they are administered to. I understand your reluctance to see the force of Hodges argument in 1 Cor 7:14, but it is perfectly reasonable to me and Presbyterians through out the history of the Presbyterian Church. I believe the primary issue in understanding Hodges point goes to a difference in ecclesiology between Baptists and Presbyterians. Baptsits do not hold to the distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church as Presbyterian do. If they did, Hodges argument would make more sense.
The issue of peadocommunion is a thread all unto itself. I don't know if Frame takes an exception to the Standards regarding peadocommunion but I don't, and the issue goes far beyond simply saying "if you baptize infants you must also grant them access to the Table so Presbyterians can be consistent".


[quote:16755a59fe]
I agree fully with you that Scripture does not teach that God regenerates all Children of believers. Most Presbyterians in America today are more careful when the attempt to infer infant baptism but historically this has not been the case. I agree that no truly reformed person has taught baptismal regeneration; my argument is that the historic reformers kicked baptismal regeneration out the front door but sneaked it in through the back by saying that God promised to regenerate all children of Christians without exception. To support this argument I quoted these normative sources:
[/quote:16755a59fe]

The problem with using these quotes is that it is not all that is said on the issue. Calvin did not believe in baptismal regeneration in any form and neither the Heidelberg Catechism or Belgic Confession profess any type of baptismal regeneration, back door or otherwise. You must consider the whole of Calvin's thought as well as the whole of the two confessions. What most Baptists fail to understand is that the promises exhibited in the Sacraments (Baptism or The Lord's Supper) are only effectual for believers/elect. Calvin and the Continental and Scottish Confessions affirm this. As I have stated in other threads, the call of the Gospel is looked at in two ways, ie; the General Call and the Effectual Call. These are two key points. And just as the Sacraments cannot be separated from the Word, the efficacy of the Sacraments can not be separated from the Gospel. Therefore, the Sacraments, like the Call of the Gospel message, are only effectual for those whom it was intended for, the elect.


[quote:16755a59fe]
PS I assure you I am by no means 100% on these issues, but I am just trying to seek the truth in the matter, and so far am being convinced more and more that the reformers were wrong on this issue and that the Reformed Baptist got it right.
[/quote:16755a59fe]

Well, we do look through a glass dimly, so I guess that's why you are a Baptist and I am a Presbyterian.
 
I don't think there'd be a need to be rebaptized...unless it was a liberal Methodist church where they baptized you in the name of Sophia, her Offspring, and whatever else is PC for the Holy Spirit.

I was baptized as an infant....was baptized when I was an adolescent, was converted around the age of 18...found out about 2 years ago that I had already been baptized as an infant...should I get rebaptized? Naaaa. That would just be ridulous. God accomplished what He promised in my baptism from infancy. It's interesting to look back at the fact I was baptized twice while unconverted and see how faithful God has been in covenant to my family.
 
Wsw201,

Thanks for the edifying conversation. It seems that we have made the majority of your points but I think you have begun to repeat yourself- I respect your prestigious tradition but I cannot except it if it means compromising what I believe Scripture and my conscious convicts and teaches. Hence, if you are going to convince me you need to prove more than this is what the reformers said or this is the prestigious tradition of the reformers because to appeal to them is to use the very things who truth is being questioned to prove themselves. Therefore, if you have made all the points that you are wanting to make great and may the Lord bless you for your willingness to contineut this dialogue... but if you still have more to say and add to the conversation I just wanted to take this time to expand what I said before in response to your comments below.


[quote:8287ab1732] Needless to say, I don't see any inconsistency within the Westminster Standards and neither does any Presbyterian who has studied the Standards, comparing them to the truth of Scripture, and fully subscribes to them as a confession of their faith. [/quote:8287ab1732]

It may be true that you personally do not see any inconsistency within the Westminister Standards but I think it is a stretch to say that no Presbyterian who has studied the issue, doing their best to comparing Scripture with the Standards has ever differed in their opinion their yours. John Frame (if I am interpreting right which I do not doubt that I am) is a prime counterfactual to the claim that no Presbyterian who has studied the Scripture and Standard and come to the conclusion that no contradiction exists.

In truth a whole Paedocommunion movement is gaining momentum in different Presbyterian sects and it will probably continue to grow as more and more Presbyterian continue to examine the issue. Why, some Presbyterians on this very board that I have talked with in the past have defended and affirmed Paedocommunion on the basis that it is inconsistent to argue for Paedobaptism but than not use that same logic to justify paedocommunion, and they would add, if 1 Corthians disproved Paedocommunion than the book of Acts would disprove Paedobaptism.

[quote:8287ab1732] Each question in the Catechism and each Chapter in the WCF cannot be taken in isolation, they must be understood as a whole, just like Scripture, of which they are based on. The Standards are a system of biblical doctrines and must be looked at as such. I usually find those who see inconsistency within the Standards look at them in a disjointed way, much like people do with Scripture when they find inconsistencies. [/quote:8287ab1732]

In actuality the "Standards" have been changed over time and each Presbyterian sect has his own version of the Srandard, so it is artificial to compare Scriptural consistency with the Standards consistency. The Standards are still a work in progress which God is continuing to sanctify as he continues to confirm his Church to its glorious destiny. Therefore, since people have found inconsistency in the past (ex. on Civil government) it follows that it is not necessary that we judge a prior anyone wrong who claims to have discovered an inconsistency in the Standards for they may very well have discovered something which may have been overlooked in the past.

[quote:8287ab1732] The force of the argument that Frame makes may seem reasonable but it is simplistic. That is why I included the Larger Catechism questions (and Scripture) to show that though both are Sacraments, they are different in how they are administered, and who they are administered to. [/quote:8287ab1732]

Frame's argument has yet to be dealt with (besides appeals to authority), and they need to be because if Frame's argument is sound then Frame's argument undermines the Westminster proof texts for its position on whom receives the sacraments (whether Frame intended it to or not, I think he did undermine the prooftexts).

Hence, so much for the inerrancy of the Confessions and reformers, and it is a dubious proposition to use the Westminster and reformers to vindicate itself once its proof texts have been undermined. Therefore we need arguements from Scripture not appeals to confessions and reformers if we are to solve this debate between paedocommunion and credo-communion.

[quote:8287ab1732] I understand your reluctance to see the force of Hodges argument in 1 Cor 7:14, but it is perfectly reasonable to me and Presbyterians through out the history of the Presbyterian Church. [/quote:8287ab1732]

Presbyterian history when it comes to the issue of using 1 Cor 7:14 as proof text is far from consistent in fact if a different group of people had been picked to make the confession that verse might never have been used. B.B. Warfield was right when he wrote (paraphrase) "brothers we must all confess that we have different arguments for this dearly cherished tradition" - and that statement reveals the only consistent thing in regards to this specific topic- Presbyterians have all offered different arguments for the practice of infant baptism which contradict each other and the only thing they all had in common was their conclusions.

1 Cor 7:14 has not even convinced all Presbyterians and so it seems doubtful that Reformed Baptist that it will convince Reformed Baptist- after all Reformed Baptist have begun to use these verses to prove their position- please see my last post to see how.

I encourage you to please read my response to 1 Cor 7:14 over again because I assure you I do not just disagree with it but I have reasons why I do not agree with it which I listed before.

[quote:8287ab1732] I believe the primary issue in understanding Hodges point goes to a difference in ecclesiology between Baptists and Presbyterians. Baptsits do not hold to the distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church as Presbyterian do. If they did, Hodges argument would make more sense. [/quote:8287ab1732]

On the contrary Confessional Reformed Baptist do make that distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church, in fact the reformers actually borrowed it from Augustine so that distinction is not new or unique to the reformers, the London Baptist Confession teaches it and Reformed Baptist traditionally have upheld it- and so contrary to your assertion, even with the distinction made, Hodges argument does not make sense.

At the very lest you need to elaborate upon your statement because I do accept that distinction as Augstine taught it and the LBC and even Westminster- and find nothing in it that contradicts Reformed Baptist teaching.

[quote:8287ab1732] The issue of peadocommunion is a thread all unto itself. I don't know if Frame takes an exception to the Standards regarding peadocommunion but I don't, and the issue goes far beyond simply saying "if you baptize infants you must also grant them access to the Table so Presbyterians can be consistent". [/quote:8287ab1732]

But is it also trut that Paedocommunion advocates have more arguments than Frames so both sides have not made their full case, but how is that relevant to if Frame's arguement is sound? After all, Frame has made a good argument and if it is sound which I believe it is than logic demands that we choice one of the alternatives. The alternatives being the Reformed Baptist position or the Paedocommunion position- only Scripture can tell which one of these logical alternatives is right.

God bless

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:11db6a5910][i:11db6a5910]Originally posted by Craig[/i:11db6a5910]
I don't think there'd be a need to be rebaptized...unless it was a liberal Methodist church where they baptized you in the name of Sophia, her Offspring, and whatever else is PC for the Holy Spirit.

...God accomplished what He promised in my baptism from infancy. It's interesting to look back at the fact I was baptized twice while unconverted and see how faithful God has been in covenant to my family. [/quote:11db6a5910]

I guess you must be amazed that God kept His promise to you when you were baptized as an infant when you consider on your view all the times God has broken His promise throughout history- after all how many Christian infants has God promised to regenerate but than broken His promise to regenerate them!

If I held your position I would be amazed to that God kept his promise, since he has borken his promise so many times in the past. My amazement if I viewed God's promise the way I heard some Presbyterians describe would be of the same type as finding out that a habitial liar told me the truth and kept his promise.

I know you might say that God's promise to regenerate you was conditional on your unregenerate faithfulness- but if that is true why are you even amazed that God kept his promise- you earned it.

(Not intending this to hurt or offend but just wanting to make a point)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-7-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:ffdd909cdb][i:ffdd909cdb]Originally posted by A_Wild_Boar[/i:ffdd909cdb]
OK, here is another question. Again not really desiring to turn it into a big debate (of course its not a bad thing as I often learn quite a bit from you all). My brother's wife wants their new baby to be Baptized, as well as my brother. She wants this, not my brother who is pretty much an atheist but has no problem with the baby being baptized.

Question is, should they do it even though one parent is an atheist and the mother is a new ager? Should I recommend a Presbyterian church to do this or another paedo church? And question is, will they do it regardless of the parents standing with God? They really want this done, but since I am a Baptist, I could not give an answer that tickled their ears in this matter. I gave my opinion on the matter, but she thinks the baby should be baptized. I asked her why and she said its traditional and she thinks it will save the baby. Even though she is a new ager, she believes in Baptismal regeneration (not her words of course).

As to my children? I am working on that as they are growing strong in the faith and see to have complete trust in an Almighty and Sovereign God.

Thanks for any advice.


[Edited on 3-6-2004 by A_Wild_Boar] [/quote:ffdd909cdb]

I am not sure how a Presbyterian would answer that question but as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith. Our duty as Christians is to protect the Sacrametents from abuse as much as we can... I always love the story of how Calvin refused to let non-Christians eat from the Lord's Supper- in fact Calvin said he would rather die than let them share in the Lord's table.

Johnathen Edwards is another prime example of a Christian refusing to let unregenerate people take the Covenant meal even though it cost them dearly (Edward's job).

Let us follow their heroic examples because they followed Scripture on this matter.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
 
[quote:62b1304206][i:62b1304206]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:62b1304206]
[quote:62b1304206]
am not sure how a Presbyterian would answer that question but as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith.
[/quote:62b1304206]

how do you know who to give it to then?

what scriptural support to you have to say that, say, baptism can only be given to those who have faith. That is, ONLY be given to those?

-Paul [/quote:62b1304206]

Do you not agree that Scripture teaches that we ought not to give the Sacraments to people who do not profess to be Christians?

All of us baptize on the basis of profession of faith, you baptize on the parents profession we baptize on the person's profession
 
[quote:8b77bc4975][i:8b77bc4975]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8b77bc4975]
Tertullian,

The reasons I asked is because now you say, "profession of faith" whereas previously you said [/quote:8b77bc4975]

For the record book I was answering different questions- one question- "who ought to be baptized?" another question "who is baptized?" This is the "is" "ought" distinction.

[quote:8b77bc4975][quote:8b77bc4975]
as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith.
[/quote:8b77bc4975]

Now, for who makes a [i:8b77bc4975]profession[/i:8b77bc4975] it does not follow that the [i:8b77bc4975]have[/i:8b77bc4975] faith. So it appeared to me that you would have no epistemological grounds to baptize anyone. Now that you have clarified, fine. [/quote:8b77bc4975]

I am not sure what you mean by "epistemologicial problem" or "no epistemologicial grounds" because my system of thought does not require me to read the hearts of people and only if I had to read a person's heart would it be a "problem." or lack of "grounds".

I mean it is no more a problem for baptist than it is for Presbyterians on the issue of the Lord's Supper or even for Presbyterians who are determining if the parents of the baptized infants have faith or not. So if it is a problem for baptist the problem is found in the Bible and all Christian sects suffer from it.

[quote:8b77bc4975] And, I assume that you mean that the [i:8b77bc4975]person receiving[/i:8b77bc4975] the sacrement has to "profess" faith; it wouldn't count for a parent that is. So, I asked what evidence can you provide from Scripture which says that ONLY those who "profess" faith may be baptized. You don't need a long dissertation just a few will suffice.

-Paul [/quote:8b77bc4975]

Math 28:19 and Acts 2:38 teach Discipleship baptism.

Using the regulative principle of worship we can say that even though Scripture does not probit a person who professes, "atheism to be true" from being baptized- we still do not have to baptize them and in fact we would be wrong to baptize them. Why?

In answering that question, we can note that the sacraments, since they are an element of worship, must be regulated by God's word. Hence, only God's commands are to be followed and we are not to add to God's commandments things from our imagination like baptizing atheist. See what happened to Aarons sons when they added something to the service elements that was not prohibed by God.


The requirement of "profession" is a circumstance- if we could read a person's heart we would not need the profession- but this circumstance is applied because the weakness of human nature when it comes to reading peoples hearts.


hope this helps.

[quote:8b77bc4975] p.s. I have sent you 2 u2u's, have you received them?

-Paul [/quote:8b77bc4975]

I just read them... sorry for not replying earlier.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-8-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:4b9ba87e0f][Originally posted by Tertullian--
I am not sure how a Presbyterian would answer that question but as a Reformed Baptist Christ Sacrament can be given only to those who have faith. Our duty as Christians is to protect the Sacrametents from abuse as much as we can... I always love the story of how Calvin refused to let non-Christians eat from the Lord's Supper- in fact Calvin said he would rather die than let them share in the Lord's table.

Johnathen Edwards is another prime example of a Christian refusing to let unregenerate people take the Covenant meal even though it cost them dearly (Edward's job).

Let us follow their heroic examples because they followed Scripture on this matter.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:4b9ba87e0f]


I basically asked my brother over and over why he wanted to be Baptized. Basicall it came dow to because his wife wanted him to and since she was going to have the baby Baptized he didnt mind.

I basically explained that unless he was willing to live the life of a professing child of God, then he would be nothing more than a washed pig. Well I put it in nicer terms but he got the point. His wife still thinks having the baby Baptized will save the child. I fail to see the difference between an unprofessing adult being Baptized and an unknowing infant.
 
[quote:3380747635] God accomplished what He promised in my baptism from infancy. It's interesting to look back at the fact I was baptized twice while unconverted and see how faithful God has been in covenant to my family. [/quote:3380747635]

Sorry I edited out some. I dont know what type of Methosists they had me sprinkled by. My parents were a couple of weed smoking hippies who thought it would be nice to have me Baptized in the tradition of my family. (my family has NEVER been religious)

But regarding the above statement by you I am left with the feeling you were regenerated because you were Baptized.

I doubt I am the expection. If I was regenerated because I was Baptized, then who is the covenant with? The unregenerate parents? God promises to regenerate ALL Baptized? no of course one would say only the elect. But if God regenerates and keeps His promise to regenerate Baptized infants, then certainly all Baptized infants are of the elect, if not they would never have been given the opportunity to be Baptized.

Man I should really stop with this subject because I am getting nowhere fast with it.

I will have to leave it at this. I personally dont have much problem with other folks Baptizing their kids. I just dont see it the way you do.

I fear that I may anger some here with my questions. I promise they were purely out of curiosity and ignorance. I am glad to have found this forum and the Saints that post here.

I thank God.
 
[quote:aa22b2803b]
So, since infants cannot "repent/believe" then, therefore, they cannot be saved.
[/quote:aa22b2803b]


If a dumb ass can speak and silence the madness of a prophet, an infant can repent and have faith.

Repentance unto life is granted by God through the gift of faith, transferred to the child by the promise of the covenant.
 
Paul,

Your argument is the same one that John Calvin used against the Anabaptist (I think comparing your arguement to John Calvin is the highest honor a Presbyterian can receive and I meant it to be taken as a complement), but Reformed Baptist are not Anabaptist and Presbyterians will have to use better arguments today then the ones advanced by Calvin yesterday against a different group. For Calvin's arguments are outdated and useless in debates with Reformed Baptist, therefore Presbyterians must if they are to establish the tradition of infant baptism come up with new arguments. I will try my best to explain how Calvin's argument falls apart when it encounters the Reformed Baptist position.


Remember my argument was not that Mathew 18:19 and Acts 2:38 expressly prohibit non-discipleship baptism but that they only command discipleship baptism. Using the regulative principle of worship, however, I argued that infant baptism (a form of non-Discipleship baptism) though not prohibited in Scripture, is nonetheless, not commanded by Scripture, and so to follow it would be to break the regulative principle of worship. The regulative principle is why we cannot justify Atheist baptism even though it is not prohibited by Scripture and the same goes for infant baptism. With this background let us proceed to critically examine Calvin's argument, which ran:


"If infant baptism is excluded because of verses like Mathew 18:19 or Acts 2:38, than so is infant salvation".


Note- I never argued that infant baptism is exluded because of verses like these, I only argued that these verses had no refrence to them. Hence, Calvin's target is someone else. Nonetheless letting that slide for now let is deal with the arguement any how.


To this argument of Calvin Reformed Baptist J.L. Dagg responds:

[quote:f8c00b149c] This argument has no force, to establish infant baptism. Because infants may be saved without repentance and faith, it does not follow that they are entitled to every privilege which may be claimed for them. The utmost extent to which the argument can go, is weaken the force of the opposing argument; and this it does in appearance only. How are we to reconcile the declaration, "He that believeth not shall be damned," with the doctrine of infant salvation? The answer is obvious. When Christ commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel to every creature, he meant every creature capable of hearing and understanding it. "He that believeth not," means- he that, having heard the gospel, rejects it. In this obvious meaning of the phrase, it affirms nothing contrary to infant salvation. Adopting the same mode of exposition, in the preceding clause, it signifies- he that hears the gospel, believes it, and is baptized, shall be saved. The commission does not say, whether infants will be saved, or whether they ought to be baptized; for the simple reason, that is has no reference to them. The argument before us, drives us to this exposition of the commission; but what does infant baptism gain by it? WE learn from it, that, in the great commission which Christ gave to his apostles, by which baptism was established as a permanent institution to be observed among all nations to the end of time, he had no reference to infants. (Manual of Church Order, p. 184.) [/quote:f8c00b149c]

As you can see, from this quote, Calvin's argument though works fine in debate with Anabaptist is useless in debates with Reformed Baptist, who actually want to emphasis the conclusion of Calvin's arguement for Calvin's conclusion has proved that these commands have "no reference to infants" and so using the regulative principle of worship Reformed Baptist refuse to worship God with their imaginations by adding things that though not prohibited are not commanded. Hence, Reformed Baptist like me have found Calvin's argument to establish rather than refute Discipleship baptism.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-9-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Tyler...

You will need to define discipleship and non-discipleship baptism because presbyterians always baptize disciples, whether infant, child, adolescent, or adult.

It would seem that you would define discipleship baptism as one that is accompanied by the individual's profession of faith; and non-discipleship baptism as one that is not based upon the individual profession of faith.

The difficulty that surrounds this position is that you do not have an explicit command to baptize anyone because of their profession of faith. There is no such command.

Now, there is a preponderance of examples of those who are baptized after they had professed faith, which you imply as the necessity for the baptism to have occurred. This, however, does not mean that it is normative, nor is it commanded to baptize only those who have professed faith.

The direct command that we have been given is to make disciples and baptize them.

Therefore, discipleship baptism is nothing more than baptizing a disciple.

Who is a disciple, then? Only those who have professed faith? Then Jesus' disciples themselves were baptized prematurely, for they did not profess faith. They were made disciples and baptized but they did not know that Jesus was the Christ and Son of God until later.

So, if you're going to use discipleship baptism to defeat our position, you should know that our definition of disciple is different. The infant of a believer is a disciple. They are holy and they are godly seed. Presbyterians baptize disciples only.

In Christ,

KC
 
Tertullian,

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I have been a little busy. But I would like to make a few comments.

[quote:2706d95285]
Thanks for the edifying conversation. It seems that we have made the majority of your points but I think you have begun to repeat yourself- I respect your prestigious tradition but I cannot except it if it means compromising what I believe Scripture and my conscious convicts and teaches. Hence, if you are going to convince me you need to prove more than this is what the reformers said or this is the prestigious tradition of the reformers because to appeal to them is to use the very things who truth is being questioned to prove themselves. Therefore, if you have made all the points that you are wanting to make great and may the Lord bless you for your willingness to contineut this dialogue... but if you still have more to say and add to the conversation I just wanted to take this time to expand what I said before in response to your comments below.
[/quote:2706d95285]

It is true that I have made the majority of my points and it was not necessarily my intention to get into a long debate, but simply point out the Historic Presbyterian position regarding the sacraments and who they are to be administered to. Many people read these threads and I would not want them to get the wrong impression. I certainly would not expect you to compromise what you believe and I stopped trying to convince Baptists about the Sacraments along time ago.


[quote:2706d95285]
It may be true that you personally do not see any inconsistency within the Westminister Standards but I think it is a stretch to say that no Presbyterian who has studied the issue, doing their best to comparing Scripture with the Standards has ever differed in their opinion their yours. John Frame (if I am interpreting right which I do not doubt that I am) is a prime counterfactual to the claim that no Presbyterian who has studied the Scripture and Standard and come to the conclusion that no contradiction exists.
[/quote:2706d95285]

Fortunately it is not just my opinion but is the opinion of the PCA. The Standards are not infallible. If inconsistencies do exist, whether with Scripture or within the Standards themselves, then there are procedures for changing the Standards, but to date no one has made such an attempt. If Dr. Frame or others are serious about their contentions regarding the Standards, they should state them in a Resolution to GA. My guess is they won't. It is easier to just throw stones at the Standards.


[quote:2706d95285]
In truth a whole Paedocommunion movement is gaining momentum in different Presbyterian sects and it will probably continue to grow as more and more Presbyterian continue to examine the issue. Why, some Presbyterians on this very board that I have talked with in the past have defended and affirmed Paedocommunion on the basis that it is inconsistent to argue for Paedobaptism but than not use that same logic to justify paedocommunion, and they would add, if 1 Corthians disproved Paedocommunion than the book of Acts would disprove Paedobaptism.
[/quote:2706d95285]

I have been studying the Peadocommunion issue for quite awhile and I as well as the PCA have found the arguments lacking. Whether there is a movement or that it is gaining momentum is debatable. I usually find that those advocating this unbiblical position are simply louder.


[quote:2706d95285]
In actuality the "Standards" have been changed over time and each Presbyterian sect has his own version of the Srandard, so it is artificial to compare Scriptural consistency with the Standards consistency. The Standards are still a work in progress which God is continuing to sanctify as he continues to confirm his Church to its glorious destiny. Therefore, since people have found inconsistency in the past (ex. on Civil government) it follows that it is not necessary that we judge a prior anyone wrong who claims to have discovered an inconsistency in the Standards for they may very well have discovered something which may have been overlooked in the past.
[/quote:2706d95285]

It is hardly artificial in considering inconsistencies. In fact there has been very little change in the Standards since it was adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1647. One thing that you might find interesting is that when the Standards have been significantly changed, those churches have eventually moved away from the Reformed Faith into Liberalism, Neo-Orthodoxy or something totally different from Christianity. This is self evident considering what happened to the PCUSA at the turn of the 20th Century.


[quote:2706d95285]
Frame's argument has yet to be dealt with (besides appeals to authority), and they need to be because if Frame's argument is sound then Frame's argument undermines the Westminster proof texts for its position on whom receives the sacraments (whether Frame intended it to or not, I think he did undermine the prooftexts).
[/quote:2706d95285]

One of the reasons why I say that Frame's argument is simplistic is that there is more to it. Act 2:39 must be included with verse 38 because it is the explanation for verse 38. I would hope that Frame is not going to take the Baptist position on these verses and understands that when verse 39 states that the promise is to you and your children, Peter is referring his Jewish audience back to the Abrahamic Covenant. As a Presbyterian, he should understand why an infant is not required to "repent and believe". If he doesn't then maybe he is a closet Baptist (but I doubt it). I suppose Dr. Frame is not willing to turn Scripture on its head by denying its covenantal structure. Now do I expect Baptists to get this? No! That's why they are Baptists. Regarding 1 Cor 11:27ff, yes this is for adults, or those who can examine themselves. That is why the Church does not feed damnation to its infants.

[quote:2706d95285]
Hence, so much for the inerrancy of the Confessions and reformers, and it is a dubious proposition to use the Westminster and reformers to vindicate itself once its proof texts have been undermined. Therefore we need arguements from Scripture not appeals to confessions and reformers if we are to solve this debate between paedocommunion and credo-communion.
[/quote:2706d95285]

I would be the last to say that the Standards are inerrant, much less the Reformers. That is why we can change the Standards. As far as the proof texts being undermined, sorry, they have not been.


[quote:2706d95285]
Presbyterian history when it comes to the issue of using 1 Cor 7:14 as proof text is far from consistent in fact if a different group of people had been picked to make the confession that verse might never have been used. B.B. Warfield was right when he wrote (paraphrase) "brothers we must all confess that we have different arguments for this dearly cherished tradition" - and that statement reveals the only consistent thing in regards to this specific topic- Presbyterians have all offered different arguments for the practice of infant baptism which contradict each other and the only thing they all had in common was their conclusions.

1 Cor 7:14 has not even convinced all Presbyterians and so it seems doubtful that Reformed Baptist that it will convince Reformed Baptist- after all Reformed Baptist have begun to use these verses to prove their position- please see my last post to see how.

I encourage you to please read my response to 1 Cor 7:14 over again because I assure you I do not just disagree with it but I have reasons why I do not agree with it which I listed before.
[/quote:2706d95285]

I have read your response and I understand how the writer came to his conclusion. Pastorway has come to the same conclusion, as I would ascertain that virtually all Baptists have. The reason this verse is used as one of many texts concerning infants is that it brings further light to the inclusion of infants in the visible church. Since God has declared the child as holy, the child is given status in the visible church (note: I am not talking about the invisible church, and neither is Hodge). Because of this status they have the right to the sign of inclusion in the visible church, ie; baptism. As Hodge notes, a child of an Israelite is circumcised (the sign of inclusion) because they are an Israelite, and a child of a Christian is baptized (sign of inclusion) because the are a Christian. Regarding the spouse of the believer, they are of an age that they can make a profession of faith, which the Church would require before Baptism.


[quote:2706d95285]
On the contrary Confessional Reformed Baptist do make that distinction between the Visible and Invisible Church, in fact the reformers actually borrowed it from Augustine so that distinction is not new or unique to the reformers, the London Baptist Confession teaches it and Reformed Baptist traditionally have upheld it- and so contrary to your assertion, even with the distinction made, Hodges argument does not make sense.

At the very lest you need to elaborate upon your statement because I do accept that distinction as Augstine taught it and the LBC and even Westminster- and find nothing in it that contradicts Reformed Baptist teaching.
[/quote:2706d95285]

My comment regarding the visible Church is based on the LBCF. It does not give a definition of the visible church as the WCF does, though it does describe "visible saints".

I would be interested to hear how a Reformed Baptist describes the visible church, especially in comparison to the WCF.
 
Isn't it interesting how the Scriptures teach us that we as adults must become like little children to inherit the kingdom, yet in the church we make the little children become like adults to actually feed on Christ at his table? :saint:

Sorry. Just a paedocommunionist who is submissive to the authority of his church (PCA) having a little fun here. :duh:
 
Paul,

[quote:c27cb025c4][quote:c27cb025c4]


and so using the regulative principle of worship Reformed Baptist refuse to worship God with their imaginations by adding things that though not prohibited are not commanded. Hence, Reformed Baptist like me have found Calvin's argument to establish rather than refute Discipleship baptism/ [/quote:c27cb025c4]



Yes but(!), I'm sure you understand that I believe infant baptism to be commanded by God. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

I do not doubt for a second that this is what your position teaches that God commands infant baptism but I question the truthfulness of that position and cannot find for the life of me a verse anywhere that commands infant baptism.

[quote:c27cb025c4] Also, if you are going to be hardline about this...i.e., EXPRESSLY SET DOWN, give me a passage that says "women are to partake in the Lord's supper" and an "example of a women taking it."

Well you can't. But you will go to good and necessary inference and say that that counts. Well, as you know, I will do this too. You will disagree that I have properly drawn an inference, I will disagree with your interpretation. Thus we are back at the original starting point and the regulative principle has been rendered null 'n void. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

Actually, I do not hold to "women Lord's Supper" I mean being a women is not the qualification for the Lord's Supper, the qualification of the Lord's Supper is being a Disciple (1 Cor. 11: 28-29), so only people both men and women who meet that qualification can participate in the Lord's Supper. Just because you are a women does not entitle you to the Lord's Supper but being a Disciple does, it would be breaking the regulative principle of worship for me to add more qualifications than discipleship like not being women.

[quote:c27cb025c4] Furthermore, you say that you practice the regulative principle in Church....can you show me THAT expressly set down? [/quote:c27cb025c4]

The doctrine of Regulative Worship is defended the same way the doctrine of Scripture alone is by the very nature of Scripture or in this case worship.

[quote:c27cb025c4] Does your baptist church use any instruments? What songs do you sing? [/quote:c27cb025c4]

Others on this board both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist have already addressed this issue explaining the difference between a circumstance and element. Instruments and song choice are circumstances that vary from language to language and culture to culture but these circumstance must always conform to the element in worship.

- I do not recommend that you try to say that infant baptism is a circumstance because circumstance very from culture to culture and place to place and time to time... and so I do not think you want to prove that infant baptism can be done or not done based on the prefrence of the church.

[quote:c27cb025c4] Also, my argument still works. I feel it was not addressed. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

I feel it was addressed and ask you to please reread the quote by the Reformed Baptist I posted.

[quote:c27cb025c4] You said that ONLY people who repent and have faith CAN be baptized...since that is what the Bible says. [/quote:c27cb025c4]

I never argued that, I said that the Bible only teaches Discipleship baptism but never prohibits non-discipleship Baptism. The Scriptural teaching summed up in the Regulative Principle teaches that we must not add to God's worship anything beyond what God commands, even if it is not directly prohibited by Scripture.

[quote:c27cb025c4] I pointed out that using your principles, ONLY repenters and faith havers can go to heaven. The Bible uses the same language for baptism as it does salvation, i.e., repent and believe...why won't you be consistant here?

-Paul [/quote:c27cb025c4]

Please reread my response in my last post, I agree with you that Acts 2:38 has not reference to infants that is my point.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]
 
KC,

Thanks for that excellent insight, I think your counter question is the only way to make infant baptism immune to the challenge that the regulative principle of worship affords against the practice:

Yes, God only commands Disciples to be baptized, and we cannot do more than God commands even if God does not prohibit it, but you see infants are really disciples.

However, let me say that if you use the word disciple so broadly that it can be used about infants or athiest spouses who are "santified" (see 1 Cor 7), then I will simply have to change words, for I chose the word "Disciple" to mean what it means in every day conversation.

Namely as someone who holds to the teachings of Christ (see John 8: 31 "If you were really my Disciples you would hold to my teachings...")

Therefore to answer your question,

[quote:43a905649d] You will need to define discipleship and non-discipleship baptism because presbyterians always baptize disciples, whether infant, child, adolescent, or adult. [/quote:43a905649d]

I would define Disciple as anyone who meets the qualifications laid out in Acts 2:38 and Mathew 28:19. My point is simply that God only commands those who meet those qualifications to be baptized. (What we call those people who meet those qualifications is not really important- so long as people know who we are talking about- in the past Disciple has accomplished that mutual understanding)

Hope this answers your question which is certainly the best question to ask after hearing a Reformed Baptist appeal to the regulative principle of worship.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Roldan
  • Locked
At what age do we stop Baptizing our children?
2
Replies
55
Views
5K
Tertullian
T
wsw201
  • Locked
Baptizing Non-members Children
Replies
21
Views
3K
fredtgreco
fredtgreco
Ambrose
  • Locked
When Should We Baptise Our Children?
Replies
24
Views
3K
Dan....
D
A
  • Locked
Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?
Replies
11
Views
2K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
P
  • Locked
Praying Children: should we teach our children to pray?
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
12K
daveb
D
Back
Top