Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
If you had 15 minutes to convince me of paedo baptism, what would you say? Let's have some fun.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Best arguments for paedo-baptism
- Thread starter Jeremy Ivens
- Start date
- Status
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Consider Peter's Pentecost sermon (Acts 2) and Paul in Colossians 2.
The dynamic of covenant (God's dealing with us) has always been to "you and your seed (Acts 2:39)." Does such continue in the new era inaugurated at Pentecost? Indeed. Peter makes it clear that the promise remains to you and your seed, with the NT addition being the inclusion of the Gentiles. If the promise that was to you and your seed is now in the New Covenant era radically individuated so that it no longer remains such, then we have less under the NT than we did under the Old. That's unthinkable, as the dispensation of the covenant of grace in the New is in every way an advance over the Old.
It's quite clear that the sign of the covenant always accompanied its subjects. This was circumcision in the Old and is now baptism in the New, the latter having replaced the former (Col. 2:11-12). Since it was known by all that among the Hebrews (unlike some others who circumcised), this rich ceremony was to be applied to eight-day-old male Israelites, Paul, in speaking of such, would have had to distinguish the subjects. Paul, however, in Colossians 2, in a passage in which he mentions every other covenantal change (Col. 2) from Old to New, identifies circumcision and baptism and does not note that the subjects are different, which he would have had to do, since all knew that infants were the subject of the former and it would be presumed, unless otherwise noted, to be the subjects of the latter.
What about females? Gal. 3:28 answers that with respect to the sign of the covenant and Paul's baptism of Lydia demonstrates that females are to receive such in addition to males (the sole subjects of circumcision). I have to run out to an appointment, but that's a quick shot at it!
Peace,
Alan
The dynamic of covenant (God's dealing with us) has always been to "you and your seed (Acts 2:39)." Does such continue in the new era inaugurated at Pentecost? Indeed. Peter makes it clear that the promise remains to you and your seed, with the NT addition being the inclusion of the Gentiles. If the promise that was to you and your seed is now in the New Covenant era radically individuated so that it no longer remains such, then we have less under the NT than we did under the Old. That's unthinkable, as the dispensation of the covenant of grace in the New is in every way an advance over the Old.
It's quite clear that the sign of the covenant always accompanied its subjects. This was circumcision in the Old and is now baptism in the New, the latter having replaced the former (Col. 2:11-12). Since it was known by all that among the Hebrews (unlike some others who circumcised), this rich ceremony was to be applied to eight-day-old male Israelites, Paul, in speaking of such, would have had to distinguish the subjects. Paul, however, in Colossians 2, in a passage in which he mentions every other covenantal change (Col. 2) from Old to New, identifies circumcision and baptism and does not note that the subjects are different, which he would have had to do, since all knew that infants were the subject of the former and it would be presumed, unless otherwise noted, to be the subjects of the latter.
What about females? Gal. 3:28 answers that with respect to the sign of the covenant and Paul's baptism of Lydia demonstrates that females are to receive such in addition to males (the sole subjects of circumcision). I have to run out to an appointment, but that's a quick shot at it!
Peace,
Alan
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
Beautiful! For context, I came out of Arminianism a couple of years ago when Jesus saved my sorry hide. Someone said, "Look up the 5 points to start with with the Scripture references."
I did and those truths were so obvious to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
Jeremy:
I was for years a Calvinistic Baptist. I was at Westminster Theological Seminary as such, reading all that I could on the subject, yet remaining an ardent defender of believers' baptism (coming to Presbyterian government was far easier, after one too many baptistic congregational meetings!). As I talked with my classmates and professors, I came to understand more and more the nature of covenant in both testaments, as to its continuities and discontinuities.
A few of us roomed in Sinclair Ferguson's house. I had been talking to him about this and it was as he held forth on Peter's Pentecost sermon and how covenant here goes from its slower OT pace to its NT pace as the gospel goes global, arguing that at every point you have more under the New than the Old, that the light came on and I began weeping. I'll never forget it! He was so gracious and so clear in his argumentation. I had just days before strenuously defended my baptistic position and I genuinely couldn't see the argument anymore: I now went after my baptist friends with the zeal that I had so lately brought to bear on their side of the argument! I moderated in this, of course, but since that day I've never doubted for a moment the biblical truth of infant baptism.
Peace,
Alan
I was for years a Calvinistic Baptist. I was at Westminster Theological Seminary as such, reading all that I could on the subject, yet remaining an ardent defender of believers' baptism (coming to Presbyterian government was far easier, after one too many baptistic congregational meetings!). As I talked with my classmates and professors, I came to understand more and more the nature of covenant in both testaments, as to its continuities and discontinuities.
A few of us roomed in Sinclair Ferguson's house. I had been talking to him about this and it was as he held forth on Peter's Pentecost sermon and how covenant here goes from its slower OT pace to its NT pace as the gospel goes global, arguing that at every point you have more under the New than the Old, that the light came on and I began weeping. I'll never forget it! He was so gracious and so clear in his argumentation. I had just days before strenuously defended my baptistic position and I genuinely couldn't see the argument anymore: I now went after my baptist friends with the zeal that I had so lately brought to bear on their side of the argument! I moderated in this, of course, but since that day I've never doubted for a moment the biblical truth of infant baptism.
Peace,
Alan
Here is what I recently wrote to a Brother. It may take more than 15 minutes to read. Keep in mind he had written a statement concerning his belief on what baptism represented so I'm interacting with his credo-baptist position:
If you read the WCF (and WSC and WLC) on the nature of Sacraments then we believe that the Scriptures teach that there are Sacraments, ordained by God that signify and seal the Covenant of Grace.
The outward sign is some visible element (bread, wine, water, circumcision, passover, boots, etc) while it is sacramentally connected to the Spirit's sovereign work to seal what the sign points to.
There were several sacraments in the OT (as I alluded to) and they all, in substance, point to some way in which the believer has an interest in Christ and His benefits. They were shadowy and physical but they were still means by which God placarded the Promise of salvation. The believer was to look at and through the sign with eyes of faith.
God is Spirit and He condescends by way of physical signs to us that we can feel, taste, touch, see, and hear God reminding us of His Promise. We are weak and so He condescends with *His* speech in signs of the Covenant that He is God to us.
The mere administration of a sacrament does not confer the reality but that is up to the Spirit of God but, that said, the administration is not divorced from it so that we can say that the Holy Spirit really does work with the sign so that we can look at something visible, tangible and historical and grab hold of an eternal decree that God saves those who put their trust in Christ.
Without such tangible and creaturely things like Word and Sacraments we would have no point of contact with God except that He condescends by way of a gractious Covenant, with the God-man as Mediator, to preach to us and administer to us Christ and His benefits.
The Church then is left to administer the Sacraments to professors and thier children and it is left to God to decide who is elect.
Thus, when you write that baptism is an "outward declaration of what God has done in a believer" you are actually disagreeing with the distinction between the physical administration of the sacrament and the sovereign work of the Spirit to apply that sign to those Whom He sovereignly chooses.
It is not only true, then, for baptism and we might take the same approach and say that the Lord's Supper, like baptism, is for the elect only and that the words of institution should reflect the same.
I write the elect here because that is the standard you described for baptism. If I could re-write what you stated as this: "..baptism is an outward declaration that a person is elect and that God has regenerated them...."
If this is the case then how would the Church know this? Some argue profession but there are false professors.
Just o extend this further, then, into our theology of the sacraments, it begs the question about circumcision. Your answer actually implies that you see baptism and circumcision as two fundamentally things where the Confession treats them both as sacraments of the Covenant of Grace. The outward sign (circumcision) actually signifies all the benefits of union with Christ but the graces of what it signifies were only *sealed* by the Holy Spirit. There was never any "working of the works" in the Old Covenant and Paul repeatedly condemns the notion of treating circumcision as some sort of "...I am physically in the Covenant and I'm good to go..."
Circumcision, in our Confession, is seen as a sign under a different administration of the one Covenant of Grace and so it begs the question why God commanded that circumsion be given to the infants of believers. It begs the question, further, why God would command the sign be given to people that may or may not possess the reality of what the sign signifies.
It's sometimes hard to make the switch to thinking about what is really being "got at" with Reformed sacraments but the bottom line is the difference between being God and being creatures. The Church and believers have to deal with eternal certainties that only God can know by analogies. We can't know everything but we know God Who does and can trust Him.
The Church isn't given certainty about believers but is given Word and Sacrament and adminsters sacraments to the individuals the Lord commands. We don't admnister because we say: "We're the Church and we are granting you grace here..." Instead, we stand as those announcing the Promises of God to weak and needy people. By the Word and the things of our senses, needy sinners are able to look beyond to the Promise of God in the sign and take Him at His Word.
Imagine the value of baptism if I think it's about what I'm confident God had done for me at the tie of my baptism. I've sinned an awful lot since then and my memory has faded quite a bit. I also know that I didn't really understand the Gospel back then.
Is the "value" of my baptism what I actually knew or really possessed at the time I was baptized? If so I better get baptized for real this time. What if I then sin grievously and I doubt I really had faith when I was baptized. Is the value of my baptism always then tied to what I really possessed?
How can baptism then really be a sacrament of what is a gracious covenant if its value depends upon *me* and what I remember what I possessed? How can my baptism ever comfort me at times of great trial or when I've sinned in such a way that I doubt I really believe?
Baptism (like the other Sacraments) is not my speech but God's. It is an announcement and sign from God to me. It promises salvation to all who put their trust in Him. As surely as my flesh was washed with water, so surely will my sins be washed as I trust in Christ.
Satan may assail me and convince me that I had no faith in Christ at the time of my baptism but I can tell him: "Yes, you're right Satan! I don't know if I had faith. In fact, I don't know if I had real faith two weeks ago for certain but *RIGHT NOW* I cling to the feet of Christ. And guess what else? God promised ME, at my baptism, that He saves all Who put their trust in Him. Depart from me. My memory may deceive me but I'm a baptized man and God's promises are yes and amen!"
Let me close by distinguishing what I think is the Reformed (and Biblical) idea of discipleship.
The text of Matthew 28:18-20 reads in the Greek like this: "...as you are going, make disciples {by means of} baptizing them and teaching them everything I have commanded...."
Baptists tend to think of baptism as something applied to an individual after they have come to a mature apprehension of the faith but disciples are made by baptizing and teaching.
We baptize our children precisely because they are disciples and are to be taught everything the Lord commanded. We don't teach them everything the Lord commanded and then baptize them after they have proven they are some category of something we call "disciples". Children of believers are, by their very nature of being the children of Godly parents, disciples because theire parents are repeatedly commanded to teach them Christ. Discipleship, for disciples of all categories, is a lifelong process and we don't presume that anyone infallibly possesses the reality of the sign but they have been set apart from the world as part of the visible Church.
I'm writing all this because I really want you to be convinced of these things but I recognize I can't force it upon you. It's only because I care and am greatly comforted by the nature of the Sacraments and how they fit, hand in glove, with a gracious Covenant given by a Lord Who strengthens us by them. I hope some of this helps you understand Reformed sacramentology better. It's not a "I gotcha!" but more of a "...I love you and hope you might reflect upon how gracious God is in the giving of Sacraments..."
If you read the WCF (and WSC and WLC) on the nature of Sacraments then we believe that the Scriptures teach that there are Sacraments, ordained by God that signify and seal the Covenant of Grace.
The outward sign is some visible element (bread, wine, water, circumcision, passover, boots, etc) while it is sacramentally connected to the Spirit's sovereign work to seal what the sign points to.
There were several sacraments in the OT (as I alluded to) and they all, in substance, point to some way in which the believer has an interest in Christ and His benefits. They were shadowy and physical but they were still means by which God placarded the Promise of salvation. The believer was to look at and through the sign with eyes of faith.
God is Spirit and He condescends by way of physical signs to us that we can feel, taste, touch, see, and hear God reminding us of His Promise. We are weak and so He condescends with *His* speech in signs of the Covenant that He is God to us.
The mere administration of a sacrament does not confer the reality but that is up to the Spirit of God but, that said, the administration is not divorced from it so that we can say that the Holy Spirit really does work with the sign so that we can look at something visible, tangible and historical and grab hold of an eternal decree that God saves those who put their trust in Christ.
Without such tangible and creaturely things like Word and Sacraments we would have no point of contact with God except that He condescends by way of a gractious Covenant, with the God-man as Mediator, to preach to us and administer to us Christ and His benefits.
The Church then is left to administer the Sacraments to professors and thier children and it is left to God to decide who is elect.
Thus, when you write that baptism is an "outward declaration of what God has done in a believer" you are actually disagreeing with the distinction between the physical administration of the sacrament and the sovereign work of the Spirit to apply that sign to those Whom He sovereignly chooses.
It is not only true, then, for baptism and we might take the same approach and say that the Lord's Supper, like baptism, is for the elect only and that the words of institution should reflect the same.
I write the elect here because that is the standard you described for baptism. If I could re-write what you stated as this: "..baptism is an outward declaration that a person is elect and that God has regenerated them...."
If this is the case then how would the Church know this? Some argue profession but there are false professors.
Just o extend this further, then, into our theology of the sacraments, it begs the question about circumcision. Your answer actually implies that you see baptism and circumcision as two fundamentally things where the Confession treats them both as sacraments of the Covenant of Grace. The outward sign (circumcision) actually signifies all the benefits of union with Christ but the graces of what it signifies were only *sealed* by the Holy Spirit. There was never any "working of the works" in the Old Covenant and Paul repeatedly condemns the notion of treating circumcision as some sort of "...I am physically in the Covenant and I'm good to go..."
Circumcision, in our Confession, is seen as a sign under a different administration of the one Covenant of Grace and so it begs the question why God commanded that circumsion be given to the infants of believers. It begs the question, further, why God would command the sign be given to people that may or may not possess the reality of what the sign signifies.
It's sometimes hard to make the switch to thinking about what is really being "got at" with Reformed sacraments but the bottom line is the difference between being God and being creatures. The Church and believers have to deal with eternal certainties that only God can know by analogies. We can't know everything but we know God Who does and can trust Him.
The Church isn't given certainty about believers but is given Word and Sacrament and adminsters sacraments to the individuals the Lord commands. We don't admnister because we say: "We're the Church and we are granting you grace here..." Instead, we stand as those announcing the Promises of God to weak and needy people. By the Word and the things of our senses, needy sinners are able to look beyond to the Promise of God in the sign and take Him at His Word.
Imagine the value of baptism if I think it's about what I'm confident God had done for me at the tie of my baptism. I've sinned an awful lot since then and my memory has faded quite a bit. I also know that I didn't really understand the Gospel back then.
Is the "value" of my baptism what I actually knew or really possessed at the time I was baptized? If so I better get baptized for real this time. What if I then sin grievously and I doubt I really had faith when I was baptized. Is the value of my baptism always then tied to what I really possessed?
How can baptism then really be a sacrament of what is a gracious covenant if its value depends upon *me* and what I remember what I possessed? How can my baptism ever comfort me at times of great trial or when I've sinned in such a way that I doubt I really believe?
Baptism (like the other Sacraments) is not my speech but God's. It is an announcement and sign from God to me. It promises salvation to all who put their trust in Him. As surely as my flesh was washed with water, so surely will my sins be washed as I trust in Christ.
Satan may assail me and convince me that I had no faith in Christ at the time of my baptism but I can tell him: "Yes, you're right Satan! I don't know if I had faith. In fact, I don't know if I had real faith two weeks ago for certain but *RIGHT NOW* I cling to the feet of Christ. And guess what else? God promised ME, at my baptism, that He saves all Who put their trust in Him. Depart from me. My memory may deceive me but I'm a baptized man and God's promises are yes and amen!"
Let me close by distinguishing what I think is the Reformed (and Biblical) idea of discipleship.
The text of Matthew 28:18-20 reads in the Greek like this: "...as you are going, make disciples {by means of} baptizing them and teaching them everything I have commanded...."
Baptists tend to think of baptism as something applied to an individual after they have come to a mature apprehension of the faith but disciples are made by baptizing and teaching.
We baptize our children precisely because they are disciples and are to be taught everything the Lord commanded. We don't teach them everything the Lord commanded and then baptize them after they have proven they are some category of something we call "disciples". Children of believers are, by their very nature of being the children of Godly parents, disciples because theire parents are repeatedly commanded to teach them Christ. Discipleship, for disciples of all categories, is a lifelong process and we don't presume that anyone infallibly possesses the reality of the sign but they have been set apart from the world as part of the visible Church.
I'm writing all this because I really want you to be convinced of these things but I recognize I can't force it upon you. It's only because I care and am greatly comforted by the nature of the Sacraments and how they fit, hand in glove, with a gracious Covenant given by a Lord Who strengthens us by them. I hope some of this helps you understand Reformed sacramentology better. It's not a "I gotcha!" but more of a "...I love you and hope you might reflect upon how gracious God is in the giving of Sacraments..."
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
I don't have much to add except brevity. 
1. OT covenant promises were made with families.
2. No NT passage abrogates the household principle.
3. The NT actually further establishes the household principle. a) Acts 2:39 establishes that the promise is still to believers and their children. b) 1 Cor. 7:14 demonstrates that at least one believing parent makes the children holy (external covenant/visible church).
4. Households were baptized. This is a seemless extension of the OT household principle.
5. Many Epistles address the household clearly as wives and husbands, slaves and children (see Eph., Col., 1 Pet.). If children were not included in the household, why would they be addressed as saints ("To the saints who are in Ephesus...", "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse...", "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...")?
1. OT covenant promises were made with families.
2. No NT passage abrogates the household principle.
3. The NT actually further establishes the household principle. a) Acts 2:39 establishes that the promise is still to believers and their children. b) 1 Cor. 7:14 demonstrates that at least one believing parent makes the children holy (external covenant/visible church).
4. Households were baptized. This is a seemless extension of the OT household principle.
5. Many Epistles address the household clearly as wives and husbands, slaves and children (see Eph., Col., 1 Pet.). If children were not included in the household, why would they be addressed as saints ("To the saints who are in Ephesus...", "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse...", "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...")?
Last edited:
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Really short version:
1) The covenant promises to Abraham were about salvation in the fullest sense (Gen.17:7-8; NT scripture). "...to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This is the essence of God's covenant with Abraham; and if you get this, everything else falls into place (below).
2) The covenant promises were made not only to Abraham but also to his offspring (Gen.17:7-8). "I will be God" --not just to Abraham--But: "to you and to your descendants after you. . .I will be their God." The exact same promise that is made to Abraham is equally made to his descendants.
3) The covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of THAT salvation. The sign of the covenant represents what the covenant is. If the covenant is about salvation, the sign is about salvation. This means that circumcision wasn't actually an ethnic or national sign--it was a spiritual sign.
a) Abraham was marked with circumcision to signify his faith only after he believed (Rom.4:11). True. So why infant baptism? Abraham believed FIRST, and then and only then did he receive the sign.
b) Because he was then to apply that same sign to his infant sons before belief was possible (Gen.17:7-8). The exact same sign that he only received AFTER believing, he was to mark his infant sons with at 8 days old. It's what God commanded. Adult-circumcision for Abraham; but infant circumcision for his sons.
4) New Testament believers have entered into the SAME covenant promises made to Abraham (Rom.11:17 makes it clear there was not an OT tree and separate NT tree, but we are grafted into the same tree begun with Abraham). Galatians 3 and other Scripture make it really clear that the promises made to Abraham are GOSPEL promises that extend also to us as NT believers. Our only hope as NT believers are the covenant promises made to Abraham.
5) The NT Scriptures confirm that those covenant promises still extend to our children (Acts 2:39; household baptisms in the NT; and think about 1Cor.7:14--children of believers are "holy"--in what sense? Are they automatically saved? No. In the sense that they are "set apart" from unbelieving children. How set apart? They are part of the covenant--the same pattern as OT children).
6) THUS, our infant children should continue to be marked with the covenant sign.
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:
7) This doesn't mean that all Abraham's children (or ours) will be saved: this is by faith alone (cf. Ishmael, Esau; Rom.9:6-8, etc).
8) But it does mean that our children are included in the covenant and should receive the sign.
So--a question for you--I would love to hear. What about this would you object to?
1) The covenant promises to Abraham were about salvation in the fullest sense (Gen.17:7-8; NT scripture). "...to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This is the essence of God's covenant with Abraham; and if you get this, everything else falls into place (below).
2) The covenant promises were made not only to Abraham but also to his offspring (Gen.17:7-8). "I will be God" --not just to Abraham--But: "to you and to your descendants after you. . .I will be their God." The exact same promise that is made to Abraham is equally made to his descendants.
3) The covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of THAT salvation. The sign of the covenant represents what the covenant is. If the covenant is about salvation, the sign is about salvation. This means that circumcision wasn't actually an ethnic or national sign--it was a spiritual sign.
a) Abraham was marked with circumcision to signify his faith only after he believed (Rom.4:11). True. So why infant baptism? Abraham believed FIRST, and then and only then did he receive the sign.
b) Because he was then to apply that same sign to his infant sons before belief was possible (Gen.17:7-8). The exact same sign that he only received AFTER believing, he was to mark his infant sons with at 8 days old. It's what God commanded. Adult-circumcision for Abraham; but infant circumcision for his sons.
4) New Testament believers have entered into the SAME covenant promises made to Abraham (Rom.11:17 makes it clear there was not an OT tree and separate NT tree, but we are grafted into the same tree begun with Abraham). Galatians 3 and other Scripture make it really clear that the promises made to Abraham are GOSPEL promises that extend also to us as NT believers. Our only hope as NT believers are the covenant promises made to Abraham.
5) The NT Scriptures confirm that those covenant promises still extend to our children (Acts 2:39; household baptisms in the NT; and think about 1Cor.7:14--children of believers are "holy"--in what sense? Are they automatically saved? No. In the sense that they are "set apart" from unbelieving children. How set apart? They are part of the covenant--the same pattern as OT children).
6) THUS, our infant children should continue to be marked with the covenant sign.
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:
7) This doesn't mean that all Abraham's children (or ours) will be saved: this is by faith alone (cf. Ishmael, Esau; Rom.9:6-8, etc).
8) But it does mean that our children are included in the covenant and should receive the sign.
So--a question for you--I would love to hear. What about this would you object to?
Last edited:
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't have much to add except brevity.
1. OT covenant promises were made with families.
2. No NT passage abrogates the household principle.
3. The NT actually further establishes the household principle. a) Acts 2:39 establishes that the promise is still to believers and their children. b) 1 Cor. 7:14 demonstrates that at least one believing parent makes the children holy (external covenant/visible church).
4. Households were baptized. This is a seemless extension of the OT household principle.
5. Many Epistles address the household clearly as wives and husbands, slaves and children (see Eph., Col., 1 Pet.). If children were not included in the household, why would they be addressed as saints ("To the saints who are in Ephesus...", "To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse...", "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...")?
Thanks. I'm not sure I'm understanding point 5.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
I guess only a couple of questions for your wonderful response. How do we know how old is too old to baptize? 5? 6? Also, can believing fathers baptize their infants?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
timfost
Puritan Board Senior
Who is the church? The congregation of the saints. Paul and Peter address the household as the church which is inclusive of the children of believing parents, which is why these Epistles address the children directly. Notice who is not listed: unbelievers-- those outside of the church. The fact that the Epistles name children among the saints is proof that the children were regarded as believers. Who are to be baptized?
Last edited:
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
1) Good question. I need to study more up on this, but my gut is to say that as long as the child is still living at home and considered part of the "household", and they are willing, they should be baptized when mom and dad believe. 2) Nopers...I know, there is some difference or "discontinuity" here, like also the fact that only the boys were circumcised in the OT. Best short answer is just that all of the details don't equate necessarily, but the main truths are there. To be fair though, the priesthood wasn't instituted until later, under Moses.
Does anyone know, once the priesthood was instituted, was it the priests job to circumcise?
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Jeremy,
This would be a question for the Session to answer. They would know the situation and details better than any outsider. As to who can baptize: Baptism is a sacrament of the church to be administered by a ordained and seated minister of the word and sacrament, publicly administered.
Justified
Puritan Board Sophomore
What I say is merely a supplement to what others have already said. "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6; see also Rom. 2:28). Notice the equivocation of the word Israel. Paul equivocates to bring out Israel's two-fold division: (1) Israel as it represents the visible, covenant community and (2) Israel which refers to the company of believers whose names are written in heaven and the book of life. The Church on earth is a corpus permixtum, a mixed body, this is the case because of its pre-eschatological or pilgrim nature. In the final day the Church will no longer be so, but will be pure, without blemish, as a bride adorned for her husband; there will be no more hypocrites in her midst. Methinks that Baptists have an over-realized eschatology. According to its visible administration, all those who are baptized are members of the Church. Those who have the benefits signified are members of the Church according to its substance.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Hey, Rich, this is the first I've heard of "boots" being an outward sign of the covenant. Does this refer to the promises made to shoemakers that if they go on strike, the Lord will bless them with sturdier leather to make their boots?
Silas22
Puritan Board Freshman
Jeremy,
I am a baptist currently in transition. Here are 4 sources that have been tremendously helpful for me:
William the Baptist by James Chaney
Baptism: Three Views edited by David Wright
John Calvin's Institutes
Ligon Duncans Covenant Theology class (Available FREE online)
I am a baptist currently in transition. Here are 4 sources that have been tremendously helpful for me:
William the Baptist by James Chaney
Baptism: Three Views edited by David Wright
John Calvin's Institutes
Ligon Duncans Covenant Theology class (Available FREE online)
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Is it possible for infants to be saved by Christ? They are totally depraved, so without salvation by Christ, they will perish. However, we see that it is possible for infants to have faith (e.g., Psalm 22; John the Baptist leaping); salvation and Christianity is not for "grown-ups" only. If they can be saved by Christ, then the sign of salvation belongs to infants.
But which infants, one might ask? Those to whom salvation belongs: they are the ones to whom the sign belongs. To whom does salvation belong? Those to whom the promise is made. We see in Acts 2 (among other places) that the promise is made to those who profess the true religion and their children. It is these people and these children to whom salvation belongs and so to whom the sign must be applied.
But what if these children are not saved at the time of baptism or are reprobate? The same could be asked: what if those who profess the true religion are not saved at the time of baptism or are reprobate? The visible sign of salvation is based on visible critera, which are selected for by God's promise. By baptizing no infants, one is saying that no infants can be saved by Christ. Baptism is a sign of salvation by Christ; infants are saved by Christ; so, infants ought to be baptised.
There are other options. One could say that all infants that die in infancy perish, making Christianity and Christ's salvation only for those elect who have matured (contrary to what I mentioned earlier) and seemingly contrary to David's expectation concerning his child. One could instead say that infants are not totally depraved or not accountable. The first is contrary to the doctrine of original sin. The second is contrary to infants dying in infancy (death being the penalty of sin), along with there being no age of accountability in Scripture. One could also say that infants are not saved by Christ but instead are saved by God's decree, which goes in a hyper-Calvinist direction.
But which infants, one might ask? Those to whom salvation belongs: they are the ones to whom the sign belongs. To whom does salvation belong? Those to whom the promise is made. We see in Acts 2 (among other places) that the promise is made to those who profess the true religion and their children. It is these people and these children to whom salvation belongs and so to whom the sign must be applied.
But what if these children are not saved at the time of baptism or are reprobate? The same could be asked: what if those who profess the true religion are not saved at the time of baptism or are reprobate? The visible sign of salvation is based on visible critera, which are selected for by God's promise. By baptizing no infants, one is saying that no infants can be saved by Christ. Baptism is a sign of salvation by Christ; infants are saved by Christ; so, infants ought to be baptised.
There are other options. One could say that all infants that die in infancy perish, making Christianity and Christ's salvation only for those elect who have matured (contrary to what I mentioned earlier) and seemingly contrary to David's expectation concerning his child. One could instead say that infants are not totally depraved or not accountable. The first is contrary to the doctrine of original sin. The second is contrary to infants dying in infancy (death being the penalty of sin), along with there being no age of accountability in Scripture. One could also say that infants are not saved by Christ but instead are saved by God's decree, which goes in a hyper-Calvinist direction.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Perhaps it's a reference to Ephesians 6:15.Hey, Rich, this is the first I've heard of "boots" being an outward sign of the covenant. Does this refer to the promises made to shoemakers that if they go on strike, the Lord will bless them with sturdier leather to make their boots?
Hey, Rich, this is the first I've heard of "boots" being an outward sign of the covenant. Does this refer to the promises made to shoemakers that if they go on strike, the Lord will bless them with sturdier leather to make their boots?
You can see there are some typos in my response. It was an email sent to someone and I copied and pasted.I think Bruce is correct that I intended to write the word booths.
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
See, I believe that infants who die are elect. Not because of some inherent goodness or innocence but because of how King David reacted at the death if his infant son. And maybe also because of Job's presuppositions in Job 3 but thats a tough chapter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...or maybe it was a cryptic reference to those wading boot things that John the Baptist used so he didn't get his camel hair shirt wet.
I think Bruce is correct that I intended to write the word booths.
Silas22
Puritan Board Freshman
"The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until he puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still the members of His church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New disposition to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children." -B.B. Warfield
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
If they are elect and not inherently good or innocent, then they must be saved by Christ (unless you take a hyper-Calvinist route). But if they are saved by Christ, then it is true that infants can be saved. And if infants can be saved, they should have the sign of salvation applied to them. Basically, a belief that all infants who die are elect does not affect the argument, except for a conceding of the premise that infants too can be saved by Christ.
Having said that, I would point out that David's child would be within the covenant family, and there is no information given to suggest whether this is an expectation simply because David's child was an infant (and so more universal), so it does not of itself provide warrant for believing all infants who die are elect. I have not heard an argument from Job 3 for this belief before. I don't really see anything in the text requiring that belief; it simply says that Job would prefer to have died early rather than have to suffer all the pain he had gone through; it does not say or imply anything about the eternal state of infants dying in infancy; indeed, it includes the "wicked" as part of the "rest" of which the dead partake; and Job being elect (and so preferring the quiet of heaven for himself, which is how I think people might be using the passage in speculating about the eternal state) does not imply that all infants would be. At least, I don't see it. But at any rate, these are sidetracks to the main discussion.
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
Yeah my point was just that it seems King David had a systematic theology going on when his infant son died.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
A discussion on the Covenant Sign is only a 5 minute discussion, not 15. It just occurs after a 10 hour discussion on covenant theology.
Jeremy Ivens
Puritan Board Freshman
Buying your "Covenant Theology Made Easy" (Not sure if that's the title, Brother McMahon. I'm working off bad memory.) I've been talking to Reg Barrow about it and he suggested William the Baptist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Yes, CTME is the name.
- Status
