luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Oooooh, Mr. Smartypants! 
At What Age Do We Start Baptizing our Children?
- Thread starter A_Wild_Boar
- Start date
- Status
[quote:1bdd43a9f8][i:1bdd43a9f8]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:1bdd43a9f8]
[quote:1bdd43a9f8][i:1bdd43a9f8]Originally posted by cih1355[/i:1bdd43a9f8]
Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19).
[/quote:1bdd43a9f8]
Actually, Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." There is nothing in these words giving us a chronological order of what precedes what.
And even if there was a chronological order to Jesus' words, I make disciple my children from their birth, and thus, they are proper recipients of baptism even on baptist grounds.
So my advice to A Wild Boar is this: by all means, baptize your children as soon as possible. [/quote:1bdd43a9f8]
When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".
[quote:1bdd43a9f8][i:1bdd43a9f8]Originally posted by cih1355[/i:1bdd43a9f8]
Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19).
[/quote:1bdd43a9f8]
Actually, Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." There is nothing in these words giving us a chronological order of what precedes what.
And even if there was a chronological order to Jesus' words, I make disciple my children from their birth, and thus, they are proper recipients of baptism even on baptist grounds.
So my advice to A Wild Boar is this: by all means, baptize your children as soon as possible. [/quote:1bdd43a9f8]
When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".
[quote:09dba0c8a4][i:09dba0c8a4]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:09dba0c8a4]
[quote:09dba0c8a4]
If they are truly saved, then they should get baptized as soon as possible. Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19). The pattern in the book of Acts is that people repented and believed the gospel first before they got baptized.
[/quote:09dba0c8a4]
Did you forget these verses brother ? ?
They do not explicitly say repentance followed or preceded their baptism.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And it seems to me from the following verse that we really do not know if repentance comes before, after or with the gift of regeneration.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [/quote:09dba0c8a4]
All of those verses that you referred to have to do with people getting converted. Faith in Christ and repentance are involved in conversion.
[quote:09dba0c8a4]
If they are truly saved, then they should get baptized as soon as possible. Jesus said to baptize those who are already disciples (Matt. 28:19). The pattern in the book of Acts is that people repented and believed the gospel first before they got baptized.
[/quote:09dba0c8a4]
Did you forget these verses brother ? ?
They do not explicitly say repentance followed or preceded their baptism.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Act 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
Act 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
Act 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed [their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
And it seems to me from the following verse that we really do not know if repentance comes before, after or with the gift of regeneration.
Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. [/quote:09dba0c8a4]
All of those verses that you referred to have to do with people getting converted. Faith in Christ and repentance are involved in conversion.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:f2726adc12]
All of those verses that you referred to have to do with people getting converted. Faith in Christ and repentance are involved in conversion.
[/quote:f2726adc12]
That is an assumption.
Anyway, there is no warning in Scripture for someone who baptizes someone else that is not "truly saved" as it is said in a previous post.
But woe to them who take the covenant sign lightly, like when Moses did not circumcise his son, nd Zipporah righteously confronted the neglect of her husband.
All of those verses that you referred to have to do with people getting converted. Faith in Christ and repentance are involved in conversion.
[/quote:f2726adc12]
That is an assumption.
Anyway, there is no warning in Scripture for someone who baptizes someone else that is not "truly saved" as it is said in a previous post.
But woe to them who take the covenant sign lightly, like when Moses did not circumcise his son, nd Zipporah righteously confronted the neglect of her husband.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Jayson Rawlins,
I view it as this: I am not really debating five Presbyterians but I am learning form an edifying conversation that involves five Presbyterians.
Thank you for setting up such a brief synopsis of your arguments, I hope that I will be able to use this show you what I mean when I said that-If I accepted your "arguments" about church Membership=New Covenant sign" and you accepted that position based on the same argument, we must both become Credobaptist because that same identical argument proves credobaptism when it is used to see who is the proper recipients of baptism. Allow me to demonstrate by parrelling your two twin arguments below:
[quote:14d204929b] "I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations." [/quote:14d204929b]
I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of adults who meet the qualifications being baptized; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized that adults who meet the qualifications receive baptism.
[quote:14d204929b] A shorter version would be:
1.) If a person is a member of the local church, then he/she was required to be baptized.
After all, only baptized people have a right to join the church according to the regulative principle.." [/quote:14d204929b]
1) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized.
After all, only adults who have the qualifications have the right to be baptized according to the regulative principle.
[quote:14d204929b] My question is- Do you accept this premise and not the premise, "If a person is baptized, then he/she becomes a church member. In other words, do you believe that visible church membership has the moral prerequisite of baptism? Or, do you think that membership in the church does not presuppose necessarily baptism. Granted, I understand that sometimes pastors can't always be sure of whether all of their members have been baptized properly but I am arguing ethically that church membership implies baptism. Again, I repeat the question:
Do you agree that if a person is a member of a local church, then he/she was required to be baptized (either from another church or for the first time)? [/quote:14d204929b]
If you accept the logic in this argument then use must consistently accept the parallel argument that proves that infants cannot get the sacrament- personally, as you know I am Reformed Baptist and so I accept the traditional Reformed Baptist answer to that question- namely- yes all Disciples are to be baptized and become church members-they are to become church members in fact I think that Barth was on to something when he explained the essential aspect of the Disciple commitment to share the destiny of the community and the community the destiny of the Disciple- in other words Baptism is a Disciples first act of obedience.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
I view it as this: I am not really debating five Presbyterians but I am learning form an edifying conversation that involves five Presbyterians.
Thank you for setting up such a brief synopsis of your arguments, I hope that I will be able to use this show you what I mean when I said that-If I accepted your "arguments" about church Membership=New Covenant sign" and you accepted that position based on the same argument, we must both become Credobaptist because that same identical argument proves credobaptism when it is used to see who is the proper recipients of baptism. Allow me to demonstrate by parrelling your two twin arguments below:
[quote:14d204929b] "I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of people entering into church membership with their baptism; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations." [/quote:14d204929b]
I tried to argue from God revealing only examples of adults who meet the qualifications being baptized; consequently, I concluded that God has only authorized that adults who meet the qualifications receive baptism.
[quote:14d204929b] A shorter version would be:
1.) If a person is a member of the local church, then he/she was required to be baptized.
After all, only baptized people have a right to join the church according to the regulative principle.." [/quote:14d204929b]
1) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized.
After all, only adults who have the qualifications have the right to be baptized according to the regulative principle.
[quote:14d204929b] My question is- Do you accept this premise and not the premise, "If a person is baptized, then he/she becomes a church member. In other words, do you believe that visible church membership has the moral prerequisite of baptism? Or, do you think that membership in the church does not presuppose necessarily baptism. Granted, I understand that sometimes pastors can't always be sure of whether all of their members have been baptized properly but I am arguing ethically that church membership implies baptism. Again, I repeat the question:
Do you agree that if a person is a member of a local church, then he/she was required to be baptized (either from another church or for the first time)? [/quote:14d204929b]
If you accept the logic in this argument then use must consistently accept the parallel argument that proves that infants cannot get the sacrament- personally, as you know I am Reformed Baptist and so I accept the traditional Reformed Baptist answer to that question- namely- yes all Disciples are to be baptized and become church members-they are to become church members in fact I think that Barth was on to something when he explained the essential aspect of the Disciple commitment to share the destiny of the community and the community the destiny of the Disciple- in other words Baptism is a Disciples first act of obedience.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Curt,
[quote:396695e64b]
When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".
[/quote:396695e64b]
First, even if that's what he meant, that still doesn't necessitate a chronology here.
Second, the Greek text will not allow this interpretation. (I don't know if you know Greek or not, but to be safe I'm going to assume you don't) For one thing, the noun "disciples" is not present in the text. The word that the English versions commonly derive the the word "disciple" from is the verb [i:396695e64b]matheteuo[/i:396695e64b]. This verb means "to make one a disciple", or simply "to teach". In fact, the KJV translates this verse, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." If you translate the verse this way, then even in English the word "them" cannot refer to "disciples" since the word isn't even present in English. It is crystal clear in the Greek text (and even some English texts, depending on which translation you have, such as the KJV) that the pronoun [i:396695e64b]autous[/i:396695e64b], "them", is referring to the [i:396695e64b]ethne[/i:396695e64b], "nations".
Now, as to what Matt 28:19 IS saying about "making disciples" and "baptizing", the verb [i:396695e64b]matheteuo[/i:396695e64b] is a simple command (for those who are familiar with Greek, it is aorist active imperative). The word "baptizing", in technical language, is an anarthrous present active participle in the predicate position, which means the participle is functioning adverbially to describe the command to teach/make disciples. What this all means in layman's terms is that the action of the participle (in this case, the "baptizing" ) is taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is the command to teach/make disciples.
So as I said before, there is nothing in the text of Matthew 28:19 that gives us a chronological order of "first you make disciples, then you baptize". At most, it says both acts of disciple-making and baptizing are to be practiced presently in the ministry of the church. This verse cannot be used to argue against the paedobaptist position.
I apologize if you already know Greek and anything I said insulted your intelligence, as that wasn't my intention. I also apologize if what I said was way over your head because I wasn't trying to make you feel or look stupid. I supposed I should have asked if you were familiar with Greek before I posted all this, but since I've written it all up, I'll post it, and if you have any questions about what I wrote, I'll try to help you understand.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by luvroftheWord]
[quote:396695e64b]
When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".
[/quote:396695e64b]
First, even if that's what he meant, that still doesn't necessitate a chronology here.
Second, the Greek text will not allow this interpretation. (I don't know if you know Greek or not, but to be safe I'm going to assume you don't) For one thing, the noun "disciples" is not present in the text. The word that the English versions commonly derive the the word "disciple" from is the verb [i:396695e64b]matheteuo[/i:396695e64b]. This verb means "to make one a disciple", or simply "to teach". In fact, the KJV translates this verse, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." If you translate the verse this way, then even in English the word "them" cannot refer to "disciples" since the word isn't even present in English. It is crystal clear in the Greek text (and even some English texts, depending on which translation you have, such as the KJV) that the pronoun [i:396695e64b]autous[/i:396695e64b], "them", is referring to the [i:396695e64b]ethne[/i:396695e64b], "nations".
Now, as to what Matt 28:19 IS saying about "making disciples" and "baptizing", the verb [i:396695e64b]matheteuo[/i:396695e64b] is a simple command (for those who are familiar with Greek, it is aorist active imperative). The word "baptizing", in technical language, is an anarthrous present active participle in the predicate position, which means the participle is functioning adverbially to describe the command to teach/make disciples. What this all means in layman's terms is that the action of the participle (in this case, the "baptizing" ) is taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is the command to teach/make disciples.
So as I said before, there is nothing in the text of Matthew 28:19 that gives us a chronological order of "first you make disciples, then you baptize". At most, it says both acts of disciple-making and baptizing are to be practiced presently in the ministry of the church. This verse cannot be used to argue against the paedobaptist position.
I apologize if you already know Greek and anything I said insulted your intelligence, as that wasn't my intention. I also apologize if what I said was way over your head because I wasn't trying to make you feel or look stupid. I supposed I should have asked if you were familiar with Greek before I posted all this, but since I've written it all up, I'll post it, and if you have any questions about what I wrote, I'll try to help you understand.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by luvroftheWord]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:68f1672cae]
When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".
Jesus said, "MAKE disciples of nations,... baptizing them and teaching them."
How would one MAKE a disciple? By baptizing them, AND by teaching them.
(1) Baptize: I want to make my child a disciple, therefore, I baptize him. [/quote:68f1672cae]
Paul, how can you ask Reformed Baptist to accept this argument when not even all (I think the majority) Paedobaptist do not accept the validity of that argument. As TE Watson shows in his book that uses Paedobaptist to demolish the arguements of other Paedobaptist:
[quote:68f1672cae] Richard Baxter observes:
[quote:68f1672cae] this is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers. The second work is to baptize them... The third work is to teach them all things, which are afterwards to be larned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order to ronounce all rultes of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here? (Disputations of Right to Sacrament, p. 149f [/quote:68f1672cae]
...Another one to admit the fact, but not the consequences, of the order expressed in Christ commission to baptize is James Bannerman, who writes:
[quote:68f1672cae] The apostolic commission in Mark is to this effect: "Go ye into all the word and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is not baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." It is abundantly obvious that this language applies primarily to the ordinary case of adults and not to the exceptional case of infants, and while the order- first belief, and then baptism- refers to adults. It cannot apply to infants, to whom the Gospel cannot be preached and who cannot be expected to believe it. (The Church of Christ, vol. 2, p. 104f) [/quote:68f1672cae]
Seeing that the order is so plain, it is small wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop Bossuet taunts the Reformed Churches, writing:
[quote:68f1672cae]Jesus Christ has said, "Teach and baptize", and again, "He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved." But the church solely by the authority of tradition and custom, has so interpreted these words, that the instruction and faith which Christ had joined with baptism might be separated from it in the case of infants. These words, "Teach and baptize", have along time perplexed out Reformed gentlemen. (On the Holy Supper, p. 127f) [/quote:68f1672cae]
They still do!
So important is this commission to baptize, that space will be given to several more quotations:
[b:68f1672cae] John Calvin [/b:68f1672cae] 'Christ enjoins that those who have submitted to the gospel, and professed to be his disciples, shall be baptized; partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men. (Harmony of the Evangelists, vol. 3 p. 385)
[b:68f1672cae] Charles Simeon [/b:68f1672cae] 1. They were to teach all nations. 2. They were to baptize their converts in the name of the sacred three (Expository Outlines in loc)
[b:68f1672cae] David Brown [/b:68f1672cae] Set the seal of visible Disci0pleship upon the converts by baptizing them
[b:68f1672cae] Louis Berkhof [/b:68f1672cae] They who accepted Christ by faith were to be baptized in the name of the triune God, as a sign and seal of the fact that they had entered into a new relation to God and as such were obligated to live according to the laws of the kingdom of God (Kingdom theology, p. 642) [/quote:68f1672cae]
Not only do Paedobaptist disagree but they offer strong reasons to disagree with that arguement for Paedobaptism.
[quote:68f1672cae] (2) teach: Could be tricky. I mean can teaching affect an infant? Well, it just so happens that Paul tells us in Titus 1:11 that the teaching of the circumcision group (who taught, among other things, that infants should still be circumcised to keep the law) is destroying whole households. So, I guess that their can be destructive teaching and constructive teaching. What do we do when we construct something? We MAKE something. We MAKE our children into disciples. [/quote:68f1672cae]
This arguement is not very compelling because no one need deny that infants are effected by the doctrines their parents hold, for example any Baptist could fully agree that if the parents thought that God wanted them to sacrafice their children then of course that would affect their children- but does it follow from that the we ought to baptize infants? (I fail to see how anyway.)
[quote:68f1672cae] The assumption is that children cannot be disciples in ANY sense. Well, they can. They just are at a different stage then you are. I mean, this shouldn't be to hard to grasp. I teach my son about the trinity but that is no where near what a 10 yr old knows. And the 10yr olds level is not that of a 20 yr old. And the 20yr old is not at a 40 yr olds.....
-Paul [/quote:68f1672cae]
Again how can you expect a Reformed Baptist to just agree with you without Scriptural support- the question is not whether Paul defines infants as Disciples but does Scripture define infants as Disciples- and I know of no such verse where any infant is every called a Disciple- do you?
Professor John Murray says about babies: They are not psychologically capable of such faith and its corresponding confession. (Christian Baptism p. 74).
How is a Christian infant any more a learner than a pagan infant? Neither can speak nor understand and without the preaching of the Gospel can they really be taught about Christ by a parent? No compelling reason can be advanced to argue that babies who do not believe can be considered Disciples and without that compelling reason why ought the Reformed Baptist to agree with it? The answer is that Reformed Baptist do not have to agree with it nor should they agree with it because to call an infant a "Disciple of Christ" is just to betray the way language is usually implied in everyday conversation not to mention the Bible.
Hence we must conclude with Louis Berkhof: There is not explicit command in the Bible to baptize children (Systematic theology, p. 632)
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".
Jesus said, "MAKE disciples of nations,... baptizing them and teaching them."
How would one MAKE a disciple? By baptizing them, AND by teaching them.
(1) Baptize: I want to make my child a disciple, therefore, I baptize him. [/quote:68f1672cae]
Paul, how can you ask Reformed Baptist to accept this argument when not even all (I think the majority) Paedobaptist do not accept the validity of that argument. As TE Watson shows in his book that uses Paedobaptist to demolish the arguements of other Paedobaptist:
[quote:68f1672cae] Richard Baxter observes:
[quote:68f1672cae] this is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers. The second work is to baptize them... The third work is to teach them all things, which are afterwards to be larned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order to ronounce all rultes of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here? (Disputations of Right to Sacrament, p. 149f [/quote:68f1672cae]
...Another one to admit the fact, but not the consequences, of the order expressed in Christ commission to baptize is James Bannerman, who writes:
[quote:68f1672cae] The apostolic commission in Mark is to this effect: "Go ye into all the word and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is not baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." It is abundantly obvious that this language applies primarily to the ordinary case of adults and not to the exceptional case of infants, and while the order- first belief, and then baptism- refers to adults. It cannot apply to infants, to whom the Gospel cannot be preached and who cannot be expected to believe it. (The Church of Christ, vol. 2, p. 104f) [/quote:68f1672cae]
Seeing that the order is so plain, it is small wonder that the Roman Catholic Bishop Bossuet taunts the Reformed Churches, writing:
[quote:68f1672cae]Jesus Christ has said, "Teach and baptize", and again, "He that beleiveth and is baptized shall be saved." But the church solely by the authority of tradition and custom, has so interpreted these words, that the instruction and faith which Christ had joined with baptism might be separated from it in the case of infants. These words, "Teach and baptize", have along time perplexed out Reformed gentlemen. (On the Holy Supper, p. 127f) [/quote:68f1672cae]
They still do!
So important is this commission to baptize, that space will be given to several more quotations:
[b:68f1672cae] John Calvin [/b:68f1672cae] 'Christ enjoins that those who have submitted to the gospel, and professed to be his disciples, shall be baptized; partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men. (Harmony of the Evangelists, vol. 3 p. 385)
[b:68f1672cae] Charles Simeon [/b:68f1672cae] 1. They were to teach all nations. 2. They were to baptize their converts in the name of the sacred three (Expository Outlines in loc)
[b:68f1672cae] David Brown [/b:68f1672cae] Set the seal of visible Disci0pleship upon the converts by baptizing them
[b:68f1672cae] Louis Berkhof [/b:68f1672cae] They who accepted Christ by faith were to be baptized in the name of the triune God, as a sign and seal of the fact that they had entered into a new relation to God and as such were obligated to live according to the laws of the kingdom of God (Kingdom theology, p. 642) [/quote:68f1672cae]
Not only do Paedobaptist disagree but they offer strong reasons to disagree with that arguement for Paedobaptism.
[quote:68f1672cae] (2) teach: Could be tricky. I mean can teaching affect an infant? Well, it just so happens that Paul tells us in Titus 1:11 that the teaching of the circumcision group (who taught, among other things, that infants should still be circumcised to keep the law) is destroying whole households. So, I guess that their can be destructive teaching and constructive teaching. What do we do when we construct something? We MAKE something. We MAKE our children into disciples. [/quote:68f1672cae]
This arguement is not very compelling because no one need deny that infants are effected by the doctrines their parents hold, for example any Baptist could fully agree that if the parents thought that God wanted them to sacrafice their children then of course that would affect their children- but does it follow from that the we ought to baptize infants? (I fail to see how anyway.)
[quote:68f1672cae] The assumption is that children cannot be disciples in ANY sense. Well, they can. They just are at a different stage then you are. I mean, this shouldn't be to hard to grasp. I teach my son about the trinity but that is no where near what a 10 yr old knows. And the 10yr olds level is not that of a 20 yr old. And the 20yr old is not at a 40 yr olds.....
-Paul [/quote:68f1672cae]
Again how can you expect a Reformed Baptist to just agree with you without Scriptural support- the question is not whether Paul defines infants as Disciples but does Scripture define infants as Disciples- and I know of no such verse where any infant is every called a Disciple- do you?
Professor John Murray says about babies: They are not psychologically capable of such faith and its corresponding confession. (Christian Baptism p. 74).
How is a Christian infant any more a learner than a pagan infant? Neither can speak nor understand and without the preaching of the Gospel can they really be taught about Christ by a parent? No compelling reason can be advanced to argue that babies who do not believe can be considered Disciples and without that compelling reason why ought the Reformed Baptist to agree with it? The answer is that Reformed Baptist do not have to agree with it nor should they agree with it because to call an infant a "Disciple of Christ" is just to betray the way language is usually implied in everyday conversation not to mention the Bible.
Hence we must conclude with Louis Berkhof: There is not explicit command in the Bible to baptize children (Systematic theology, p. 632)
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
Excellent
Hi Tyler,
Well, I think we are ready to progress the debate to the next level. Here is both of our syllogisms based on the regulative principle.
My syllogism with premise 1 as you have accepted it:
1.) God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) God has authorized infants of believers to be members of the visible church.
C.) God has authorized infants of believers to be baptized.
Your syllogism:
1.) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) Infants of believers are not adults who meet the qualifications.
C.) Infants of believers were not baptized.
I think both of our arguments are logically valid. Yet, our conclusions are completely contradictory. This means that one or more of the premises we're using in our arguments are false. You agreed with my premise 1; however, if you are correct, my second premise must be false. Would you agree if I could demonstrate biblically that infants of believers were church members that infant baptism would be vindicated based on my syllogism above? If so, this would disprove your premise 1. If I can't, then your premise 1 would be vindicated and paedobaptism could not be true.
While I have not succeeded in placing the burden of proof onto you, I think I have at least brought it down to the most fundamental issue- were infants of believers church members?
Cordially,
Jayson Rawlins
Hi Tyler,
Well, I think we are ready to progress the debate to the next level. Here is both of our syllogisms based on the regulative principle.
My syllogism with premise 1 as you have accepted it:
1.) God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) God has authorized infants of believers to be members of the visible church.
C.) God has authorized infants of believers to be baptized.
Your syllogism:
1.) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) Infants of believers are not adults who meet the qualifications.
C.) Infants of believers were not baptized.
I think both of our arguments are logically valid. Yet, our conclusions are completely contradictory. This means that one or more of the premises we're using in our arguments are false. You agreed with my premise 1; however, if you are correct, my second premise must be false. Would you agree if I could demonstrate biblically that infants of believers were church members that infant baptism would be vindicated based on my syllogism above? If so, this would disprove your premise 1. If I can't, then your premise 1 would be vindicated and paedobaptism could not be true.
While I have not succeeded in placing the burden of proof onto you, I think I have at least brought it down to the most fundamental issue- were infants of believers church members?
Cordially,
Jayson Rawlins
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:a748fee25f] Curt,
[quote:a748fee25f] When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".[/quote:a748fee25f]
First, even if that's what he meant, that still doesn't necessitate a chronology here.[/quote:a748fee25f]
Why not? As your own Paedobabptist, Richard Baxter had to confess, "To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here?" I seems that if that is what it meant then we do have an order that proves that baptism has no reference to infants.
However you also argued that it did not so let us look at those arguments:
[quote:a748fee25f] Second, the Greek text will not allow this interpretation. (I don't know if you know Greek or not, but to be safe I'm going to assume you don't) For one thing, the noun "disciples" is not present in the text. The word that the English versions commonly derive the the word "disciple" from is the verb matheteuo. This verb means "to make one a disciple", or simply "to teach". In fact, the KJV translates this verse, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." If you translate the verse this way, then even in English the word "them" cannot refer to "disciples" since the word isn't even present in English. It is crystal clear in the Greek text (and even some English texts, depending on which translation you have, such as the KJV) that the pronoun autous, "them", is referring to the ethne, "nations".
Now, as to what Matt 28:19 IS saying about "making disciples" and "baptizing", the verb matheteuo is a simple command (for those who are familiar with Greek, it is aorist active imperative). The word "baptizing", in technical language, is an anarthrous present active participle in the predicate position, which means the participle is functioning adverbially to describe the command to teach/make disciples. What this all means in layman's terms is that the action of the participle (in this case, the "baptizing" ) is taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is the command to teach/make disciples.
So as I said before, there is nothing in the text of Matthew 28:19 that gives us a chronological order of "first you make disciples, then you baptize". At most, it says both acts of disciple-making and baptizing are to be practiced presently in the ministry of the church. This verse cannot be used to argue against the paedobaptist position.
I apologize if you already know Greek and anything I said insulted your intelligence, as that wasn't my intention. I also apologize if what I said was way over your head because I wasn't trying to make you feel or look stupid. I supposed I should have asked if you were familiar with Greek before I posted all this, but since I've written it all up, I'll post it, and if you have any questions about what I wrote, I'll try to help you understand.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:a748fee25f]
I maybe one of those who are ignorant of Greek but I know that the people who translated the New American Standard knew Greek and (I am not really impressed that the KJV supports your interpretation) so is this is an accurate translation of the Greek:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NAS)
If it then I do not see your argument if it is not then why do you disagree with the majority of Bible translations or have you listed all your reasons already?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:a748fee25f] When Jesus said, "...baptizing them...", the "them" refers to disciples. So, Jesus meant "baptizing disciples".[/quote:a748fee25f]
First, even if that's what he meant, that still doesn't necessitate a chronology here.[/quote:a748fee25f]
Why not? As your own Paedobabptist, Richard Baxter had to confess, "To contemn this order is to renounce all rules of order; for where can we expect to find it if not here?" I seems that if that is what it meant then we do have an order that proves that baptism has no reference to infants.
However you also argued that it did not so let us look at those arguments:
[quote:a748fee25f] Second, the Greek text will not allow this interpretation. (I don't know if you know Greek or not, but to be safe I'm going to assume you don't) For one thing, the noun "disciples" is not present in the text. The word that the English versions commonly derive the the word "disciple" from is the verb matheteuo. This verb means "to make one a disciple", or simply "to teach". In fact, the KJV translates this verse, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them..." If you translate the verse this way, then even in English the word "them" cannot refer to "disciples" since the word isn't even present in English. It is crystal clear in the Greek text (and even some English texts, depending on which translation you have, such as the KJV) that the pronoun autous, "them", is referring to the ethne, "nations".
Now, as to what Matt 28:19 IS saying about "making disciples" and "baptizing", the verb matheteuo is a simple command (for those who are familiar with Greek, it is aorist active imperative). The word "baptizing", in technical language, is an anarthrous present active participle in the predicate position, which means the participle is functioning adverbially to describe the command to teach/make disciples. What this all means in layman's terms is that the action of the participle (in this case, the "baptizing" ) is taking place at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is the command to teach/make disciples.
So as I said before, there is nothing in the text of Matthew 28:19 that gives us a chronological order of "first you make disciples, then you baptize". At most, it says both acts of disciple-making and baptizing are to be practiced presently in the ministry of the church. This verse cannot be used to argue against the paedobaptist position.
I apologize if you already know Greek and anything I said insulted your intelligence, as that wasn't my intention. I also apologize if what I said was way over your head because I wasn't trying to make you feel or look stupid. I supposed I should have asked if you were familiar with Greek before I posted all this, but since I've written it all up, I'll post it, and if you have any questions about what I wrote, I'll try to help you understand.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:a748fee25f]
I maybe one of those who are ignorant of Greek but I know that the people who translated the New American Standard knew Greek and (I am not really impressed that the KJV supports your interpretation) so is this is an accurate translation of the Greek:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NAS)
If it then I do not see your argument if it is not then why do you disagree with the majority of Bible translations or have you listed all your reasons already?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Goosha,
I agree that we are ready to move onto the next level.
[quote:3ef66143a4]
Here is both of our syllogisms based on the regulative principle.
My syllogism with premise 1 as you have accepted it:
1.) God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) God has authorized infants of believers to be members of the visible church.
C.) God has authorized infants of believers to be baptized.
Your syllogism:
1.) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) Infants of believers are not adults who meet the qualifications.
C.) Infants of believers were not baptized.
I think both of our arguments are logically valid. [/quote:3ef66143a4]
Agreed
[quote:3ef66143a4] Yet, our conclusions are completely contradictory. This means that one or more of the premises we're using in our arguments are false. [/quote:3ef66143a4]
I concur
[quote:3ef66143a4] You agreed with my premise 1; however, if you are correct, my second premise must be false. Would you agree if I could demonstrate biblically that infants of believers were church members that infant baptism would be vindicated based on my syllogism above? If so, this would disprove your premise 1. If I can't, then your premise 1 would be vindicated and paedobaptism could not be true. [/quote:3ef66143a4]
I am not sure that you would be able to convince a Reformed Baptist that babies of Christian are church members, I mean Paul commanding children to obey parents in Ephesians or the children of believers being called holy is hardly evidence of that.
I think that if we could say that if you could not prove that infants are church members then we for sure have a reason to reject Paedobaptism but I am not sure we have a reason to reject credobaptism if you prove that infants are church members- Why?
Because your argument to support that all church members get the sign rested on the premise that "every example in the New Testament church members got the sign" now if you prove that infants were Church members would have a clear defeater to your premise that "Every example of the New Testament a church member go the sign" - hence we now have a defeater against the very argument used to support the argument that all church members get the sign. (If that is not your arguement for church membership=baptism, I apologize and ask to be set straight)
[quote:3ef66143a4] While I have not succeeded in placing the burden of proof onto you, I think I have at least brought it down to the most fundamental issue- were infants of believers church member [/quote:3ef66143a4]
I think the situation is worse for the Paedobaptist, looking at this objectively with Scripture, we can see that the Paedobaptist position cannot live consistently with these two premises:
A) Every Example in the New Covenant demonstrates that all church members get baptized.
B) No example of infant baptism can be found
Yet this is exactly what you must do if the Paedopostion's arguement is to work I think for your argument runs
1) Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4) Infants are church members.
5) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.
6) Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
I agree that we are ready to move onto the next level.
[quote:3ef66143a4]
Here is both of our syllogisms based on the regulative principle.
My syllogism with premise 1 as you have accepted it:
1.) God has only authorized baptized people the right to join local congregations. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) God has authorized infants of believers to be members of the visible church.
C.) God has authorized infants of believers to be baptized.
Your syllogism:
1.) Only adults who meet the qualifications were baptized. (Based on the Regulative Principle.)
2.) Infants of believers are not adults who meet the qualifications.
C.) Infants of believers were not baptized.
I think both of our arguments are logically valid. [/quote:3ef66143a4]
Agreed
[quote:3ef66143a4] Yet, our conclusions are completely contradictory. This means that one or more of the premises we're using in our arguments are false. [/quote:3ef66143a4]
I concur
[quote:3ef66143a4] You agreed with my premise 1; however, if you are correct, my second premise must be false. Would you agree if I could demonstrate biblically that infants of believers were church members that infant baptism would be vindicated based on my syllogism above? If so, this would disprove your premise 1. If I can't, then your premise 1 would be vindicated and paedobaptism could not be true. [/quote:3ef66143a4]
I am not sure that you would be able to convince a Reformed Baptist that babies of Christian are church members, I mean Paul commanding children to obey parents in Ephesians or the children of believers being called holy is hardly evidence of that.
I think that if we could say that if you could not prove that infants are church members then we for sure have a reason to reject Paedobaptism but I am not sure we have a reason to reject credobaptism if you prove that infants are church members- Why?
Because your argument to support that all church members get the sign rested on the premise that "every example in the New Testament church members got the sign" now if you prove that infants were Church members would have a clear defeater to your premise that "Every example of the New Testament a church member go the sign" - hence we now have a defeater against the very argument used to support the argument that all church members get the sign. (If that is not your arguement for church membership=baptism, I apologize and ask to be set straight)
[quote:3ef66143a4] While I have not succeeded in placing the burden of proof onto you, I think I have at least brought it down to the most fundamental issue- were infants of believers church member [/quote:3ef66143a4]
I think the situation is worse for the Paedobaptist, looking at this objectively with Scripture, we can see that the Paedobaptist position cannot live consistently with these two premises:
A) Every Example in the New Covenant demonstrates that all church members get baptized.
B) No example of infant baptism can be found
Yet this is exactly what you must do if the Paedopostion's arguement is to work I think for your argument runs
1) Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4) Infants are church members.
5) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.
6) Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
[quote:0f993207d1][i:0f993207d1]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:0f993207d1]
I maybe one of those who are ignorant of Greek but I know that the people who translated the New American Standard knew Greek and (I am not really impressed that the KJV supports your interpretation) so is this is an accurate translation of the Greek:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NAS)
If it then I do not see your argument if it is not then why do you disagree with the majority of Bible translations or have you listed all your reasons already?
[/quote:0f993207d1]
Yes, the NASB is a fine translation here. But my point was that in the Greek text, the word "disciple" (the Greek word [i:0f993207d1]mathetes[/i:0f993207d1]) is just not there. The phrase in English "make disciples" is actually a verb in the Greek, the word [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1]. That is why the word "disciples" absolutely cannot be what the pronoun "them", is referring to. A pronoun cannot refer to a verb.
The verb [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1] can be properly translated "to teach", but the idea being the verb is more properly expressed in a translation such as "make disciples" because the idea of the verb is for the teaching to be followed by the listeners. If you leave the translation as simply "teach", this idea can be missed because teaching can still be considered teaching whether anybody follows it or not. So translating the verb as "make disicples" probably more accurately captures the idea being expressed in the verb.
But even though that is the case in English, it still doesn't change the fact that the noun just isn't there in the Greek. The command "make disciples" is one word in the Greek, the word [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1]. The "them" that are baptized is the pronoun [i:0f993207d1]autous[/i:0f993207d1]. [i:0f993207d1]Autous[/i:0f993207d1] absolutely cannot refer back to [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1] because pronouns are used in place of nouns, not verbs. We must look to the Greek to see the syntactical functions of the text because, as this particular verse shows, the English can be misleading.
I maybe one of those who are ignorant of Greek but I know that the people who translated the New American Standard knew Greek and (I am not really impressed that the KJV supports your interpretation) so is this is an accurate translation of the Greek:
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (NAS)
If it then I do not see your argument if it is not then why do you disagree with the majority of Bible translations or have you listed all your reasons already?
[/quote:0f993207d1]
Yes, the NASB is a fine translation here. But my point was that in the Greek text, the word "disciple" (the Greek word [i:0f993207d1]mathetes[/i:0f993207d1]) is just not there. The phrase in English "make disciples" is actually a verb in the Greek, the word [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1]. That is why the word "disciples" absolutely cannot be what the pronoun "them", is referring to. A pronoun cannot refer to a verb.
The verb [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1] can be properly translated "to teach", but the idea being the verb is more properly expressed in a translation such as "make disciples" because the idea of the verb is for the teaching to be followed by the listeners. If you leave the translation as simply "teach", this idea can be missed because teaching can still be considered teaching whether anybody follows it or not. So translating the verb as "make disicples" probably more accurately captures the idea being expressed in the verb.
But even though that is the case in English, it still doesn't change the fact that the noun just isn't there in the Greek. The command "make disciples" is one word in the Greek, the word [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1]. The "them" that are baptized is the pronoun [i:0f993207d1]autous[/i:0f993207d1]. [i:0f993207d1]Autous[/i:0f993207d1] absolutely cannot refer back to [i:0f993207d1]matheteuo[/i:0f993207d1] because pronouns are used in place of nouns, not verbs. We must look to the Greek to see the syntactical functions of the text because, as this particular verse shows, the English can be misleading.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:acf9e119e4][i:acf9e119e4]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:acf9e119e4]
[quote:acf9e119e4][i:acf9e119e4]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:acf9e119e4]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:acf9e119e4]
With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx
[/quote:acf9e119e4]
I am not dodging questions about credobaptism I am dodging entering a debate that in fact need not be debated because both sides already agree- that is why I want to Paul to define his position so that I can agree with it- both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist agree with the regulative principle of worship.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[quote:acf9e119e4][i:acf9e119e4]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:acf9e119e4]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:acf9e119e4]
With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx
[/quote:acf9e119e4]I am not dodging questions about credobaptism I am dodging entering a debate that in fact need not be debated because both sides already agree- that is why I want to Paul to define his position so that I can agree with it- both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist agree with the regulative principle of worship.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:5d746dc8f2][i:5d746dc8f2]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:5d746dc8f2]
Tertullian,
Really nobody is off topic here, unless you just assume that there is a distinction between the covenant community and the church. I reject that distinction.
[Edited on 3-19-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:5d746dc8f2]
That distinction is unimportant to my arguement for even if it is for sake of arguement assumed that there is no distinction my arguement still stands (so far as I can see)
Tertullian,
Really nobody is off topic here, unless you just assume that there is a distinction between the covenant community and the church. I reject that distinction.
[Edited on 3-19-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:5d746dc8f2]
That distinction is unimportant to my arguement for even if it is for sake of arguement assumed that there is no distinction my arguement still stands (so far as I can see)
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,
[quote:0411214456] baptists at war with eachother
Tert states that T.E Watson argues that covenant membership does not get you thie sign. This is fine.
Tert seems to agree.
P.K. Jewett does not. Now, i can't exactly remembert the page, but it in his last section for his positive case. Maybe pg.226 or 228. He says that being a member of the new covenat does get youn the sign. He just doesn't think that children are in the NC (based on poor exegesis and not taking into account the covenant apostacy passages). But this is a side issue that I didn't wan to get into.
Now, this will be used in what I (Lord willing!) will post this weekend.
But at least we can see that the baptisst can't even agree amongst themselves. [/quote:0411214456]
Wow, if you reject credobaptist because they have disagreements then you should certainly drop Paedobaptism for they are worse then credobaptist when it comes to disagreements for the reasons to practice infant baptism.
However, I just want to set something straight for the record book. I accept Jewett's, Riddersbos's, Owen's, and others arguements that the New Covenant is unbreakable- as does TE Watson- all TE Watson and I are saying is that Paedobaptism cannot be proved or disproved by proving or disproving that children are Covenant members.
[quote:0411214456] Now, Tert.
(1) You used the element circumstance argument. I want you do give me the objective standard by which we determine what is cultural? This will not be easy. If it were then we would solve the head covering issue and a host of others! So, I asked YOU. It is YOUR argument. I have not put anyhting forth yet. Again, PROVE that "out." [/quote:0411214456]
Each element and circumstance must be looked at individually- but for this debate we either say that baptism is an element (Thus we must look to Scripture) or we must say it is a circmustance and you must say that the Baptist are doing baptsim right since it is a circumstance how it is adminstered- but if you still want to Discipleship baptism as defined by baptist is wrong- I suggest we continue to affirm the Confessions and say that baptism is an element.
[quote:0411214456] (2) Command: anything explicitly or taken by good and necessary inference from God. [/quote:0411214456]
I accept that definition.
[quote:0411214456] Infant baptism is taken by good and neccessary inference.
herefore, we are commanded to. [/quote:0411214456]
As a Reformed Baptist I am not going to take your word for it I am going to ask for proof- for example you could start by proving that baptism and circumcision are identical which is the basis for the whole inference to begin with.
This is a clear case of using your position to prove your position.
[quote:0411214456] So, now my original point has come full circle. You said you would agree with my definition. So, by saying "God has not commanded infant baptism" you must have PROVED that. Therefore, your RP argument begs the question. You cannot use it UNTIL you have defeated our other arguments. Thus your RP argument is shown to be hasty and based on prejudice. [/quote:0411214456]
No, I only used my regulative principle argument to show who has the burden of proof and now that we know the Paedobaptist does we can began to question if Scripture commands it or not (i.e. can Paedobaptist provide a command to baptize infants)
[quote:0411214456] So, as of right now your argument should be stated like this:
[quote:0411214456]
(1) Scripture commands "X" to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) I think that Scripture has not commanded non-x to be baptised
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited.
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize "X" even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.
[/quote:0411214456] [/quote:0411214456]
I guess you are right and so the most logical thing for a Paodobaptist to do would be to show where Scripture commands infant baptism and so provide a counterfactual to premise 2.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:0411214456] baptists at war with eachother
Tert states that T.E Watson argues that covenant membership does not get you thie sign. This is fine.
Tert seems to agree.
P.K. Jewett does not. Now, i can't exactly remembert the page, but it in his last section for his positive case. Maybe pg.226 or 228. He says that being a member of the new covenat does get youn the sign. He just doesn't think that children are in the NC (based on poor exegesis and not taking into account the covenant apostacy passages). But this is a side issue that I didn't wan to get into.
Now, this will be used in what I (Lord willing!) will post this weekend.
But at least we can see that the baptisst can't even agree amongst themselves. [/quote:0411214456]
Wow, if you reject credobaptist because they have disagreements then you should certainly drop Paedobaptism for they are worse then credobaptist when it comes to disagreements for the reasons to practice infant baptism.
However, I just want to set something straight for the record book. I accept Jewett's, Riddersbos's, Owen's, and others arguements that the New Covenant is unbreakable- as does TE Watson- all TE Watson and I are saying is that Paedobaptism cannot be proved or disproved by proving or disproving that children are Covenant members.
[quote:0411214456] Now, Tert.
(1) You used the element circumstance argument. I want you do give me the objective standard by which we determine what is cultural? This will not be easy. If it were then we would solve the head covering issue and a host of others! So, I asked YOU. It is YOUR argument. I have not put anyhting forth yet. Again, PROVE that "out." [/quote:0411214456]
Each element and circumstance must be looked at individually- but for this debate we either say that baptism is an element (Thus we must look to Scripture) or we must say it is a circmustance and you must say that the Baptist are doing baptsim right since it is a circumstance how it is adminstered- but if you still want to Discipleship baptism as defined by baptist is wrong- I suggest we continue to affirm the Confessions and say that baptism is an element.
[quote:0411214456] (2) Command: anything explicitly or taken by good and necessary inference from God. [/quote:0411214456]
I accept that definition.
[quote:0411214456] Infant baptism is taken by good and neccessary inference.
herefore, we are commanded to. [/quote:0411214456]
As a Reformed Baptist I am not going to take your word for it I am going to ask for proof- for example you could start by proving that baptism and circumcision are identical which is the basis for the whole inference to begin with.
This is a clear case of using your position to prove your position.
[quote:0411214456] So, now my original point has come full circle. You said you would agree with my definition. So, by saying "God has not commanded infant baptism" you must have PROVED that. Therefore, your RP argument begs the question. You cannot use it UNTIL you have defeated our other arguments. Thus your RP argument is shown to be hasty and based on prejudice. [/quote:0411214456]
No, I only used my regulative principle argument to show who has the burden of proof and now that we know the Paedobaptist does we can began to question if Scripture commands it or not (i.e. can Paedobaptist provide a command to baptize infants)
[quote:0411214456] So, as of right now your argument should be stated like this:
[quote:0411214456]
(1) Scripture commands "X" to be baptized with no reference to "non-X".
(2) I think that Scripture has not commanded non-x to be baptised
(3) The Regulative principle of worship says that we can only do what is commanded by Scripture even if it is not expressly prohibited.
(4) Therefore, we can only baptize "X" even though no verse prohibits a non-X from being baptized.
[/quote:0411214456] [/quote:0411214456]
I guess you are right and so the most logical thing for a Paodobaptist to do would be to show where Scripture commands infant baptism and so provide a counterfactual to premise 2.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:55a2471ff1][i:55a2471ff1]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:55a2471ff1]
Here is a better syllogism:
Christ commands us to baptize His disciples.
Children of believers are His disciples.
Ergo, We are commanded to baptize children of believers. [/quote:55a2471ff1]
This is logicial but is premise 2 provable from Scripture? After all the question is not how do we define disciples but how does Scripture define disicples and so where does Scripture say that an infant is a Disciple?
We could even question "premise 1" if it does turn out that infants are Disciples for where exactly does Scripture say that Disciples who do not believe and repent are to be baptized?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
Here is a better syllogism:
Christ commands us to baptize His disciples.
Children of believers are His disciples.
Ergo, We are commanded to baptize children of believers. [/quote:55a2471ff1]
This is logicial but is premise 2 provable from Scripture? After all the question is not how do we define disciples but how does Scripture define disicples and so where does Scripture say that an infant is a Disciple?
We could even question "premise 1" if it does turn out that infants are Disciples for where exactly does Scripture say that Disciples who do not believe and repent are to be baptized?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
1Co 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.
A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the enemy ? ?
At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity.
The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute]
1Co 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.
A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the enemy ? ?
At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity.
The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
I do not think that the verses you quoted warrant the conclusion that Scripture teaches that only infants of Christians are Disciples
[quote:09b15aeee2] Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. [/quote:09b15aeee2]
Reformed Baptist J.L Dagg has already address this verse so I thought I would quote him before I added my own observation.
[quote:09b15aeee2] In interpreting and applying the phrase , "Of such us the kingdom of heaven," an important question must be decided; whether the word "such" denotes literal children, or persons of child-like disposition. As the clause stands in our common version, it seems to import that the kingdom consists of such persons exclusively. Now, no one imagines that the kingdom is a community consisting of literal infants only; and, therefore, this rending, it retained, greatly favors the other interpretation, according to which the whole community are properly described as persons of child-like disposition, The disciples of Christ are humble, confiding, teachable, and free from malice and ambition; and these qualities characterize all who have a part in the kingdom Manual of Church Order, p. 146[/quote:09b15aeee2]
Jesus declared that no one enters the kingdom unless he is regenerated or born again so if all infants of Christians are in the kingdom would you agree that every infant born of Christian parents in regenerated? If you say "no" and that every Christian infant is not regenerated then they are not all in the kingdom, hence, one more reason to favor the interpretation that Christ was speaking metaphorically not literally.
Furthermore, why not include all infants for that is what the text says (on your view) so why limited it to only infants of Christians as Presbyterians inconsistently do when they use this verse and the only baptized some infants.
[quote:09b15aeee2] 1Co 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.[/quote:09b15aeee2]
These verses do not teach that children are Disciples anymore than that the unbelieving spouse is a disciple.
In context we see that Paul is answering the question should a Christian continued to be married to unbeliever- are we really to believe that Paul answers this specific question by saying yes your children are Disciples? (I see no reason to think Paul answered such a specific question with a none answer like that)
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:09b15aeee2]
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:09b15aeee2]
To see the elaboration of his argument go to http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html
Isn't significant that these very passages where the same ones used by German scholars to say that infant baptism was not practiced during the Apostolic area.
[quote:09b15aeee2]A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the :wr30: ? ? [/quote:09b15aeee2]
No, they cannot even speak English yet so I have not been able to teach them about Christ with Scripture that is why I will evangelize them a pray for them not just assume that they already know Christ. I will follow the example of Scripture and take my children to Christ not the font.
Even John Murray admitted that children are not physiologically capable of Christian belief so not even all Paedobaptist can agree with this argument yet you expect Reformed Baptist to find this argument persuasive?
Besides even if they could somehow learning about Christ that does not make them Disciples because merely learning about something does not make you a Disciple I mean have you learned what Muhammad said if so would it be alright if I called you a Disciple of Muhammad, or what about if your children learn about Muhammad in school should we then call them Disciples of Muhammad because they have learned about them?
[quote:09b15aeee2] At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity. [/quote:09b15aeee2]
This is not a more advanced level this is Scriptures definition of what a true Disciple is... see John 15:8. Basically a true Disciple is someone who holds and believes the teachings of Christ.
[quote:09b15aeee2] The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:09b15aeee2]
Born into discipleship? Where does Scripture ever teach that we do not have to repent and hold to Christ teachings to be a Disciple?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:09b15aeee2] Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. [/quote:09b15aeee2]
Reformed Baptist J.L Dagg has already address this verse so I thought I would quote him before I added my own observation.
[quote:09b15aeee2] In interpreting and applying the phrase , "Of such us the kingdom of heaven," an important question must be decided; whether the word "such" denotes literal children, or persons of child-like disposition. As the clause stands in our common version, it seems to import that the kingdom consists of such persons exclusively. Now, no one imagines that the kingdom is a community consisting of literal infants only; and, therefore, this rending, it retained, greatly favors the other interpretation, according to which the whole community are properly described as persons of child-like disposition, The disciples of Christ are humble, confiding, teachable, and free from malice and ambition; and these qualities characterize all who have a part in the kingdom Manual of Church Order, p. 146[/quote:09b15aeee2]
Jesus declared that no one enters the kingdom unless he is regenerated or born again so if all infants of Christians are in the kingdom would you agree that every infant born of Christian parents in regenerated? If you say "no" and that every Christian infant is not regenerated then they are not all in the kingdom, hence, one more reason to favor the interpretation that Christ was speaking metaphorically not literally.
Furthermore, why not include all infants for that is what the text says (on your view) so why limited it to only infants of Christians as Presbyterians inconsistently do when they use this verse and the only baptized some infants.
[quote:09b15aeee2] 1Co 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.[/quote:09b15aeee2]
These verses do not teach that children are Disciples anymore than that the unbelieving spouse is a disciple.
In context we see that Paul is answering the question should a Christian continued to be married to unbeliever- are we really to believe that Paul answers this specific question by saying yes your children are Disciples? (I see no reason to think Paul answered such a specific question with a none answer like that)
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:09b15aeee2]
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:09b15aeee2]
To see the elaboration of his argument go to http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/1cor.html
Isn't significant that these very passages where the same ones used by German scholars to say that infant baptism was not practiced during the Apostolic area.
[quote:09b15aeee2]A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the :wr30: ? ? [/quote:09b15aeee2]
No, they cannot even speak English yet so I have not been able to teach them about Christ with Scripture that is why I will evangelize them a pray for them not just assume that they already know Christ. I will follow the example of Scripture and take my children to Christ not the font.
Even John Murray admitted that children are not physiologically capable of Christian belief so not even all Paedobaptist can agree with this argument yet you expect Reformed Baptist to find this argument persuasive?
Besides even if they could somehow learning about Christ that does not make them Disciples because merely learning about something does not make you a Disciple I mean have you learned what Muhammad said if so would it be alright if I called you a Disciple of Muhammad, or what about if your children learn about Muhammad in school should we then call them Disciples of Muhammad because they have learned about them?
[quote:09b15aeee2] At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity. [/quote:09b15aeee2]
This is not a more advanced level this is Scriptures definition of what a true Disciple is... see John 15:8. Basically a true Disciple is someone who holds and believes the teachings of Christ.
[quote:09b15aeee2] The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:09b15aeee2]
Born into discipleship? Where does Scripture ever teach that we do not have to repent and hold to Christ teachings to be a Disciple?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Tertullian]
Hee Hee
Hi Tyler,
You wrote:
1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4.) Infants are church members.
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.
Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism."
This is a fair representation of my argument. I also think that you have proven the difficulty of my argument very well. Since offering a New Covenant example would prove to be a contradiction of premise 1. If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct?
Jayson Rawlins
Hi Tyler,
You wrote:
1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4.) Infants are church members.
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.
Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism."
This is a fair representation of my argument. I also think that you have proven the difficulty of my argument very well. Since offering a New Covenant example would prove to be a contradiction of premise 1. If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct?
Jayson Rawlins
[quote:d5cbe173e3][i:d5cbe173e3]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:d5cbe173e3]
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
1Co 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.
A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the enemy ? ?
At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity.
The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:d5cbe173e3]
Acts 11:26 says that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. The term, "disciple", is synonymous with the term, "Christian". The disciples of Jesus are Christians. In other words, the disciples of Jesus are saved people.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
1Co 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.
A disciple at the most simple level is one who is under the teaching of Christ. Are your children under the teaching of Christ or the enemy ? ?
At a more advanced level a disciple is one who continues in that teaching unto maturity.
The infant of a believing parent is born into discipleship.
[Edited on 3-20-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:d5cbe173e3]
Acts 11:26 says that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. The term, "disciple", is synonymous with the term, "Christian". The disciples of Jesus are Christians. In other words, the disciples of Jesus are saved people.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Wintermute,
Thanks for the response
[quote:703dffbd9a] Tertullean:
Judas was called a disciple.
Many so-called disciples left Jesus. . . [/quote:703dffbd9a]
Wait "so-called" not even you would attribute true Discipleship to these people so why ought the Reformed Baptist- Judas was not a Christian yet in charity they credited Judas as being a Disciple until he proved otherwise (See John 15:8). Judas was chosen by Christ but he was chosen as the betrayer not as a true Disciple.
[quote:703dffbd9a] Your interpretation must account for this in some way. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
It is easy to account for these things Judas and the others were not really Christ sheep but wolves dressed in sheep skins, if they were really Christ sheep they would have heard their shepherd rather then going astray- The one who really has some accounting is the one who says that Christ the New Covenant High Priest is not able to save all those in the New Covenant.
[quote:703dffbd9a] You are what you read. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
I am not sure what you mean?
[quote:703dffbd9a] Read the scriptures and pray about it. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
I will continue to do thanks for the encouragement to continue.
[quote:703dffbd9a] These Baptists are filling your head with nonsense. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
The arguments Baptist like Jewett, White, Spurgeon, Gill, Malone, Chantry, Martin, Denver, Watson and others just make sense to me and I can see it Scripturally.
From my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.
To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
Thanks for the response
[quote:703dffbd9a] Tertullean:
Judas was called a disciple.
Many so-called disciples left Jesus. . . [/quote:703dffbd9a]
Wait "so-called" not even you would attribute true Discipleship to these people so why ought the Reformed Baptist- Judas was not a Christian yet in charity they credited Judas as being a Disciple until he proved otherwise (See John 15:8). Judas was chosen by Christ but he was chosen as the betrayer not as a true Disciple.
[quote:703dffbd9a] Your interpretation must account for this in some way. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
It is easy to account for these things Judas and the others were not really Christ sheep but wolves dressed in sheep skins, if they were really Christ sheep they would have heard their shepherd rather then going astray- The one who really has some accounting is the one who says that Christ the New Covenant High Priest is not able to save all those in the New Covenant.
[quote:703dffbd9a] You are what you read. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
I am not sure what you mean?
[quote:703dffbd9a] Read the scriptures and pray about it. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
I will continue to do thanks for the encouragement to continue.
[quote:703dffbd9a] These Baptists are filling your head with nonsense. [/quote:703dffbd9a]
The arguments Baptist like Jewett, White, Spurgeon, Gill, Malone, Chantry, Martin, Denver, Watson and others just make sense to me and I can see it Scripturally.
From my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.
To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Jayson Rawlins
Thanks for the reply.
[quote:b9a6b34750] Hee Hee
Hi Tyler,
You wrote:
1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4.) Infants are church members.
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.
Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism."
This is a fair representation of my argument. I also think that you have proven the difficulty of my argument very well. Since offering a New Covenant example would prove to be a contradiction of premise 1. [/quote:b9a6b34750]
I think we are in agreement
[quote:b9a6b34750] If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct? [/quote:b9a6b34750]
That is essentially correct-however...
An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign.
I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
Thanks for the reply.
[quote:b9a6b34750] Hee Hee
Hi Tyler,
You wrote:
1.) "Every example in the New Covenant shows that a church member is baptized.
2.) The regulative principle states that we cannot go beyond the example of Scripture.
3.) Therefore, all church members are baptized.
4.) Infants are church members.
5.) Infants have no example of baptism but all church members are baptized.
Therefore, Infants must be baptized because they are church members.
If you say that number (5) is not part of the argument as you stated it I will agree but add that it is implied since I do not think you believe that you can produce an clear undisputable passage about an infant baptism."
This is a fair representation of my argument. I also think that you have proven the difficulty of my argument very well. Since offering a New Covenant example would prove to be a contradiction of premise 1. [/quote:b9a6b34750]
I think we are in agreement
[quote:b9a6b34750] If I understand you correctly, I think this means that you would accept an Old Testament passage that predicts children of the New Covenant as apart of the church. Is this correct? [/quote:b9a6b34750]
That is essentially correct-however...
An old Covenant promise that all physical children of the spiritual children of Abraham would be church members would be monumental in establishing infant church membership but I think that it would still prove nothing about infant baptism because we still have no reason to assume that just because a person is a church member they get the sign but we must see if God commands this particular group of church members to be baptized. Ultimately, an appeal to the Old Covenant promises about the New stumbles over the same rock that the last one did in that it ultimately will undermine itself because every argument that proves infants are church members, disproves that every example of church members are given baptism in the New Testament. This is a real pickle that I do not think can be solved unless the Old Covenant promises that New Covenant infant church members must be given the sign.
I would be curious to find out which verses in the Old Covenant teaches that all children with New Covenant parents become part of the New Covenant by a sort of birth right?
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul
[quote:23c7963ec6] Tertullian,
Do youn agree that your post where you cited paedo's against me was doing the exact same thing that you accused KC Easter of when he quoted the Westminster divins? If so, why did you do it. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
No it was not the same because KC was appealing to the prestigious tradition itself- I on the other hand was not appealing to the authority of these Paedobaptist but the arguments they used and also I was noting that Paedobaptist have been the ones to recognize these arguments not just Reformed Baptist.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (2) You cite paedo's all the time who disagree, I cited a disagreement from baptists. When I did that all of a sudden me doing that is turned around on me. Don't you think that you should play by the same rules that you impose on us? [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Where did Jewett every say that getting the sign automatically entitles you to Covenant membership or vis. Versa? Futhermore, both Watson and I, agree with Jewett, Ridderbos, Owens, White and others and say that you cannot break the New Covenant.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (3) Burden of proof. You still don't seem to get it. You think we have burden because you are ASSUMING your position and YOUR definitions. I have allready proved that you have burden...just as much as you have proved I have. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
I do not have the burden of proof- you have the burden of proof because I do not accept that baptism is identical to circumcision- therefore until you prove that why do I have to provide a verse that shows that God stopped what he never started?
[quote:23c7963ec6]If baptists do not baptize our children then they violate the regulative principle which command us to.
They do not baptize thier children.
Therefore they violate the regulative principle.
See, if my position is correct you violate...if your is correct I violate. Do you get the point? One must FIRST prove that his position is correct! You have not established burden. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Let see if there is a command the Baptist is wrong if there is not a command the Presbyterian is wrong- hence the Presbyterians takes the positive stance and the Baptist the negative stance... the burden of proof is upon the affirmative side because we need a positive command according to the regulative principle of worship.
[quote:23c7963ec6] You only THINK you have based on YOUR ASSUMPTION of what the Bible commands. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
All I have done is ask where the command to baptize an infant is if that is assuming then I plead guilty- now could you please produce the command?
[quote:23c7963ec6] (4) You are not playing fair: You agreed to my definition of command. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
A direct or just and necessary inference will still suffice... so we are still in agreement with the definition.
[quote:23c7963ec6] Now, when verses are given to you, you just say-"well, it doesn't mean that to me." It seems that you really mean by command an EXPLICIT statement. So, this is what it boils down to: "I will accept inference, if it meets my preconceived plan." [/quote:23c7963ec6]
What verses? I never read them could you repeat the ones that you inferred God commanded the baptism of infants? I mean let us both acknowledge that there is bad inferences and good
[quote:23c7963ec6] (5) Infant/Child disciples: "[Timothy], from INFANCY you have known the Scriptures which are able to make you wise." Timothy's mother disciple him...FROM INFANCY (and baptised him too ). [/quote:23c7963ec6]
What verse said that he was baptized or is that a read between the lines? Also is it just possible that Paul was making a point and was not expecting his readers to think that Timothy literally knew the scriptures before he could understand language and his cognitive abilities and senses had matured? Furthermore, to learn about something does not make you a Disciple... suppose you kids learn about Islam in school does that make the Muhammad's Disciples or suppose that they learned about secular Humanist should we start referring to them as Bertrand Russell's children? I doubt you would want to say that you children are secular humanist or Islamic because they have learned about it.
[quote:23c7963ec6] You speak of Murry and phsycological/cognative abilities? This is all fine and good. I agree that they do not have ADULT capibilites. I agree that they cannot "discern the body, and "REMEMBER" Christ). But they have SOMETHING. INFANTS PRAISE GOD!(Mt. 21:16) [/quote:23c7963ec6]
So do rocks so using your logic should we baptized rocks or call them Disciples?
[quote:23c7963ec6] Now, you will redefine and show how that's not what you mean. But take EVERY OTHER STATEMENT oF PRAISE in the Bible and it would SEEM that infants couldn't do it! It seems like an adult task. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
I do not have to redefine you are probably the one who is going to redefine and say that rocks don't really praise God that was just... but we shall see.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (6) Tit 1:11. You ddin't get the point. I PROVED by that that teaching could affect infants. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Sure it affected them- just like if parents adopted the belief that infants ought to be killed because God decrees it that would affect the children so how I am I denying that or how is that even relevant to infant baptism.
[quote:23c7963ec6] So, I saw no warrent to conclude that we could not teach our children all that Jesus has commanded. Do you deny this? If not, I have fulfilled the second half of making a disciple. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Yes, and we should teach our children Discipleship baptism because that is what Jesus commanded or can you produce a command that says otherwise... now we are back again to the question where is the command to baptize infants... I think in the end you will have to agree with Louis Berkhof and admit that it is not there.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (7) You didn't disprove my statement that ONE of the ways I make my child a disciple is by baptizing him. You just quoted people who disagree. I can cite may paedo's who agree but I am sure you don't want to get into the name-game. I have my child, at an early stage "comming to Christ." people even took INFANTS to him. The disciples rebuked Jesus....huh, come to think of it, it is very fitting that you guys be called "disciples baptizers."
-Paul (going to wok and hoefull comming in to write out my argument later) [/quote:23c7963ec6]
All I notice form that text is that the Disciples were not in the habit of baptizing infants... furthermore I did not just quote Paedobaptist I included there arguments... there is a divine appointed order that cannot be neglected. Show me Scripture ever says that baptism makes someone a Disciple and then I will entertain the suggestion that this is what Mathew is talking about.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[quote:23c7963ec6] Tertullian,
Do youn agree that your post where you cited paedo's against me was doing the exact same thing that you accused KC Easter of when he quoted the Westminster divins? If so, why did you do it. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
No it was not the same because KC was appealing to the prestigious tradition itself- I on the other hand was not appealing to the authority of these Paedobaptist but the arguments they used and also I was noting that Paedobaptist have been the ones to recognize these arguments not just Reformed Baptist.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (2) You cite paedo's all the time who disagree, I cited a disagreement from baptists. When I did that all of a sudden me doing that is turned around on me. Don't you think that you should play by the same rules that you impose on us? [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Where did Jewett every say that getting the sign automatically entitles you to Covenant membership or vis. Versa? Futhermore, both Watson and I, agree with Jewett, Ridderbos, Owens, White and others and say that you cannot break the New Covenant.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (3) Burden of proof. You still don't seem to get it. You think we have burden because you are ASSUMING your position and YOUR definitions. I have allready proved that you have burden...just as much as you have proved I have. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
I do not have the burden of proof- you have the burden of proof because I do not accept that baptism is identical to circumcision- therefore until you prove that why do I have to provide a verse that shows that God stopped what he never started?
[quote:23c7963ec6]If baptists do not baptize our children then they violate the regulative principle which command us to.
They do not baptize thier children.
Therefore they violate the regulative principle.
See, if my position is correct you violate...if your is correct I violate. Do you get the point? One must FIRST prove that his position is correct! You have not established burden. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Let see if there is a command the Baptist is wrong if there is not a command the Presbyterian is wrong- hence the Presbyterians takes the positive stance and the Baptist the negative stance... the burden of proof is upon the affirmative side because we need a positive command according to the regulative principle of worship.
[quote:23c7963ec6] You only THINK you have based on YOUR ASSUMPTION of what the Bible commands. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
All I have done is ask where the command to baptize an infant is if that is assuming then I plead guilty- now could you please produce the command?
[quote:23c7963ec6] (4) You are not playing fair: You agreed to my definition of command. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
A direct or just and necessary inference will still suffice... so we are still in agreement with the definition.
[quote:23c7963ec6] Now, when verses are given to you, you just say-"well, it doesn't mean that to me." It seems that you really mean by command an EXPLICIT statement. So, this is what it boils down to: "I will accept inference, if it meets my preconceived plan." [/quote:23c7963ec6]
What verses? I never read them could you repeat the ones that you inferred God commanded the baptism of infants? I mean let us both acknowledge that there is bad inferences and good
[quote:23c7963ec6] (5) Infant/Child disciples: "[Timothy], from INFANCY you have known the Scriptures which are able to make you wise." Timothy's mother disciple him...FROM INFANCY (and baptised him too ). [/quote:23c7963ec6]
What verse said that he was baptized or is that a read between the lines? Also is it just possible that Paul was making a point and was not expecting his readers to think that Timothy literally knew the scriptures before he could understand language and his cognitive abilities and senses had matured? Furthermore, to learn about something does not make you a Disciple... suppose you kids learn about Islam in school does that make the Muhammad's Disciples or suppose that they learned about secular Humanist should we start referring to them as Bertrand Russell's children? I doubt you would want to say that you children are secular humanist or Islamic because they have learned about it.
[quote:23c7963ec6] You speak of Murry and phsycological/cognative abilities? This is all fine and good. I agree that they do not have ADULT capibilites. I agree that they cannot "discern the body, and "REMEMBER" Christ). But they have SOMETHING. INFANTS PRAISE GOD!(Mt. 21:16) [/quote:23c7963ec6]
So do rocks so using your logic should we baptized rocks or call them Disciples?
[quote:23c7963ec6] Now, you will redefine and show how that's not what you mean. But take EVERY OTHER STATEMENT oF PRAISE in the Bible and it would SEEM that infants couldn't do it! It seems like an adult task. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
I do not have to redefine you are probably the one who is going to redefine and say that rocks don't really praise God that was just... but we shall see.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (6) Tit 1:11. You ddin't get the point. I PROVED by that that teaching could affect infants. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Sure it affected them- just like if parents adopted the belief that infants ought to be killed because God decrees it that would affect the children so how I am I denying that or how is that even relevant to infant baptism.
[quote:23c7963ec6] So, I saw no warrent to conclude that we could not teach our children all that Jesus has commanded. Do you deny this? If not, I have fulfilled the second half of making a disciple. [/quote:23c7963ec6]
Yes, and we should teach our children Discipleship baptism because that is what Jesus commanded or can you produce a command that says otherwise... now we are back again to the question where is the command to baptize infants... I think in the end you will have to agree with Louis Berkhof and admit that it is not there.
[quote:23c7963ec6] (7) You didn't disprove my statement that ONE of the ways I make my child a disciple is by baptizing him. You just quoted people who disagree. I can cite may paedo's who agree but I am sure you don't want to get into the name-game. I have my child, at an early stage "comming to Christ." people even took INFANTS to him. The disciples rebuked Jesus....huh, come to think of it, it is very fitting that you guys be called "disciples baptizers."
-Paul (going to wok and hoefull comming in to write out my argument later) [/quote:23c7963ec6]
All I notice form that text is that the Disciples were not in the habit of baptizing infants... furthermore I did not just quote Paedobaptist I included there arguments... there is a divine appointed order that cannot be neglected. Show me Scripture ever says that baptism makes someone a Disciple and then I will entertain the suggestion that this is what Mathew is talking about.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
By using the phrase "so-called disciples" I was referring to the fact that they were disciples, but did not remain as such. Read John 15.
[quote:ebbd64681b]
From my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.
[/quote:ebbd64681b]
That is not my argument.
My argument is that children are a gift from the LORD, and set apart, and disciples of Christ. The bible calls them arrows in our quiver. Arrows AGAINST the enemy. They are vines, not weeds. Therefore we put the sign of all the covenant promises and blessings upon them because they are in fact part of the promises and blessings.
[quote:ebbd64681b]
From my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.
[/quote:ebbd64681b]
That is not my argument.
My argument is that children are a gift from the LORD, and set apart, and disciples of Christ. The bible calls them arrows in our quiver. Arrows AGAINST the enemy. They are vines, not weeds. Therefore we put the sign of all the covenant promises and blessings upon them because they are in fact part of the promises and blessings.
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1049295f8e]
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:1049295f8e]
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1049295f8e]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:1049295f8e]
With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx [/quote:1049295f8e]
I am not dodging questions about credobaptism I am dodging entering a debate that in fact need not be debated because both sides already agree- that is why I want to Paul to define his position so that I can agree with it- both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist agree with the regulative principle of worship.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:1049295f8e]
Again, Nice dodge. Can you just answer the question?uzzled: What are you afraid of? And NO we would not agree, for your view of the RP is not Reformed but anabaptist.
First you say out of inference then you say command only then retreat again to inference. Which is it?:question:
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:1049295f8e]
[quote:1049295f8e][i:1049295f8e]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1049295f8e]
3) I define a command of God the way Scripture does. -if you defined it we would probably agree.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-19-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:1049295f8e]
With all due respect Tert. but that was no answer at all just good dodge, please answer the question. Thanx
[/quote:1049295f8e]I am not dodging questions about credobaptism I am dodging entering a debate that in fact need not be debated because both sides already agree- that is why I want to Paul to define his position so that I can agree with it- both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptist agree with the regulative principle of worship.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:1049295f8e]
Again, Nice dodge. Can you just answer the question?
uzzled: What are you afraid of? And NO we would not agree, for your view of the RP is not Reformed but anabaptist. First you say out of inference then you say command only then retreat again to inference. Which is it?:question:
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
I justed wanted to thank everyone for the wonderful coments they have given throughout this exchange of verses and insights... I pray that God edifies you as he has me through your comments.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Wintermute,
[quote:c7b09887f3] By using the phrase "so-called disciples" I was referring to the fact that they were disciples, but did not remain as such. Read John 15. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
Let me ask you a question how do you prove to be a disciple?
[quote:c7b09887f3][quote:c7b09887f3]
rom my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
That is not my argument.
My argument is that children are a gift from the LORD, and set apart, and disciples of Christ. The bible calls them arrows in our quiver. Arrows AGAINST the enemy. They are vines, not weeds. Therefore we put the sign of all the covenant promises and blessings upon them because they are in fact part of the promises and blessings. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
I think this is really a false dilemma I mean Reformed Baptist no more hate their infants then the Jews hated their daughters. Every argument you make about how Reformed Baptist cannot understand the uniqueness of their infants could just as equally be utilized against the Jews and their infant daughters. I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
[quote:c7b09887f3] By using the phrase "so-called disciples" I was referring to the fact that they were disciples, but did not remain as such. Read John 15. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
Let me ask you a question how do you prove to be a disciple?
[quote:c7b09887f3][quote:c7b09887f3]
rom my perspective it is the argument that runs "Judas was called a Christian- therefore - we must baptize infants" that I think has holes big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
That is not my argument.
My argument is that children are a gift from the LORD, and set apart, and disciples of Christ. The bible calls them arrows in our quiver. Arrows AGAINST the enemy. They are vines, not weeds. Therefore we put the sign of all the covenant promises and blessings upon them because they are in fact part of the promises and blessings. [/quote:c7b09887f3]
I think this is really a false dilemma I mean Reformed Baptist no more hate their infants then the Jews hated their daughters. Every argument you make about how Reformed Baptist cannot understand the uniqueness of their infants could just as equally be utilized against the Jews and their infant daughters. I know I am challenging your tradition but Reformed Baptist must be presented with Scripture not emotional appeals to verses that have nothing to do with how the sacraments are to be administered.
To the glory of Christ-Tertullian
[Edited on 3-21-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[i:928aba88f1]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:928aba88f1]
[quote:928aba88f1][i:928aba88f1]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:928aba88f1]
Again, Nice dodge. Can you just answer the question?
Roldan, I encourage you to please read what Paul and I have recently (i.e. within the last few posts) been talking about Paul has defined "command" and I have agreed with his defintion.
Are joint agreement is that God can give his command either through a just and necessary inference that connects a direct command about this subject to that subject or else a direct command about a subject.
As for the Anabaptist part I hold and agree with the Westminster in its statements concerning the regulative principle of worship and I confess along with my confession the London Baptist Confessions and its stance upon the issue which is a twin of the Westminster on this issue.
[quote:928aba88f1] First you say out of inference then you say command only then retreat again to inference. Which is it?:question: [/quote:928aba88f1]
When did I say any of this... could you please quote me so I know what you are refering to because I honestly have no idea what you had in mind when you said that... were you saying that as a Reformed Baptist I must do that or were you saying that I have done that or...?
- Status
Similar threads
