Bad Arguments for Credo Baptism

[terry72]

Hello everyone, I have been a member here on this board for a few years now. I don't post very much but I do read a lot of the discussions. I was a credo-baptist when I joined the board, but have been a paedo-baptist for about a year now. I have always been strongly covenantal, so I would say that my embracing of paedo was just the natural outworking of that theology. What convinced me in large part was when I discovered just how bad my arguments were. Once my bad arguments were removed then I had nothing to prevent me from seeing the overwhelming evidence in scripture for covenant baptism. Below are three articles in which I discuss one particular argument for credo.

Insistent Use of Bad Arguments

Insistent Use of Bad Arguments Part 2

Insistent Use of Bad Arguments Part 3

My family and I are still members of our Baptist Church, but we have found an ARP church close to where we live and we have been visiting.

Blessings,
Terry

 

[Kevin]

God bless you brother. I pray that the ARP church will be a blessing to you and your family.

 

[elnwood]

There are many bad arguments on the paedobaptist side as well. See especially James White and Charles Spurgeon on "Let the children come to me."

 

[Philip A]

There are many bad arguments on the paedobaptist side as well. See especially James White and Charles Spurgeon on "Let the children come to me."

Also one of the worst credo arguments out there. Point out that Christ didn't baptize them (which any paedo worth listening to will agree with) and ignore the rest of the passage, especially the explicit statement that little children are a part of the kingdom!

 

[elnwood]

Also one of the worst credo arguments out there. Point out that Christ didn't baptize them (which any paedo worth listening to will agree with) and ignore the rest of the passage, especially the explicit statement that little children are a part of the kingdom!

It says "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14. It's not literal, it's figurative. See also the previous chapter in Matthew 18.

[bible]Matthew 18:2-4[/bible]

 

[Kevin]

It says "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14. It's not literal, it's figurative. See also the previous chapter in Matthew 18.

[bible]Matthew 18:2-4[/bible]

Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?

 

[Philip A]

Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?

Only those children that are such as adults. And when it comes to adults, the kingdom belongs only to those who are such as those who are excluded from it.

It says "for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14. It's not literal, it's figurative. See also the previous chapter in Matthew 18.

Yes, Don, I am familiar with that argument. If you search back far enough, you might even find the Baptist version of me using it right here on this same Puritanboard. And even though I find it somewhat comical now (see above), it's still not quite the same argument as "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", now is it? Which was the point of my original post; Spurgeon's argument here is laughable, because as Paul pointed out, it's an argument against a *caricature* of the paedobaptist argument.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?

Is the church identical with the kingdom of God?

 

[Larry Hughes]

Very good Terry, thanks for linking it up for us.

One of the best is on a Part III response to yours:

"It might sound harsh but it has become my understanding that if a person refuses to baptize an infant he or she does not understand the gift of salvation."

This is absolutely true, at the root of it all this is the problem, there's simply no way around it. It's not so much "harsh" sounding as a very very sad reality.

Blessings,

ldh

 

[terry72]

One of the best is on a Part III response to yours:

"It might sound harsh but it has become my understanding that if a person refuses to baptize an infant he or she does not understand the gift of salvation."

This is absolutely true, at the root of it all this is the problem, there's simply no way around it. It's not so much "harsh" sounding as a very very sad reality.

Blessings,

ldh

That comment came from a Luthren friend of mine that I chat with on paltalk. I have to say that I agree with it as well.

One of the first things that changed in my thinking that was a step toward my embracing covenant baptism, was that I began to see that baptism is not my act of obedience, but rather it was God's act to mark out a people for himself in the new covenant. It is God saying, "These are my people and I am their God". I believe this is exactly why Peter stated what he did in Acts 10, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Or in other words, God has placed these people in the covenant how dare we withhold the sign of covenant membership from them. So, I must say the same of my children, what right do I have to withhold from them the sign of the covenant when God himself has placed them in the covenant and declared himself to be not only my God but the God of my children as well.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry

 

[elnwood]

Don, do you mean to say that these little children are not in the kingdom? Or perhaps that no little children are in the kingdom?

None of the above. I'm saying that the text has nothing to do with whether those actual children, or children in general, are part of the kingdom of God, much less whether children of believers ought to be baptized.

 

[elnwood]

Only those children that are such as adults. And when it comes to adults, the kingdom belongs only to those who are such as those who are excluded from it.

Uh, speaking of caricatures of arguments ...

Yes, Don, I am familiar with that argument. If you search back far enough, you might even find the Baptist version of me using it right here on this same Puritanboard. And even though I find it somewhat comical now (see above), it's still not quite the same argument as "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", now is it? Which was the point of my original post; Spurgeon's argument here is laughable, because as Paul pointed out, it's an argument against a *caricature* of the paedobaptist argument.

It's been said at least twice now that Spurgeon and Jame White's argument is against a caricature. Can someone explain why?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Childlike faith

Greetings:

The Matt. 18 passage at worst states that "little children" can have faith. If your faith is to be like a little child's, then it must be that children can have faith.

But don't the baptists say that "Children are incapable of faith"? Both White and Spurgeon say so, and Piper too. So proud of their "biblicism" that they actually state things that are not Biblical!

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Uh, speaking of caricatures of arguments ...

But this is not a caricature. Please reflect more fully on what Phillip is pointing out if you accept the Baptist pre-supposition:

Either:

1. The little children have an adult-like faith and Christ is pointing out that toddlers are expressing an assensus and fiducia of the quality required for Baptistic profession to be used as example to the others.

or

2. Christ is using an example of those "in the flesh" as an example of the type of faith that adults should have "in the Spirit."

Case 1 is quite incredible and would require a great deal of eisegesis to conclude that children small enough to be taken into Christ's arms are confessing Christ as their Savior.

Case 2 makes no sense either. I've seen Baptists get sentimental about the type of trust that children have but Romans 8 doesn't allow for sentimentalism if you presume that all children are born in Adam. It doesn't say that children are the exception to the rule.

Thus, it matters not whether Christ is teaching on Baptism in this passage. The problem is what He says about the children and how He uses them as examples. Given Baptist pre-suppostions, it is nigh impossible to reconcile the theology of a toddler's status with their use as an object lesson.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

:
2. Christ is using an example of those "in the flesh" as an example of the type of faith that adults should have "in the Spirit."

Right.



By the way, I have discussed this with you before, and others have responded to me, so I know why to paedo baptizes the infant. They are saying, "God will save you to the uttermost--- Obey God's Word"(quoted from Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan). So if this is the case, you honestly have no idea if they have come to saving faith, yet, you are saying God will save them. Without the spirit of God within you, you do not belong to Christ: "9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him"(Rom 8:9), "14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God"(Rom 8:14). Also, I will say that, until the childeren have the Spirit, they cannot be part of the covenant, "14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, 'Abba! Father!'16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him"(Rom 8:14-17). Or would you be telling me that you do not have to be justified before God to partake in the covenant? Eph 2 tells us that before we came to saving faith, we were under the wrath of God: " 1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,
2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." How can someone who is under the wrath of God, inherit a covenant made from God, without first having the His Spirit?

 

[Philip A]

It's been said at least twice now that Spurgeon and Jame White's argument is against a caricature. Can someone explain why?

I was referring mainly to Spurgeon's sermon "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", which caricatures paedobaptists as arguing that Christ actually baptized children in that passage. I know people that are utterly convinced on the basis of that sermon alone that such is a major plank of the paedobaptist position. This is utterly ridiculous. What you said earlier is true, there are some bad paedo arguments, but this is not one of them; I've never heard anyone argue that the children in that passage were brought to the font.

As for James White, I've no idea, you are the one that linked him with Spurgeon on that passage I've met James a number of times, and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know that no paedo would make that argument from the text.

As a side note, I remember reading T. E. Watson on that passage. He makes the same "case" Spurgeon does, and then takes a bunch of quotes out of context to bolster his argument. He ends with the argument "Whatever 'of such is the kingdom of heaven' means, no babies were baptized by Christ in this passage, therefore babies are not to be baptized." I kid you not! At the time, I couldn't remember reading anything that bad, and that misrepresentative, since Dave Hunt. If you want to convince someone of paedobaptism, give them Watson's book

 

[elnwood]

Greetings:

The Matt. 18 passage at worst states that "little children" can have faith. If your faith is to be like a little child's, then it must be that children can have faith.

But don't the baptists say that "Children are incapable of faith"? Both White and Spurgeon say so, and Piper too. So proud of their "biblicism" that they actually state things that are not Biblical!

I'm a Baptist, and I don't think children are incapable of faith. I have friends who came to faith as young as three. If White, Spurgeon and Piper say so (which I doubt), please post a citation.

 

[elnwood]

But this is not a caricature.

Philip said that Baptists think that there are no physical children in the Kingdom of Heaven. I do not know any Baptists who hold this position, thus I called it a caricature.

Please reflect more fully on what Phillip is pointing out if you accept the Baptist pre-supposition:

Either:

1. The little children have an adult-like faith and Christ is pointing out that toddlers are expressing an assensus and fiducia of the quality required for Baptistic profession to be used as example to the others.

or

2. Christ is using an example of those "in the flesh" as an example of the type of faith that adults should have "in the Spirit."

Case 1 is quite incredible and would require a great deal of eisegesis to conclude that children small enough to be taken into Christ's arms are confessing Christ as their Savior.

Case 2 makes no sense either. I've seen Baptists get sentimental about the type of trust that children have but Romans 8 doesn't allow for sentimentalism if you presume that all children are born in Adam. It doesn't say that children are the exception to the rule.

As I've noted above, I hold case 2. The idea is that children will have "child-like faith" in believing what their father teaches. So we, as adults, ought to trust and love our heavenly father! I think that Jesus is teaching the disciples how they ought to behave (with child-like faith) rather than informing them that physical children will be in heaven.

 

[elnwood]

I was referring mainly to Spurgeon's sermon "Children brought to Christ, and not the font", which caricatures paedobaptists as arguing that Christ actually baptized children in that passage. I know people that are utterly convinced on the basis of that sermon alone that such is a major plank of the paedobaptist position. This is utterly ridiculous. What you said earlier is true, there are some bad paedo arguments, but this is not one of them; I've never heard anyone argue that the children in that passage were brought to the font.

As for James White, I've no idea, you are the one that linked him with Spurgeon on that passage I've met James a number of times, and I'm pretty sure he's smart enough to know that no paedo would make that argument from the text.

As a side note, I remember reading T. E. Watson on that passage. He makes the same "case" Spurgeon does, and then takes a bunch of quotes out of context to bolster his argument. He ends with the argument "Whatever 'of such is the kingdom of heaven' means, no babies were baptized by Christ in this passage, therefore babies are not to be baptized." I kid you not! At the time, I couldn't remember reading anything that bad, and that misrepresentative, since Dave Hunt. If you want to convince someone of paedobaptism, give them Watson's book

Oh. I wasn't referring to that Spurgeon sermon at all, as I've never heard it. It could be a caricature; I'd have to hear it. I was basing my comments on a legend in which he essentially said that this verse has nothing to do with baptism, and James White quoted the story in his recent debate on baptism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Don,

Please harmonize this:

As I've noted above, I hold case 2. The idea is that children will have "child-like faith" in believing what their father teaches. So we, as adults, ought to trust and love our heavenly father! I think that Jesus is teaching the disciples how they ought to behave (with child-like faith)...

with this:

[bible]Romans 8:5-8[/bible]

You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?


Break:

Andrew,

Pay attention here. This is a polemic. I am not on the horns of any dilemna because it is not my premise that one is not of the Church until they express adult faith. I'm challenging the consequence of that faith here. Again, it is sentimental for Baptists to take away the ability of babes to have faith with one hand but to give it back with the next as Don has done but if one takes away faith then Romans 8 leaves Don no room to draw Conclusion 2 as he does.

 

[elnwood]

Don,

Please harmonize this:

with this:

[bible]Romans 8:5-8[/bible]

You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?


Break:

Andrew,

Pay attention here. This is a polemic. I am not on the horns of any dilemna because it is not my premise that one is not of the Church until they express adult faith. I'm challenging the consequence of that faith here. Again, it is sentimental for Baptists to take away the ability of babes to have faith with one hand but to give it back with the next as Don has done but if one takes away faith then Romans 8 leaves Don no room to draw Conclusion 2 as he does.

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. The passage is not talking about the children's personal saving faith, much less being professed to become part of the church, as you have accused Baptists of teaching. Thus, the Romans 8 passage has no relevance at all to what I have said.

The passage is talking about how a little child trusts his father (and mother, and other adults as well) implicitly, and has faith in them. I am not a father, but surely as a parent you understand what this means? A child is naturally trusting, so a parent has to warn children not to talk to strangers.

So a child trusts his father, so a person ought to have faith and trust in his heavenly Father. The former is a type of the latter. It is the latter that is saving faith by which one enters the kingdom of heaven, not the former.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all. The passage is not talking about the children's personal saving faith, much less being professed to become part of the church, as you have accused Baptists of teaching. Thus, the Romans 8 passage has no relevance at all to what I have said.

The passage is talking about how a little child trusts his father (and mother, and other adults as well) implicitly, and has faith in them. I am not a father, but surely as a parent you understand what this means? A child is naturally trusting, so a parent has to warn children not to talk to strangers.

So a child trusts his father, so a person ought to have faith and trust in his heavenly Father. The former is a type of the latter. It is the latter that is saving faith by which one enters the kingdom of heaven, not the former.

I don't think you understand what I'm challenging you with. I don't agree that a pagan child's faith in a pagan father is a model for Christian trust. This is a bare assertion on the text that you've repeated TWICE now and I'm asking you a second time to back that assertion up with Scripture and harmonize it with the passage cited. Romans 8 has everything to do with defeating your analogy if you assert it a third time.

 

[elnwood]

I don't think you understand what I'm challenging you with. I don't agree that a pagan child's faith in a pagan father is a model for Christian trust. This is a bare assertion on the text that you've repeated TWICE now and I'm asking you a second time to back that assertion up with Scripture and harmonize it with the passage cited. Romans 8 has everything to do with defeating your analogy if you assert it a third time.

As I quoted before, Matthew 18:3-4 says "Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of God. Whoever humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Note that Jesus doesn't specify a believing child: he says, "children." The analogy is apt whether or not the child is saved or not.

A child's faith and humility, whether it be a pagan child or a believing child, is a model of a believer's faith and humility that leads to salvation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A child's faith and humility, whether it be a pagan child or a believing child, is a model of a believer's faith and humility that leads to salvation.

So we should understand Romans 8 as only applying to adults? You're either being disingenuous here in your response or are unwilling to tackle the difficulties of your bare assertions here. There is absolutely no Scripture that you can use to back up what you simply asserted here. What Christ says about that child does not permit you to eisegete the above.

 

[Poimen]

Oh. I wasn't referring to that Spurgeon sermon at all, as I've never heard it. It could be a caricature; I'd have to hear it. I was basing my comments on a legend in which he essentially said that this verse has nothing to do with baptism, and James White quoted the story in his recent debate on baptism.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0581.htm

 

[elnwood]

So we should understand Romans 8 as only applying to adults? You're either being disingenuous here in your response or are unwilling to tackle the difficulties of your bare assertions here. There is absolutely no Scripture that you can use to back up what you simply asserted here. What Christ says about that child does not permit you to eisegete the above.

Romans 8 applies to all humanity. I am not being disingenuous and I don't see any difficulties with reading Jesus' analogy as such.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Don,

I don't consider your use of Scripture here credible. I'll interact with Baptists who have a backbone on this issue.

 

[smhbbag]

You're telling me that a child who is of the flesh, who cannot please God, has the qualitative faith that is the examplar for the man of the Spirit?

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. And so does Jesus:

Luke 16:8

8And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

Jesus says: "Attn: believers, be like these children of the world in your stewardship....they're better than you at it sometimes"

How is that any different than him saying:

"Attn: believers, be like children (pagan or not), in your trust of your Father. They're often better at it than you are."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. And so does Jesus:

Luke 16:8

Jesus says: "Attn: believers, be like these children of the world in your stewardship....they're better than you at it sometimes"

How is that any different than him saying:

"Attn: believers, be like children (pagan or not), in your trust of your Father. They're often better at it than you are."

The steward spoken of is not even a child. Further, Christ is comparing the pagan's wisdom to "children of the light" (Jews) and how it excels theirs.

So now is your argument that we should be just a bit wiser than the Pharisees as Christians?

Very interesting theology on a Reformed board...

 

[elnwood]

Don,

I don't consider your use of Scripture here credible. I'll interact with Baptists who have a backbone on this issue.

And I'll interact with paedobaptists who do not insult me.