Give me one positive command to baptize infants please

[non dignus]

[side bar]

Rev. Winzer,

Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be converted, but that doesn't necessarily show itself in repentance.

In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?

[/side bar]

 

[44jason]

Rich, this statement

If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?

... is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.

Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.

Lets look at a hypothetical to make this a little more... unclear.

If your church had 100 children born to families in your congregation over the last 25 years and so did mine, and your church baptized all 100 and our church baptized all 100 over the 25 years -- does this discussion matter? I think it does, because the issue is not about children but about the definition of "baptism" and the nature of the visible church.

But lets say that 10 of your children apostatized and so did 10 of ours. Both of our churches would grieve over this. And we would say I remember when those 10 made a credible profession of faith and we baptized them, but they went out from us because they were never truly converted. What would your church's feelings be? I'm sure the same.

Now lets say that your church baptized all 100 and 25 apostatized. But our church only baptized 75 because the other 25 never had a credible profession. Which scenario would give a clearer testimony as to the true nature of the New Covenant? Which scenario was more in sync with God's election and will?

I obviously have more confidence in the credo approach to baptism than the paedo approach. Hopefully you can see why? My only desire is to reflect God's will, and be in sync with the mind of Christ as a church, and to give God glory in all things including WHO we baptize and WHY? If we have no credible reasons to believe that God has baptized them into Christ and Christ is their federal head, then we cannot in clear conscience put the sign of the NC upon them. And we don't feel Scripture is silent -- but sufficiently clear to baptize those who repent and believe.

Sincerely,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, this statement

If you believe in a God who elects, not on the basis of willing and running but on the basis of His mercy, why would you think that the willing of a child would be a better indicator of His favor?

... is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.

Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.

Lets look at a hypothetical to make this a little more... unclear.

If your church had 100 children born to families in your congregation over the last 25 years and so did mine, and your church baptized all 100 and our church baptized all 100 over the 25 years -- does this discussion matter? I think it does, because the issue is not about children but about the definition of "baptism" and the nature of the visible church.

But lets say that 10 of your children apostatized and so did 10 of ours. Both of our churches would grieve over this. And we would say I remember when those 10 made a credible profession of faith and we baptized them, but they went out from us because they were never truly converted. What would your church's feelings be? I'm sure the same.

Now lets say that your church baptized all 100 and 25 apostatized. But our church only baptized 75 because the other 25 never had a credible profession. Which scenario would give a clearer testimony as to the true nature of the New Covenant? Which scenario was more in sync with God's election and will?

I obviously have more confidence in the credo approach to baptism than the paedo approach. Hopefully you can see why? My only desire is to reflect God's will, and be in sync with the mind of Christ as a church, and to give God glory in all things including WHO we baptize and WHY? If we have no credible reasons to believe that God has baptized them into Christ and Christ is their federal head, then we cannot in clear conscience put the sign of the NC upon them. And we don't feel Scripture is silent -- but sufficiently clear to baptize those who repent and believe.

Sincerely,

I understand your motivation for it. I don't agree that it is a Scriptural motivation obviously but you ought not perceive that as a personal slight. As I stated before the calculus is relatively simple:

1. All who have ever been saved are united to Christ.
2. This was true before and after the Mosaic Administration.
3. The community of faith (visible Church) has always been a means for the conversion of God's elect.
4. God not only commands a thing but provides the very means to help toward that end.

What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end. All the hypotheticals about 25 going apostate here and 75 believing there focus too much on the apostate. The apostate and the reprobate cannot shipwreck God's plan. The reprobate cannot be dissuaded from being reprobate or encouraged to be reprobate by being more careful to treat them as reprobate.

Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".

And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

To me, all your theoretical concerns about what people are saying about a perfect Covenant that cannot be corrupted by anything that man tries to do against it pale in comparison against the very obvious ways in which that false dichotomy undermines the whole program of training a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

 

[MW]

[side bar]

Rev. Winzer,

Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be converted, but that doesn't necessarily show itself in repentance.

In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?

[/side bar]

That is correct, I would never deny the necessity of conversion. Certainly metanoia can be understood of conversion, but I interpreted our Baptist friend as referring to repentance in the strict theological idea of the term, as "turning" or altering the course of one's life. According to my understanding an infant of believers has no "turning" to do since he is brought up IN the Lord.

In reflecting on this discussion and others like it, I can see that the revivalistic view of regeneration/conversion creates difficulties for some. When did conversion and/or repentance become a one time event in reformed theology? There appears to be a revivalistic view of conversion meshed in with the reformed ordo salutis to create an almost legalistic understanding of personal salvation. We need to remember that the ordo salutis is not a chronological but a logical order, and that the Spirit of God works according to His own sovereign will in each case.

 

[non dignus]

[side bar]

Rev. Winzer,

Would I be correct in saying (to follow on your point), that all children must be converted, but that doesn't necessarily show itself in repentance.

In other words, you are not denying the necessity of conversion. ?

[/side bar]

That is correct, I would never deny the necessity of conversion. Certainly metanoia can be understood of conversion, but I interpreted our Baptist friend as referring to repentance in the strict theological idea of the term, as "turning" or altering the course of one's life. According to my understanding an infant of believers has no "turning" to do since he is brought up IN the Lord.
In reflecting on this discussion and others like it, I can see that the revivalistic view of regeneration/conversion creates difficulties for some. When did conversion and/or repentance become a one time event in reformed theology? There appears to be a revivalistic view of conversion meshed in with the reformed ordo salutis to create an almost legalistic understanding of personal salvation. We need to remember that the ordo salutis is not a chronological but a logical order, and that the Spirit of God works according to His own sovereign will in each case.

You are a great help to me in sorting this out. Thank you.

 

[44jason]

Rich you said:

... you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey". And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

That is a false assumption on your part that has caused you to once again claim something false about me and reformed Baptist.

Such false presuppositions lead to more, like this one

What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end.

There are so many things wrong about this line of thinking.
#1 -- you seem to suggest that baptized infants have more of a CHANCE to get saved than non baptized ones. I guess you can prove that there are more Presbyterians in the invisible church than not??? Gosh, I don't want my kid to have less of a means of grace than yours... give me a cup of water!
#2 -- do you think that unbaptized kids are welcomed in our church???
#3 -- do you think that during our family devotions and prayer time, I only allow my baptized son to participate, but make my other children sit out on the porch???

Come on Rich, this is why Baptist hear this kind of stuff and do more than just disagree -- it is down right insulting.

But I am sure you have no intentions of being offensive, so I was just making note of what happens among many.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich you said:

... you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey". And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

That is a false assumption on your part that has caused you to once again claim something false about me and reformed Baptist.

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?

Such false presuppositions lead to more, like this one

What you do not seem to understand is that in your quest for the perfection of the NC, you actually undermine the means that God has ordained toward that end.

There are so many things wrong about this line of thinking.
#1 -- you seem to suggest that baptized infants have more of a CHANCE to get saved than non baptized ones. I guess you can prove that there are more Presbyterians in the invisible church than not??? Gosh, I don't want my kid to have less of a means of grace than yours... give me a cup of water!

No, I don't base baptism on a probability calculus that one might be more elect than another. It's not a danger I'm accustomed to. I actually believe your children are in the Covenant. I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.

#2 -- do you think that unbaptized kids are welcomed in our church???

No, I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.

#3 -- do you think that during our family devotions and prayer time, I only allow my baptized son to participate, but make my other children sit out on the porch???

Do you allow them to pray? If so, on what basis? Who is mediating their prayers in your mind if you are not presuming them regenerated in some sense?

I am very happy when Baptists train their kids. I just wish they wouldn't go out of their way to claim that they are unregenerate.

Come on Rich, this is why Baptist hear this kind of stuff and do more than just disagree -- it is down right insulting.

But I am sure you have no intentions of being offensive, so I was just making note of what happens among many.

It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to confidently presume that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.

 

[Wannabee]

Paul,
You asked a question and I responded. I wasn't sure if it was just a curiosity for you, or if you missed my response.

Baptism is one of the means God has ordained to convert and confirm His elect in the Promise. Your view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes. Then and only then is he "worthy" of Romans 4-8.

Baptism is a means of convertion? I can't buy this. In fact, I have to think you misspoke, unless your talking about the spiritual reality.
And to say that my "view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes" is completely foreign to my thinking. If you read my post from about three posts ago you'll see that I see it as a vital part of declaring the Gospel, which I do and encourage from the earliest of ages. I wholeheartedly would agree tha this is usually left out of witnessing, which shouldn't be. Obviously Phillip included it, or the eunich would have no idea about baptism. Of course this nullifies your comment on Romans 4-8, so I'll drop it here.

Really, one must be baptized into Christ before they are baptized? I'm sorry but, I must ask, how do you know a man is baptized into Christ. Please don't say profession.

Actually, haven't you heard of the new litmus test the SBC has come out with? It's great. Just take a specimen, dip the little paper in, and if it turns purple then voilla, you have a new born Christian. The rabbit test was too inconsistent, so they were pretty excited about it when this one came out.
Profession is all we have. If one claims Christ then who am I do withhold baptism? Prior to baptism they get to share their testimony and declare publicly their faith in Christ. Remember Jesus' words, if one "says" they repent then we forgive them. It doesn't say that we forgive them when we know they have repented. The same would go for baptism.

Judas is not a good example - if he was baptized (and I assume he was) then it was by the baptism of John. This is not the same as the baptism of Jesus.

No, Jesus baptized to (or others baptized under His authority). This is why the Apostles and the rest of the disciples had already received Christian Baptism at the time of Pentecost. You see, my understanding of the Sacrament is not overthrown by the fact that Judas was baptized but it literally destroys the significance if you acknowledge the the Son of God Himself knowingly had an unbeliever baptized.

It really destroys nothing. Again, I accept the testimony of one who claims to believe. This argument accomplishes nothing.

Also, Rich, at what age would you put a rebellious child out of the church? I found this comment intriguing.

Well, I wouldn't excommunicate a child but the Elders would. A child would be disciplined on the basis of open, unrepentant sin just like any other believer. I'm not sure why this is so intriguing.

Because no age was given. A five year old is a habitual liar. He lies, is confronted, lies, is confronted, etc. Is he excommunicated. If so, what does excommunication look like for a 5 year old? Is he put in day care, left home or what?

Why did Peter add, "and to your children" in Acts 2:39?


"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children."
The Baptist assumes the children must repent.


If someone said,
"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."
Would the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?

Not a good argument because it claims the text says something it doesn't. This was dealt with earlier in this thread.

When a minister issues a call to repentance, he does so on the understanding that there is an actual false belief or immoral practice which requires repentance. Given that a baptised infant will be brought up in the worshipping profession of the Triune God, what actual false belief or immoral practice does the NT require the baptised infant to repent of?

This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.

Rich, if you see disciples as students, then our children absolutely are disciples. If you mean it to be "little believers" (as some do), then you are correct in your above assessment. And I absolutely agree that "they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age." And it is acknowledged that they can be believers without vocalizing it properly. However, we cannot know/think that they are until they can properly give testimony of their faith.

Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.

Suspicious eye... Hmmm. Actually, I do this with my baptized children. I think they're both saved. They've both given credible testimony and their lives reflect it in many ways. But they still lean on my faith to a great degree. I still challenge them on their salvation. I'd rather challenge them on their salvation than take it for granted and find out, too late, that they were never saved.

Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".

And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

This is really wierd. Who thinks this way?

Jason makes some good points above.


Much speculation and attempting to corner the Baptist position by steering the conversation and attempting to win the argument. Think about this guys, are you really trying to persuade, or are you trying to win an argument/debate? I've attempted to pull the conversation back and go slower so that the things we agree on can be staged and the specifics we disagree on can be focused on. I thought that was what Paul was trying to do in his question to me. Jason seems to have tried the same thing. But the conversation goes so fast and begins to bring in so many elements that it becomes a free-for-all that looks more like a demolition derby than any orderly desire to pursue truth. I truly want to understand where you guys are coming from. I get some of it, but there's a disconnect somewhere that simply eludes me. I see you holding on to tradition and scared to let go. If you do then your entire system collapses. You see me as... well, something else. The thing is, my position is not reliant upon my system, nor is my system reliant upon my position. My position is simply reliant upon my exegesis of Scripture, which shows me that those who give credible profession of faith are to be baptized.

 

[Wannabee]

It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to confidently presume that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.

Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.

Deuteronomy 6:6-7
“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

We all agree; right?

 

[MW]

This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.

They haven't done anything requiring repentance, so they shouldn't be baptised -- a strange species of reasoning. Should we be waiting for them to do something which requires repentance so that we can urge repentance and then baptise them? Perhaps if they sold themselves to do evil, they could have a real dramatic conversion, and then we could feel all the more sure about their salvation. This wisdom definitely does not come from above.

 

[Wannabee]

No, twisted that way it wouldn't.
The fact is, we are commanded to repent. Repentance is a sign of salvation. Therefore, baptism presupposes repentance. I simply connected the dots without going into it.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul,
I must be really slow tonight. I'm still not following you. Maybe I missed something in a comment somewhere but what are you saying here:

Yes, Jason, you are misunderstanding. Get some sleep, take three Exedrin, and call me in the morning.

You see, Paul, my comments have to do with the fact that some statements in comments above are suggesting that some enter the New Covenant Church by spiritual birth and others by physical birth.

Then you must think that either the children of the proselytes didn't enter the covenant community, or they were spiritually born again.

But, furthermore, I've tried to explain that you view the NC as having only one face - a living relationship alone. I view it as two-sided - a living relationship and a legal one.

So, I can understand that if you read my statements as applying to a baptists way of looking at things you'd naturally be confused. I'm offering defeater-defeaters though. And, I'm showing that your statements areundermined by the actual facts of Scripture.

You now seem to be arguing that I believe in excluding children. That is just not true.

No, I'm not arguing that. In fact, I said the proselytes to the covenant community in the OT brought in their *infant* children. They had to enter by profession of faith, but not their infants. So, when you cite that a NT proselyete cannot enter the covenant community unless he has faith, all you're doing is saying what has always been. I have proven, though, that this doesn't mean that children enter in by birth.

The grace they experienced will never be forgotten. I am so glad that baptism for me and for them was not some religious ceremony that happened to us as infants because someone said, "Hey because we have repented and come into the Covenant community by faith, lets just baptize this baby and teach him from the beginning that all he needs to do is not buck the system, to not deny the faith."

Argument from sentementalism, eh?

So drop the "your trying to exclude children" argument, please. It didn't work against Gene and it will not work with me. It is just a false assumption, at least by you, I don't know if other paedo's share this false presupposition.

Can you quote me saying as much? Or, is this another straw man you are forced to build because dealing with my actual arguments is too tough a challenge? ;-)

Hope that helped.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Paul,
Nice burning of this strawman:

...and not by profession either, i.e., a mere uttering of the words "I believe in Jesus."

That was in response to your strawman. Just so you know, I go by the motto, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

 

[Jim Johnston]

is similar to the argument that Paul M. made from Heb 10:30. I summarized it this way: Since we don't know for sure who is elect or not, baptize them all and let God sort it out.

Obviously, Paul did not say this, but it is the logical conclusion for many who hear this line of argument.

Jason, there you go again talking about the "logical implication" of my statements.

Please substantiate these claims of yours. Tell us that you have more than mere assertions.

Here is an example of logical implication:

1) Ted is taller than Sam.

2) Sam is taller than Pete.

3) Therefore, Ted is taller than Pete.

Can you do the above with my claims? Or, like Gene, does simply "asserting" that my argument is "absurd" or "silly" or "illogical" carry weight with you?

I know it's tough, but I do expect assertions to be substantiated or, if they cannot be, then dropped.

 

[MW]

No, twisted that way it wouldn't.
The fact is, we are commanded to repent. Repentance is a sign of salvation. Therefore, baptism presupposes repentance. I simply connected the dots without going into it.

But if you went into it, tying repentance and salvation together the way that you do, would you not have to wait for the child to do or say something evil which requires repentance before you could say they are saved and therefore candidates for baptism? So you are really left saying that they must do evil that good may come.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Baptism is one of the means God has ordained to convert and confirm His elect in the Promise. Your view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes. Then and only then is he "worthy" of Romans 4-8.

Baptism is a means of convertion? I can't buy this. In fact, I have to think you misspoke, unless your talking about the spiritual reality.

It is a means of Grace that points to the same object and comforts and sustains a believer. By noting the object of Baptism (and not the Baptism iself) when joined with the Word, it could potentially be a means to conversion.

And to say that my "view short circuits the means and says that the full counsel of God's Gospel must be withheld from the child of a believer until He professes" is completely foreign to my thinking. If you read my post from about three posts ago you'll see that I see it as a vital part of declaring the Gospel, which I do and encourage from the earliest of ages. I wholeheartedly would agree tha this is usually left out of witnessing, which shouldn't be. Obviously Phillip included it, or the eunich would have no idea about baptism. Of course this nullifies your comment on Romans 4-8, so I'll drop it here.

So you would command an unbaptized child with these words:

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Really, one must be baptized into Christ before they are baptized? I'm sorry but, I must ask, how do you know a man is baptized into Christ. Please don't say profession.

Actually, haven't you heard of the new litmus test the SBC has come out with? It's great. Just take a specimen, dip the little paper in, and if it turns purple then voilla, you have a new born Christian. The rabbit test was too inconsistent, so they were pretty excited about it when this one came out.
Profession is all we have. If one claims Christ then who am I do withhold baptism? Prior to baptism they get to share their testimony and declare publicly their faith in Christ. Remember Jesus' words, if one "says" they repent then we forgive them. It doesn't say that we forgive them when we know they have repented. The same would go for baptism.

Thus, as I noted, you are baptizing on the basis of something visible. I would obviously argue that the children of believers are recipients as well but you state that the only visible means we have of determining recipients is profession. Let's just be clear that you are not baptizing because they are baptized into Christ.

It really destroys nothing. Again, I accept the testimony of one who claims to believe. This argument accomplishes nothing.

Because no age was given. A five year old is a habitual liar. He lies, is confronted, lies, is confronted, etc. Is he excommunicated. If so, what does excommunication look like for a 5 year old? Is he put in day care, left home or what?

Not a good argument because it claims the text says something it doesn't. This was dealt with earlier in this thread.
This is a great example of why infants shouldn't be baptized.

What is this, make up crazy hypothetical week or what? What kind of apostasy do you think a 5 year old is capable of? Incidentally, if you see a brat screaming on the floor of Walmart, do you just chalk it up to his nature? I also do hope that the habitual liar is not in your household. It's been my experience that habitually lying 5 year olds have habitually bad parents.

Rich, if you see disciples as students, then our children absolutely are disciples. If you mean it to be "little believers" (as some do), then you are correct in your above assessment. And I absolutely agree that "they are assumed to be capable of hearing the Word of God and responding to it given the natural capacity appropriate for their age." And it is acknowledged that they can be believers without vocalizing it properly. However, we cannot know/think that they are until they can properly give testimony of their faith.

Why?

Both professors and children are commanded to be discipled and we are given no warrant to turn a suspicious eye toward one in favor of the other.

Suspicious eye... Hmmm. Actually, I do this with my baptized children. I think they're both saved. They've both given credible testimony and their lives reflect it in many ways. But they still lean on my faith to a great degree. I still challenge them on their salvation. I'd rather challenge them on their salvation than take it for granted and find out, too late, that they were never saved.

Yet, is it your contention that, without any knowledge, you are suspicious or skeptical of the fact that they are regenerate. Seems like your skeptical until they prove it to you instead of hopeful that they will confirm it to you.

Thus, I would ask that from my standpoint you look at the fact that you don't know who to punish among your children so you punish them all. You say of them all: "Reprobate!" and know not a single soul who is but merely treat them with that suspicion. You say of them: "God cannot hear your prayers." You say of them: "You cannot obey".

And then when they are old enough and finally give assent and you have trained them to think of their intellectual assent as being of the essence of regeneration (and in one sense about him who wills) then and only then do you start to train them to obey God on the basis of gratitude.

This is really wierd. Who thinks this way?

I agree it is weird to say of children that they are unregenerate and born in Adam until they prove otherwise. I know you don't act this way but your Baptism and your doctrine keeps repeating this point. If they are presumed unregenerate, how are they to be trained?

Much speculation and attempting to corner the Baptist position by steering the conversation and attempting to win the argument. Think about this guys, are you really trying to persuade, or are you trying to win an argument/debate? I've attempted to pull the conversation back and go slower so that the things we agree on can be staged and the specifics we disagree on can be focused on. I thought that was what Paul was trying to do in his question to me. Jason seems to have tried the same thing. But the conversation goes so fast and begins to bring in so many elements that it becomes a free-for-all that looks more like a demolition derby than any orderly desire to pursue truth. I truly want to understand where you guys are coming from. I get some of it, but there's a disconnect somewhere that simply eludes me. I see you holding on to tradition and scared to let go. If you do then your entire system collapses. You see me as... well, something else. The thing is, my position is not reliant upon my system, nor is my system reliant upon my position. My position is simply reliant upon my exegesis of Scripture, which shows me that those who give credible profession of faith are to be baptized.

We're speculative cornerers of a Baptist who are bound by tradition now? All my arguments have been from Scriptural principles. I'm not trying to score any debate points here. Go back and read the thread through again. I have answered every question forthrightly even when they came in rapid succession. I know there is much confusion on this. I am trying to be forthright in my answers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to confidently presume that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.

Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.

I apologize if you feel I'm being irresponsible. Could you please characterize the manner in which I am supposed to perceive the unregenerate children in my household. Am I supposed to perceive them as my friends or as my enemies? This is a very basic question. Much has been made of the fact that they are "born of the flesh" and not by me. Why is the necessary conclusion of this understanding not acceptable to you at this point?

Deuteronomy 6:6-7
“And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

We all agree; right?

I know I agree with that but I'm not sure who among the Baptists agree with a command made in the Old Covenant. If you agree with this then why do you say that your children are not in the Covenant until they profess?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Joe,

I'm sure you'd agree that our position is not unbiblical, or not-commanded if we cannot find *one* verse that *explicitly* states "you should baptize infants," right?

I explained commands in my second post in this thread, do you agree with the substance?

Hi Paul,
Good question. I will agree that it is possible to have commands that are not explicit. One example, which you have already brought up, is the Trinity. We are commanded, through individual commands (to worship God, not blaspheme the HS, proclaim Christ, etc.), to worship the Trinity. The command is almost explicit, except it does not say specifically to worship the Trinity because it never explicitly deals directly with the Trinity. Having said that, I would say that there does need to be a clear command in order biblical, whether it's explicit or not (the example of the Trinity should suffice). The example you give of whether or not we are commanded to repent is interesting. I find it hard to work through because the command is clear, "repent and be baptized." And the Old Testament drips with the need for repentance. Furthermore, I know that you believe that it is a clear commandment, which makes it a bit difficult to grapple with in the vein you're pursuing.
I will disagree with Malone's statement that Scripture says to baptize believers only. I've already dealt with that. Rather I would say that Scripture explicitly states only that we are baptize believers. It says no more. It also might be helpful, at this point, to give us a clear definition of "inference." I know how I would use it, but you might see it in a broader sense than I would. From my understanding, I would be very hesitant to say that inferences equal commands. Furthermore, inferences deduced from inferences are very tenuous and generally equate to a departure from truth. It's much like possibilities derived from possibilities equal improbabilities and eventually impossibilities.
Paul, I've tried to share some thoughts as I read through what you wrote. Hopefully this will give you enough of my own thoughts to give a good clear reply. Or, maybe it is just a confusing mess of jumbled thoughts with no cohesion.



I'm with Randy on the rest. There's just too much going on in this thread to grasp a hold of it all.

Joe,

An inferences is like this:

All men have green eyes.

Joe is a man.

Therefore Joe has green eyes.

It's a complicated discussion that I don't think we need to get in to. There are deductive, inductive, abductive, direct, indirect, etc., inferences. The above was deductive.

Anyway, Scripture can command something even if a premise is not explicitly stated.

So,

1) God commands all men everywhere to repent. (express command).

___________

C1) Therefore, Joe is to repent.

Wait, that was too fast! We need another premise:

2) Joe is a man.

Okay, where is (2) in Scripture? And, where is (3) in Scripture? Nowhere explicitly, but (3) is implicitly in there and (2) is not at all (but it doesn't contradict Scripture and so is consistent with Scripture). Does this mean that (C1) isn't commanded? No, of course it is. But, (C1) wasn't an *express* statement in Scripture. And, (C1) needs a premise that is not even explicit or implicit in Scipture. If the above counts as a command, then surely my syllogism for infant baptism does since I think that *both* of my premises can be shown from Scipture.

Baptists in this thread have been calling for "just ONE verse that commands infants to be baptized."

But this is rather sophomoric, isn't it?

I could ask for "just ONE verse that commands JOE to repent."

You cannot give me one.

Sure, you can give me one, and then add an extrabiblical premise i.e., (2). But, that is not the *same* as having "one verse" that "commands Joe to repent."

But, we would agree that you are commanded to repent, even though you can't find "one verse" that says this. Not even a verse that says *you* are a man. So, your conclusion and your premise (2) are not to be found in the Bible, yet that doesn't stop you from saying that *you* are commanded to repent.

Therefore, since "commands" may be gained or known by inference, then it is not a problem if a paedo cannot give "ONE" verse that "commands infants to be baptized," using that exact terminology.

But, we could draw the command this way:

1) All those in the NC are commanded to be baptized.

2) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent are in the NC.

3) Therefore, infants of one or more professing Christian parent are commanded to be baptized.

Or, if you like,

4) All those in the visible church are commanded to be baptized.

5) Infants of one or more professing Christian parent are in the visible church.

6) Therefore, of one or more professing Christian parent are commanded to be baptized.

So, if the paedo could prove the above, then we could say that we are "commanded" to baptize our children even without having "ONE" verse that says, "baptize your infant children."

Now, I know you'll disagree that we can prove the middle premises of both the above, but isn't that why we've been debating for two-thousand years (roughly)?

So, I'm arguing that it is rather disingenuous to ask someone for "ONE command to do X" where "command" is taken to mean "one verse saying 'Do X,' and then act as if they were unbiblical for not producing said verse.

In fact, we let out theological notions determine if even commands are normative! Women are *commanded* to wear a cover in church, but most people have some sort of theological response whereby they don't have to practice said command. So, I find this entire line of questioning rather silly.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Wait a second.....

Infants haven't done anything requiring repentance?

Are not all infants born with a sin nature (other than Christ himself)? Are we not required to repent from rebelling against God?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Mark,

Did you just read a single post or do we actually have to re-type about 30 of them? This is exhausting enough as it is.

 

[MW]

Wait a second.....

Infants haven't done anything requiring repentance?

Are not all infants born with a sin nature (other than Christ himself)? Are we not required to repent from rebelling against God?

How do you convey this to a one month old?

 

[mgeoffriau]

No, I've read the entire thing.

Why would you need to convey it to a one month old? Barring tragic events, that one month old will become a two year old, and then a 4 year old, and can be shown his or her own sin and his or her need for God's saving grace.

 

[MW]

Why would you need to convey it to a one month old? Barring tragic events, that one month old will become a two year old, and then a 4 year old, and can be shown his or her own sin and his or her need for God's saving grace.

Correct -- they can then be shown.

 

[mgeoffriau]

By your previous statements it appeared you were comfortable with presuming the child to be regenerate until they have demonstrated they are not; that is, you wondered why baptism would be withheld from the child when they have no apparent need of repentence (not yet having the capacity to understand sin and repentence).

I would counter that I have no need to see some outward sin in order to know the child needs to repent; I am told by scripture that all of Adam's children are born in sin, and until they are united by faith to Christ, they remain in sin. Therefore I feel quite safe in assuming, until I have evidence otherwise, that the child remains an unrepentent sinner.

 

[MW]

By your previous statements it appeared you were comfortable with presuming the child to be regenerate until they have demonstrated they are not; that is, you wondered why baptism would be withheld from the child when they have no apparent need of repentence (not yet having the capacity to understand sin and repentence).

I would counter that I have no need to see some outward sin in order to know the child needs to repent; I am told by scripture that all of Adam's children are born in sin, and until they are united by faith to Christ, they remain in sin. Therefore I feel quite safe in assuming, until I have evidence otherwise, that the child remains an unrepentent sinner.

In response to the first paragraph, I don't presume the child is regenerate. I acknowledge that God's saving purpose includes infants; that to them belongs the promise and the seal of His saving benefits; and therefore to them is owing a judgment of charity as in the case of any other member of the church. We walk by faith, not by sight.

In response to the second paragraph, your position is presumptive non-regeneration, and would require us to deny that any infant can be saved and that to such the kingdom of God does not belong. This is contrary to holy writ, and to the gracious covenant therein contained.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It stings I know Jason. But look at all the time in this thread you have spent trying to tear down the idea that our kids are part of the Covenant and then you get insulted when I point out everything you've been saying of them the whole time. It only hurts because I'm reflecting your presentation about children that you are throwing at me. It hurts because it is inconceivable that a parent would think they are to confidently presume that their children are unregenerate and their spiritual enemies simply because the child has not yet professed. This is what your systematics says of them and what your hypothetical above was arguing for.

Rich, this really isn't a responsible way to go about this. Please cool the jets a little here.

I apologize if you feel I'm being irresponsible. Could you please characterize the manner in which I am supposed to perceive the unregenerate children in my household. Am I supposed to perceive them as my friends or as my enemies? This is a very basic question. Much has been made of the fact that they are "born of the flesh" and not by me. Why is the necessary conclusion of this understanding not acceptable to you at this point? [/QUOTE]

Incidentally to Joe and to Jason (and other Baptists).

My point in this is not to purposefully insult your kindness or warmheartedness toward your children. We are now at the point of an internal critique. Please critique this logical syllogism based on what I've been interacting with Baptists on:

1. Children of unbelievers are to be presumed unregenerate.
2. The unregenerate are enemies of God.
3. They are, thus, our enemies.

Now we can love our enemies but they are our enemies nevertheless. Is there any flaw in the above reasoning?

More pointedly:

4. Children of unbeliever are to be presumed unregenerate.
5. The unregenerate's prayers are not heard by God.
6. We should not train our children to pray to God while presumed unregenerate.

I can construct many such syllogisms.

This is the very place that Baptists start getting mad at me but they constantly want to debate me on the premise itself. Why is it offensive to you when I start drawing conclusions based on the premise that you are most wanting me to accept about the children of believers?

 

[mgeoffriau]

Why would it require us to deny that any infant can be saved? I don't deny that God may count the child who dies in infancy as one of His elect; I merely hold that we are not privy to that knowledge. Rather, what we do know is that the child was born in sin, and that without God's saving grace, he or she is condemned. Therefore, I would withhold baptism until understanding of sin, repentence, and faith has been demonstrated.

 

[mgeoffriau]

Please critique this logical syllogism based on what I've been interacting with Baptists on:

1. Children of unbelievers are to be presumed unregenerate.
2. The unregenerate are enemies of God.
3. They are, thus, our enemies.

Now we can love our enemies but they are our enemies nevertheless. Is there any flaw in the above reasoning?

Only that you just brushed past the main point: that we are to love our enemies, and pray for their salvation.

More pointedly:

4. Children of unbeliever are to be presumed unregenerate.
5. The unregenerate's prayers are not heard by God.
6. We should not train our children to pray to God while presumed unregenerate.

If you were evangelizing an adult, how would you approach this? Would you instruct him or her not to attempt prayer until he or she is sure he or she is really saved?

 

[MW]

Why would it require us to deny that any infant can be saved? I don't deny that God may count the child who dies in infancy as one of His elect; I merely hold that we are not privy to that knowledge. Rather, what we do know is that the child was born in sin, and that without God's saving grace, he or she is condemned. Therefore, I would withhold baptism until understanding of sin, repentence, and faith has been demonstrated.

If you believe that an infant can be saved, then I must ask, by what? By the covenant of works or by the covenant of grace? Not by the covenant of works, because he stands condemned by it. Then it must be by the covenant of grace and redemption in Jesus Christ. What is baptism, but a sign of the covenant of grace and a seal of redemption by Jesus Christ. Well then, if God has His elect amongst infants, and purposes to save them by the covenant of grace and redemption in Christ, surely He would require the sign and seal of these things to be given to them in order to serve as a means of strengthening their faith and preparing them for glory.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Please critique this logical syllogism based on what I've been interacting with Baptists on:

1. Children of unbelievers are to be presumed unregenerate.
2. The unregenerate are enemies of God.
3. They are, thus, our enemies.

Now we can love our enemies but they are our enemies nevertheless. Is there any flaw in the above reasoning?

Only that you just brushed past the main point: that we are to love our enemies, and pray for their salvation.

How did I brush past that point? I anticipated it. They are still enemies of God is the point and, thus, enemies within our household.

More pointedly:

4. Children of unbeliever are to be presumed unregenerate.
5. The unregenerate's prayers are not heard by God.
6. We should not train our children to pray to God while presumed unregenerate.

If you were evangelizing an adult, how would you approach this? Would you instruct him or her not to attempt prayer until he or she is sure he or she is really saved?

If an adult denied Christ and was praying to an unknown God? I would be telling them to repent. I would not recommend they pray without knowledge. Non-Trinitarian prayer, without the mediation of Christ, is sin.

Now, you see Joe, Mark in fact is not the least bit offended by my syllogisms so I'm never sure when Baptist premises are going to offend and when they are not.