General Pattern of Baptism in the NT

[JTB.SDG]

Do you think that “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” means that the whole family will be saved if the head of the household believes? Because if you read this text with oikobaptist presuppositions, that is the only thing it can possibly mean, and I have never met a paedo-/oikobaptist who would go that far.

Actually, brother, this does have implications for how we see God's covenantal dealings with our posterity as Presbyterians. It's exactly the implication that Thomas Goodwin draws out (below). It goes back to God's promise to Abraham: "I will establish My covenant between Me and thee and thy seed. . ." (Genesis 17:7).

Goodwin takes a parallel passage from the gospels, where Jesus says to Zaccheus in Luke 19:9, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham." Note that it's Zaccheus alone who the Lord credits as being a “son of Abraham”; and yet the benefits of salvation are imputed to his entire household: “Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham.” And here's what he writes: “when Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlarges his covenant to Zaccheus' family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham,' (verse 9). Now if Christ's intent had been in this answer given, to show that he. . .though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer. . .so now being converted, [he] is therefore called a 'son of Abraham' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son. . .to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham. . .Thus in like manner, when the apostles came to preach the gospel to a Gentile householder, master or father of a family, they carried the offer of it in this tenor, and in the way of this privilege, as a motive to conversion. So when Paul preached to the jailor, Acts 16, he asking, 'What shall I do to be saved?' (verse 30), Paul answers, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved;' and then adds, 'thou and thine house.'” (From Works, V9, pp430-31).

 

[De Jager]

Deuteronomy 29:10-14

God renews the covenant with the people of Israel, including the little ones. Let's think about this. God enters into covenant with babies.

Again, let's get this through our heads: God enters into covenant with babies.

Questions: But how?!?! They can't believe! They don't have faith!!!

Answer: God doesn't seem to care. They are his children because they are born to people who are a part of the believing community. According to God, that is a good enough reason to enter into covenant with them. According to God, he calls them his children (Ezekiel 16). According to God, he is their God (Deuteronomy 29:13). Thus, a child born to believing parents is called to believe from the moment of conception. From the moment of conception, God is his God. In the case of a covenant child, God is his God long before the child can exercise personal faith in the promises of God. That of course is why God gave them the sign of circumcision - to mark them out as HIS.

This is how God treats the children of believers. They are special. They are holy. They always have been, and they always will be.

The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that God now thinks differently about the children of believers.

The following sermon is by Kenneth Stewart, RP church of Glascow. It is INCREDIBLY beneficial. I encourage you to give it a listen.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1129161419391

 

[timfost]

Do you think that “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” means that the whole family will be saved if the head of the household believes? Because if you read this text with oikobaptist presuppositions, that is the only thing it can possibly mean, and I have never met a paedo-/oikobaptist who would go that far.

Hi, this is a great conversation!

I think you need to flesh out the implications of this statement a little. The statement to which you refer effectively means that the promise of salvation has come to this house. The entire household is regarded as members of the visible church to whom the promises were made (Abraham and his seed).

Even from the Credo perspective, baptism is sometimes applied to hypocrites. Because of this, both positions leave room for baptized people not having salvation. In other words, the implication of salvation in this passage ultimately poses a problem to both positions if the your logical dilemma is applied evenly.

a Baptist reads this, we read it like “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, [this promise is for] you and your household." Meaning, not only is he (the Philippian jailer) able to lay claim to this promise, but his duly evangelized family as well.

Again, fleshing this out may be important here. Why include the household? If Jew or Gentile individually can come to Christ through faith (believing), extending to the household is redundant since it is individual believing that places one in the covenant. If being "duly evangelized" is what's in view here, why not include the community if "duly evangelized"?

The fact is that the promises are made to the household-- not the community. The household is a special covenant relationship with a biblical pattern and precedent. Presbyterians understand continuity in the entire Bible on this point and we are not forced to "qualify" the word household as are our Baptist brethren.

I believe the the Baptist position either makes the term household redundant or a common, not special, relationship.

I say these things not to be combative but to continue a good conversation.

Thanks!

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Deuteronomy 29:10-14

God renews the covenant with the people of Israel, including the little ones. Let's think about this. God enters into covenant with babies.

Again, let's get this through our heads: God enters into covenant with babies.

Questions: But how?!?! They can't believe! They don't have faith!!!

Answer: God doesn't seem to care. They are his children because they are born to people who are a part of the believing community. According to God, that is a good enough reason to enter into covenant with them. According to God, he calls them his children (Ezekiel 16). According to God, he is their God (Deuteronomy 29:13). Thus, a child born to believing parents is called to believe from the moment of conception. From the moment of conception, God is his God. In the case of a covenant child, God is his God long before the child can exercise personal faith in the promises of God. That of course is why God gave them the sign of circumcision - to mark them out as HIS.

This is how God treats the children of believers. They are special. They are holy. They always have been, and they always will be.

The burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that God now thinks differently about the children of believers.

The following sermon is by Kenneth Stewart, RP church of Glascow. It is INCREDIBLY beneficial. I encourage you to give it a listen.

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1129161419391

Here's a much better take on this issue:

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/

 

[KMK]

That's fine, but in all practicality, baptists try as hard as possible to have an exact 1:1 accounting between those who are truly "in Christ" and those who are baptized.

This is what confessional Baptists believe:

LBC Chapter 29, Paragraph 1. "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

That is not much different than Presbyterians:

MCF Chapter 28, Paragraph 1. "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."

Baptists of course emphasize the "being united to Christ" aspect of baptism, and thus will only baptize someone if the person gives a credible profession of faith.

Presbyterians also require a credible confession of faith for baptism (just not with infants).

There are differences, but not in the way you describe. Maybe your experience with Baptists is with the non-confessional stripe.

 

[De Jager]

Here's a much better take on this issue:

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/

Seems like a lot of effort has been put forth by this person to prove that the covenant of grace is not continuous throughout the bible but that somehow the NC is different and unrelated to the other covenants. This is not biblical.

Briefly from the article:

Notwithstanding the connection the old covenant(s) have to Christ, they are not the new covenant. Their parties, promises, and precepts are distinct. Christ rejected Abrahamic paternity as sufficient grounds for inclusion in his kingdom, he rejected the idea that Canaan would be the realm of his kingdom, and he rejected the continuance of the Abrahamic/Mosaic laws.

The new covenant is the blessing for the nations, a people born from above. It forgives sins and perfects the conscience. It grants an everlasting inheritance in the new creation. It enables its people to believe and obey. It is for Jew and Greek, all who call on the name of the Lord.

I think this comes down to people not understanding what Israel was, and also not understanding the purpose of the mosaic covenant/laws. People think that Israel is just a 'picture' of future salvation, and that the Jews were related to God in some type of national, earthly way and nothing more. This is simply false.

The author of the article makes a false distinction between pre-Christ and post-Christ in that he says that the NC is for Jews and Gentiles, while before Christ it was for Jews only - this is clearly implied in the quoted paragraphs. This is simply untrue. The covenant people, even before Christ contained many who were not 'ethnic Jews' - i.e. physically descended from Abraham. In fact, there are "pagans" in the line of Christ. In Exodus 12, God explained the criteria for allowing foreigners to partake in the passover - the head of the house had to believe, and the males had to be circumcised. There were obviously foreigners seeking to join themselves to the covenant people. And why? So they could have a better life? Maybe partly - but probably because they recognized that Israel's God was the one true God.

What made a Jew special? His blood? No, not at all. A Jew is "not one outwardly, but one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart". What made a Jew special was that HIS GOD WAS THE LORD. Furthermore, even Abraham himself, and other OT saints looked beyond the physical promises to something better:

Hebrews 11:13-16

"These all died in faith, not having received the promises...they desire a better, that is a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God."

The saints before Christ, even those who lived in the promised land under the reign of King David, died without having received the fulness of God's promises. We need to get that through our heads! Therefore, we can say, even from Noah, through Abraham, David, Jeremiah, etc. God's promises always pointed to things beyond this life. Yes, there was a time where God promised an earthly land and with earthly blessings - but that was not the fulness of the promises - it never has been.

When God said to Abraham "I will be your God", heavenly promises were in play. And when God said to Abraham "I will be the God of your descendants", these same promises were in play. They were promises that ultimately culminated in eternal fellowship with God himself in the "heavenly country".

And how is this any different than anyone who hears the phrase "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"? Is this promise of salvation not exactly the same as the one given to Abraham. Of course it is. Is this promise of salvation realized through faith in Christ? Of course it is. By faith we become a true child of Abraham - and it has ALWAYS been the case.

An old testament pagan who believed that Israel's God was the one true God and joined himself to the covenant people (and who was then circumcised with all his), was a child of Abraham in a more meaningful sense than a person who was born "Jewish" and yet didn't believe. God has always been interested in a people with "circumcised hearts".

This is why Jesus is not impressed with people who say "we have Abraham as our father". This is not a new development, in that God has not just recently become displeased at such a statement. God has always looked with disappointment on those who rely solely on bloodlines in order to prove that they are "good with God". Jesus didn't change anything when he confronted that attitude.

God does not change. He treats people the same yesterday, today, and forever. People have and always will be saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and it has always been the case that those who are truly united to Christ by faith are the only ones who can really look forward to the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises - eternal fellowship with him. There are many in the visible congregation who are tares, who say "we are Abraham's children!" yet lack the real substance of the promises. This has always been the case and will always be the case. Yet, God has also always seen fit to give the sign of inclusion in his visible people to believers and their children - always, always, always.

Baptism is a visible sign which marks out someone as being a disciple of Christ, being under his tutelage, being under his authority. A child born to Christian parents qualifies. A covenant child is a disciple in every sense of the word (no, disciple does not necessarily equal regenerate, see John 6 where Jesus 'disciples' leave him). A covenant child is a learner, a student, a person under the authority of Christ's teaching. And since a covenant child qualifies to be baptized, we baptize them. A covenant child belongs to the "believing community" in the exact same way that a covenant child belonged to the believing community in the times pre-Christ.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Seems like a lot of effort has been put forth by this person to prove that the covenant of grace is not continuous throughout the bible but that somehow the NC is different and unrelated to the other covenants.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to draw that conclusion, especially since the author most certainly would reject that idea.

 

[De Jager]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to draw that conclusion, especially since the author most certainly would reject that idea.

Hi Sean,

He may reject the idea, but this is the impression that I got when I read the quoted part. He is making a distinction between the NC and the times pre-Christ which simply doesn't exist. For example, he says that the NC "enables people to believe and obey" like this is somehow a new concept, like people didn't believe and obey before Christ. This is simply not the case. There are many cases in the Bible of old testament saints doing those exact things.

Furthermore he emphasizes that the NC promises an inheritance in the new creation, supposing that the this wasn't promised before. The verses I showed from Hebrews prove that this has always been in mind. The author sets up a false comparison. Thus he is arguing for the discontinuity of the CoG rather than the continuity. He is pointing out (supposed) points of difference, which really aren't that different at all.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how it's possible to draw that conclusion, especially since the author most certainly would reject that idea.

Sean, the problem many see, myself included, is that the 1689 Federalism movement (including Sam Renihan I think) uses language that emphasises the discontinuity between the two covenants more than what Reformed Baptists did 15-20 years ago. So this tends to create a greater degree of suspicion by paedobaptists to the Reformed Baptist position.

 

[Andrew35]

I just wanted to jump in and say how much I'm enjoying this thread. Good contributions on both sides; much more edifying than some of the other threads recently on similar topics. I feel like I'm learning a lot. Please carry on!

 

[Kinghezy]

Christ rejected Abrahamic paternity as sufficient grounds for inclusion in his kingdom, he rejected the idea that Canaan would be the realm of his kingdom, and he rejected the continuance of the Abrahamic/Mosaic laws.

I think he also conflates Abraham and Moses. Abraham was before the law and is his faith even before circumcision! Galatians explicitly counters that.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, And to offsprings, referring to many, but referring to one, And to your offspring, who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

That's fine, but in all practicality, baptists try as hard as possible to have an exact 1:1 accounting between those who are truly "in Christ" and those who are baptized.

No. All that we do or can require is a credible profession of faith in Christ. Our Confession states, Those "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (BCF 26:2). In that respect, we are no different from our paedobaptist brethren except in our denial that Baptism and membership are to be extended to the children of believers.

But it must be acknowledged that you yourselves employ the same rubric in admitting those baptized as children into "communicant" membership. So that anytime "communicant" membership (or perhaps more appropriately "real" membership) is conferred, the Presbyterian session acts in precisely the same fashion as the elders in the Baptist church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

admitting those baptized as children into "communicant" membership

Infants that receive the sign are not 'communicant' members, but *non-communicant* members.

 

[De Jager]

No. All that we do or can require is a credible profession of faith in Christ. Our Confession states, Those "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted" (BCF 26:2). In that respect, we are no different from our paedobaptist brethren except in our denial that Baptism and membership are to be extended to the children of believers.

But it must be acknowledged that you yourselves employ the same rubric in admitting those baptized as children into "communicant" membership. So that anytime "communicant" membership (or perhaps more appropriately "real" membership) is conferred, the Presbyterian session acts in precisely the same fashion as the elders in the Baptist church.

I concede your point. I have just heard the classic baptist tagline "it's an external sign of an internal reality", and equated that with what you yourself understand, which was wrong.

Perhaps you might say "It's an external sign of what is professed to be an internal reality", which makes more sense.

I also agree that reformed churches employ a similar rubric, for example when serving the Lord's supper, or when performing a household baptism - they evaluate the profession of faith of the head. I concede this point.

Not surprisingly, I take issue with your confession. It teaches that only those who have professed faith may be called "visible saints". I do not think that is biblical at all. I think this is a new idea which simply must be introduced in order to account for a faulty view of baptism.

1 Corinthians 7:14 teaches us that our children are "holy". Where does such a child fit into the picture painted by the confession? That child is unlike a pagan child, scripture tells us as much. They are holy to the Lord, set apart by him and for him. If only those who have professed faith are to be reckoned as "visible saints", then why do we see verses like this:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them which are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints" (1 Cor. 1:2)

Literally:

"To the church of God being in Corinth, having been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called holy"

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/1.htm

Paul uses the same Greek word in the same letter in both chapters 1 and 7. In chapter 1, he refers to the congregation in Corinth as those who are "holy". In Chapter 7, he refers to the children of at least one believing parent (who were obviously members of the congregation, otherwise why would he write this?) as holy as well.

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy

The apostle Paul considers that the children of believers have the same status (holy) as the rest of the community. No, they do not have the maturity of the rest of the community, but they are members just the same. I assume you are a citizen of the United States. When did you become a US citizen? When did you become obligated to live under the rule of law of the US? Was it when you decided that you agreed with everything the US stood for, and then told everyone that you had decided to be a citizen? No, it was decided for you, as you were a US citizen from the moment you were born, and you were obligated to obey the rule of law in your country from birth. You had no say in the matter. Of course, you can commit treason, reject the country of your birth, and leave, but that is besides the point - that does not mean that you were not born a citizen of the US.

We view our children in a similar light. A covenant child belongs to God. They are called "saints" and also called to be saints, that is, to live up to their external calling, exercising their own personal faith in the one true living God, the same God who in his divine providence set that child into a believing household.

Have a great night

Izaak

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Infants that receive the sign are not 'communicant' members, but *non-communicant* members.

Obviously. I was talking about the point at which those who are baptized as children are admitted into communicant membership.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy

Do you view unbelieving spouses in the same light? I would say, your exegesis requires it!

Allow me to complete what you have left unfinished...

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy
The unbelieving spouse = holy
​

 

[timfost]

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy

That's a great point! It's no wonder that Peter and Paul directly instruct husbands and wives, servants and children. This household is identical to the OT household.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

That's a great point! It's no wonder that Peter and Paul directly instruct husbands and wives, servants and children. This household is identical to the OT household.

So, why are unbelieving spouses excluded from the covenant community to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 declares them to have a part?

 

[De Jager]

Do you view unbelieving spouses in the same light? I would say, your exegesis requires it!

Allow me to complete what you have left unfinished...

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy
The unbelieving spouse = holy
​

Chris,

Perhaps my exegesis does require it. It certainly would make sense, although I would have to study it a bit more, and I am certainly open to correction on this point. It seems as though they would be "holy" the same way the children are - that is, now under the Lordship of Christ by virtue of the fact that they are under the headship of a believing husband. In fact, in the situation where a man comes to faith, us "oikobaptists" would say that the whole household should be baptized, including the children, and the wife (as long as she does not refuse it).

Again, you can't keep us oikobaptists from referencing the old testament, so here I go again: when Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, he applied it even to his male servants who were obviously adults, and to Ishmael, his 13 year old son. He also applied it to the infants, including Isaac, who was a baby when he received it. The criteria in that situation was not that you had to have a personal faith, or even that you had to be related by blood to Abraham, but that you had to be in a believing household.

Abraham did not go and circumcise the townspeople whom he did not have any influence whatsoever, only those under his headship.

I hope you have a great day!

Izaak

 

[De Jager]

So, why are unbelieving spouses excluded from the covenant community to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 declares them to have a part?

I'm not sure they are, but you will have to ask someone smarter than I to answer that question.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The congregation = holy
The children of the congregation = holy
The unbelieving spouse = holy

This is a biblical fact and need to be understood w/ distinctions; Covenantally speaking, and I am sure u have heard, there is such a things as (h)oliness in the Lord and (H)oliness. The participants of the external side of the covenant have respectable participation in this (h)oliness that outsiders do not; for example, being exposed daily to the gospel and it's commands, sitting under the means of grace etc.

One cannot escape the statement made by the Apostle when he tells us that the 'unbeliving spouse and children are (h)oly'. Consider Judas. Consider Gen 17 and the detriment of not placing the commanded sign. The contrast to that detriment is this (h)oliness by being *in covenant*.

Q. 5. What holiness is it that is called federal, or Covenant holiness which is in Infants?

Ans. It is not so much personal holiness (though it may so be called, because the person is a Church member, separated from the world to God) as holiness of the seed, Society, Family, or Nation, which is derived from father to son, as if the father be a free man of such a City, that privilege is so personal, as it is by the Law hereditary freedom derived from father to son, if the father have jus ad media salutis right to the means of salvation, so hath the son. Hence this was first domestical, God made the Covenant with Abraham and his family: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, Gen. 17. it was extended to him, not as a father only, but as to the head of the family; the children of Servants born in Abrahams family were to be circumcised and to be instructed as having right to the means of salvation. Gen. 17.12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your Generations (so it is Generation-holiness) he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed. So God shows clearly that in Abraham he chose the Nation and the house, Gen. 18 19. I know Abraham, that he will command his children (that is too narrow a Church Visible) and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the Lord. 2. Afterward he chose the Nation to be a peculiar people holy to himself, Deut. 7.6,7. but not with another new distinct Covenant, but in the same Covenant. 8. But because the Lord loved you, and would keep the oath that he had sworn to your fathers, to wit, to Abraham. Deut. 10.15. He chose their seed after them, even you, above all people, not above all houses. Amos 3.2. You only have I known of all the families of the earth. So the external Church Covenant and Church right to the means of grace is given to a society and made with Nations under the New Testament, Isa. 2.1,2,3. Psal. 2.8,9. Psal. 22.27. Psal. 87. 2,3,4. Rev. 11.15. Matth. 28. 19,20. And not any are baptized in the New Testament, (except the Eunuch, and Saul, Acts 8.39.) who were baptized firstly, but they were baptized as publick men representing a seed; also, societies are baptized. All Judea, Mat. 3. 3. All the land of Judea, Mark 1. 5. All the multitude, all the people, Luke 4.7.21. Sure the fathers were so Christianed and Baptized as their children had right to the same seal. So Joh. 3.22,23,26. Cornelius his house and all with him were baptized, Acts 10.33.47. Three thousand at once, Acts 2. 39,40,41. The Jailer and his house, Acts 16.33. servants and friends. The household of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1.16. was Baptized. And this 3. is holden forth as the Church, as the household of Narcissus which are in the Lord, Rom. 16.11. Aquila and Priscilla, and all the Church at their house. v. 5. The Church at the house of Philemon, Phil. v.3. which teacheth that the Covenant holiness is of societies and house under the New Testament as in Abrahams house, and as Abrahams house was Circumcised, so are whole houses under the New Testament Baptized. 4. Paul aptly calls it the holiness of the lump, or Nation, and the first fruits, root-holiness, the holiness of the root and the branches. Of the Olive Tree and the branches, Rom. 11. 16,17. (5.) The special intent of God in sending the word of the Covenant must evidence this; he sends not the Gospel unto, and for the cause of one man, to bring him in, but to gather a Church and his elect ones, by a visibly and audibly Preached Covenant to a society, to a City; to Samaria. Acts 8. To the Gentiles, Acts 13. To all Nations, Mat. 28. 19,20. that they and their children may have right to salvation and to the means thereof, and to the Covenant, and therefore we are not curiously to inquire whether the faith of the father be real or not, if the Gospel be come to the Nation, to the House, to the Society. The Lord in one Abraham, in one Cornelius, in one Jayler, (whom he effectually converts as far as we can gather from the Scriptures) chooses the race, house, society, nation, and gives them a Covenant-holiness, the mans being born where the call of God is, does the turn, as much as the faith of the Parent. For by the root is not necessarily meant the Physical root the father. For Abraham was not the Physical root and father, nor Cornelius of all the servants and friends in the house. But if a friend be in the house, or society, and profess the Gospel, he and his obtain right to Baptism and the means of salvation. But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrary. Nor 2. is internal and effectual confederacy with God, that, by which one is a son of promise, Rom. 9. and predestinate to life, a national favour. For 1. no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen: A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations or houses or societies, but of single persons. It is not said, before the nation had done good or evil, I chose this nation all and whole, not this, but I loved this man, not this man.

Samuel Rutherford, Infant Baptism Proven From the Scriptures

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Perhaps my exegesis does require it. It certainly would make sense, although I would have to study it a bit more, and I am certainly open to correction on this point. It seems as though they would be "holy" the same way the children are - that is, now under the Lordship of Christ by virtue of the fact that they are under the headship of a believing husband. In fact, in the situation where a man comes to faith, us "oikobaptists" would say that the whole household should be baptized, including the children, and the wife (as long as she does not refuse it).

Again, you can't keep us oikobaptists from referencing the old testament, so here I go again: when Abraham was given the sign of circumcision, he applied it even to his male servants who were obviously adults, and to Ishmael, his 13 year old son. He also applied it to the infants, including Isaac, who was a baby when he received it. The criteria in that situation was not that you had to have a personal faith, or even that you had to be related by blood to Abraham, but that you had to be in a believing household.

Your consistency here is refreshing. Thank you. As always, your error is twofold: First, interpreting the greater revelation of the NT by the lesser revelation of the Old; and Second, imposing baptism onto texts that are not addressing it.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

This is a biblical fact and need to be understood w/ distinctions; Covenantally speaking, and I am sure u have heard, there is such a things as (h)oliness in the Lord and (H)oliness. The participants of the external side of the covenant have respectable participation in this (h)oliness that outsiders do not; for example, being exposed daily to the gospel and it's commands, sitting under the means of grace etc.

Of course I agree. But in applying 1 Cor. 7:14 to baptism, there are only two consistent positions. Either 1) Baptism is to be applied to the entire household irrespective of personal faith (and therefore to unbelieving spouses); or 2) the "holiness" spoken of, though of real benefit to them, does not entitle them to baptism and church membership without a personal profession of faith in Christ.

But "oikobaptists" do neither of these and rather welcome the very young child by baptism into the church while denying the sacrament and membership to unbelieving spouses and their older children. I, for one, am glad paedobaptists are inconsistent on this point. I simply wish they would admit their inconsistency or agree with us, that 1 Cor. 7:14 isn't talking about baptism and provides no support for the practice.

 

[Scott Bushey]

But in applying 1 Cor. 7:14 to baptism, there are only two consistent positions.

U are not thinking covenantally and hence, your result; 1 Cor 7 says nothing about the sign; the Apostle, the Jew of Jews, is taking into consideration the perpetuity of the covenant left to Israel for 'all generations' when he writes what he does.

Sir, it has never been such a way; you wrongly presume that it has changed; please show me a positive command where God has rescinded a command that he tells us is 'for all generations'? You speculate, based on silence. Consider all the Jews and their federal headship over their families. The reason their is silence and why we see no children, ever, being baptized anywhere in the NT writings is suspect; Not one case where we see '_______ child was baptised @ 12 years old, etc. etc. Why is that? Surely u have witnessed a child in congregations u have been present in have baptised young children. In fact, it is a high event! Congregations are more excited when children come to faith at an earlier age than adults of riper ages. Yet, we see not one example. This is due to the fact that all those children already had the sign of covenant in their flesh.

When John the Baptist was calling folk to the Jordan, do u think for a second that the people came without their families? Federal headship and things like this were family decisions and actions. The covenant has always included families. Since the gospel has always included families, it has not changed in essence.

I simply wish they would admit their inconsistency or agree with us, that 1 Cor. 7:14 isn't talking about baptism and provides no support for the practice.

2) the "holiness" spoken of, though of real benefit to them, does not entitle them to baptism and church membership without a personal profession of faith in Christ.

It is not inconsistent; you are the one being inconsistent and falling prey to dispensationalism. On one hand, you are not antinomian and subscribe to the decalogue, yet abandon a command in Gen 17 that clearly tells us that the sign is for 'all generations'. Consider the passover; infants, young children were not allowed to participate until they were able to confess just what it was that they believed about said, passover:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...ld-be-allowed-to-partake-in-the-lords-supper/

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-51-response-to-richard-bacon-part-1/

 

[De Jager]

Your consistency here is refreshing. Thank you. As always, your error is twofold: First, interpreting the greater revelation of the NT by the lesser revelation of the Old; and Second, imposing baptism onto texts that are not addressing it.

Dear Chris,

I would say your error is "as always" the following:

You are interpreting the revelation of the NT in a way which ignores how God has dealt with his people for 2,000 years.

Baptism is a sign that you belong to God through Jesus Christ. That's why Jesus told us to baptize people who are under His tutelage (disciples - learners). A disciple of Jesus Christ is someone who is in the visible congregation of the one, true, living God, who is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That one true living God was also triune in the old testament. A person who was given the circumcision in the old testament was under the Lordship of the the everlasting WORD (John 1:1). I will say it again for emphasis: a child who was given circumcision before the incarnation, that is before the word was made flesh, was still a disciple of the WORD; they were under the Lordship of YHWH, eternal Father, Son (WORD), and Holy Spirit, because God does not change.

Baptism of course is a sign that we belong to God. Not that we just belong to 'Jesus', but that we belong to the triune, everlasting, unchanging God - Father, Son (Word) and Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus commanded us to baptize in the trinitarian name.

Baptism is a sign given for the exact same function as circumcision was - to visibly mark out who is part of God's people. The covenant has always had an initiatory sign. Baptism is not "new" in that sense. And since it is not "new" in that sense, we apply it in the same way unless given explicit direction otherwise. Baptists often will say something to the effect of "show me an explicit mentioning or command of infant baptism in the NT". I will ask a similar question: "show me an explicit forbidding of infant baptism in the NT", and I will become a baptist. We look at the household baptisms in the NT and say - "of course, that is what we would expect to see". To us, it is irrelevant if kids are mentioned explicitly or not - it is not necessary. God has already explained how to give covenant signs in the OT, he doesn't need to do it again. If God says something once, we listen, end of story.

You see, the burden of proof is on you to prove that we should not give the sign of baptism to children. However, that will never happen because the oikobaptist position is extremely solid biblically, theologically, exegetically, and historically (the early church fathers writings indicate that household baptism was quite normal and considered an apostolic practice). In fact, everyone's default position should be that of an oikobaptist, because that is in keeping with the tenor of scripture and the history of the church.

Finally, I don't think I am imposing baptism into 1 Corinthians 7:14. This text is of course not addressing baptism - I will gladly concede that point. However, this text does teach that children are holy, set apart unto the Lord. This is in keeping with our interpretation of how children of believers are to be treated. While it doesn't explicitly talk about baptism, it certainly supports the covenantal position; it does not harm it in any way shape or form.

Thanks for your response,

Izaak

 

[De Jager]

Of course I agree. But in applying 1 Cor. 7:14 to baptism, there are only two consistent positions. Either 1) Baptism is to be applied to the entire household irrespective of personal faith (and therefore to unbelieving spouses); or 2) the "holiness" spoken of, though of real benefit to them, does not entitle them to baptism and church membership without a personal profession of faith in Christ.

But "oikobaptists" do neither of these and rather welcome the very young child by baptism into the church while denying the sacrament and membership to unbelieving spouses and their older children. I, for one, am glad paedobaptists are inconsistent on this point. I simply wish they would admit their inconsistency or agree with us, that 1 Cor. 7:14 isn't talking about baptism and provides no support for the practice.

We deny the Lord's supper to infants because the apostle clearly sets out that we must "discern the Lord's body" in order to partake. We do not deny baptism to infants, because the apostles gives no such explicit command to do so. I really don't think there is an inconsistency. The two sacraments are different in that one is initiatory, the other is for the "walk".

 

[timfost]

So, why are unbelieving spouses excluded from the covenant community to which 1 Corinthians 7:14 declares them to have a part?

You answered your own question.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

You answered your own question.

Did I? If the unbelieving spouse is holy just like the child, why wouldn't they be baptized? If they are members of the believer's houshold, why wouldn't they be baptized?

If we MUST believe that there were infants in the households baptized in Acts, is it not just as probable that there were unbelieving adults who were baptized?

 

[hammondjones]

Is this spouse willing? If so, would say yes, and this thread spoke of it:

https://puritanboard.com/threads/should-an-unbelieving-spouse-be-baptized.86894/#post-1078851

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Is this spouse willing? If so, would say yes, and this thread spoke of it:

https://puritanboard.com/threads/should-an-unbelieving-spouse-be-baptized.86894/#post-1078851

If the spouse is "willing", then they aren't "unbelieving" and the whole point is moot.