Give me one positive command to baptize infants please

[MW]

if you hold that infants are saved then you have no basis for withholding baptism from them.

Matthew - I've heard that before. Is that a textual argument, a dialectic argument or neither?

I suppose "textual," Bill. Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21. Whilst one might be saved without being baptised, it is certain that these passages teach that baptism belongs to the saved and ordinarily ought to be administered as a token thereof.

 

[44jason]

I should also point out the ambiguity involved in asking for a "command." Can a "command" be drawn by inference, or does it need to be explicitly stated? The latter can't be upheld, and the former is what we paedos have been saying we have - whether we've convinced anyone is another matter all together. But, make no mistake, given a proper and logically coherent view of "commands," us paedos believe that Scripture "commands" us to baptize our children.

Malone states,

“This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.”

Fred Malone frequently argues that he is on better theological grounds because he (thinks) he has explicit commands telling him to baptize believers alone while paedobaptist simply have “possibly erroneous inferences.” He says that inferences are okay, as long as they don’t contradict express commands. But this is assuming he’s proven his case. Obviously I don’t think the Bible “expressly” commands that “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”

Paul, why is this in quotes in your comments:

“mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”

If you put that in quotes as to signify that Malone said that please give me the reference.
If Malone did not say that, then are setting up strawman.
Why? Because Malone would also not agree that only "mature" professing disciples alone are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Thus you have misrepresented Malone, established a strawman, and we know the rest...

But maybe you are quoting him, so I wanted to give you a chance to support your usage of quotes.

 

[Davidius]

Why are you allowed to make inferences while requiring a "direct command" from the paedos?

I thought that we agreed on the inference that women are considered disciples in the New Testament church.

I am looking for common biblical ground. If paedo's do not agree with this inference then lets drop it from our definition of common ground.

But if both paedo's and credo's agree on this inference then lets keep it.

And since we do not both agree on the other inference then I left it out.

The point is that you are recognizing the validity of inference here but not somewhere else. If you are going to accept inference, but only inference with which you agree, then you should at least change the demand to "Show me how paedobaptism can be reasonably inferred." However, your current request creates a double standard.

That was the whole point. Namely, when it comes to what almost all of the Reformed have believed in common, we should be credo-baptist.

But if you are telling me that paedo's don't believe that women are inferred in the teachings of the Lord's Supper then our common ground would look like this:
Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.

So which in your opinion is more historically correct as common ground for most all of the Reformed:

1. Baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.
2. Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.

Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.

I don't see how it has nothing to do with commands vs. inferences when you demanded a positive command. There is no positive command. So what? This is the point which Paul made by bringing in females and the Table. Paedobaptism is an inference. If you will not accept an inference as valid here then neither should you elsewhere.

And haven't Reformed Christians been predominantly paedobaptist?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jason,
I think that's a reasoned rejoinder, given your view that the recipients of both baptism and the L.S. are in all cases the same parties (1-to-1).

For #1, however, I would substitute "professors" in place of "believers" respecting "common ground".

 

[Jim Johnston]

I should also point out the ambiguity involved in asking for a "command." Can a "command" be drawn by inference, or does it need to be explicitly stated? The latter can't be upheld, and the former is what we paedos have been saying we have - whether we've convinced anyone is another matter all together. But, make no mistake, given a proper and logically coherent view of "commands," us paedos believe that Scripture "commands" us to baptize our children.

Malone states,

“This regulative principle teaches that God-approved Christian worship includes only elements and practices "instituted by God Himself limited by his own revealed will [and not] any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture." In other words, speculation, invention, imagination, and uncommanded practices, etc., cannot be permitted to change or neglect instituted worship.”

Fred Malone frequently argues that he is on better theological grounds because he (thinks) he has explicit commands telling him to baptize believers alone while paedobaptist simply have “possibly erroneous inferences.” He says that inferences are okay, as long as they don’t contradict express commands. But this is assuming he’s proven his case. Obviously I don’t think the Bible “expressly” commands that “mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”

Paul, why is this in quotes in your comments:

“mature, professing disciples alone, and no others, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism.”

If you put that in quotes as to signify that Malone said that please give me the reference.
If Malone did not say that, then are setting up strawman.
Why? Because Malone would also not agree that only "mature" professing disciples alone are the proper subjects of Christian baptism. Thus you have misrepresented Malone, established a strawman, and we know the rest...

But maybe you are quoting him, so I wanted to give you a chance to support your usage of quotes.

Yes, Malone believes that. "Mature" in respects to "age," i.e., not "infants," i.e., those able to give a "credible profession." This distinguishes them from merely *professing* i.e., just *saying* that they believe. So, my statement could read: "Where does the Bible command that only those able to give a credible expression of their faith in Jesus Christ, and those alone, are the proper subjects of Christian baptism."

Anyway, you're not answering my arguments. You're being a bit pedantic in your reading of what I write, too. Writers have certain rhetorical license they can take. I think your question was more of a stall tactic and an attempt to undermine my scholarship. You're failing to engage with the *substance* of my arguments.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.

This is classic goal post shiftting.

Let's read the original challenge by Jason,

Hey, brother, can you give me one Scripture verse that give us a command to baptize infants.

But now Jason says this isn't about commands or inferences. But, notice that earlier he disallowes Bruce's inference:

BRUCE: Gen. 17:10 is in the imperative mood.

JASON RESPONDS: Bruce, before we move forward I am still waiting on that Scripture that commands baptizing infants. I looked up your Genesis reference and found that it was not about baptism at all. So please send me at least one verse about baptizing infants.

So, just wanted to point out the goal post shifting.

And, I gave an inference, Jason has not rebutted it. That he doesn't *agree* with one of the premises hardly constitutes a reason for him to say that we don't have a command. All he's saying is hat he disagree with infant baptism, church inclusion, or covenant inclusion. But surely we didn't need 4 or 5 some odd pages to determine that!

 

[44jason]

You're being a bit pedantic in your reading of what I write, too. Writers have certain rhetorical license they can take. I think your question was more of a stall tactic and an attempt to undermine my scholarship. You're failing to engage with the *substance* of my arguments.

Paul, with all due respect you tend to make conversation impossible with comments like the one's above. I am trying to go back as I have time and read something you wrote which you insist that I must answer or be a failure as a scholar or coward or moron or something like that. But when I ask for a clarification, you can't just give it to me. You must throw these little pop shots at me.

[By the way, your explanation of "mature" to mean "age" made all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding your argument.]

So, I find myself remembering some things you wrote Monday, and think to myself, "Is it even worth spending the time trying to talk to this guy in such a forum." If this is what the Puritan Board is all about I am not interested. If it is just you... well, I will have to think about if it is worth my time to wade through all of the pop shots and taunt... risking even more such silly remarks as, "Oh you are just stalling."

Does anyone understand my dilemma?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'd like to suggest that maybe 9 days of discussing the debate (and the aftermath) are enough.

And we can close the baptism forum for a few days. Take a breather. Visit completely different parts of the board. Get into some other discussions.

And before anyone comes back, refresh your memory on the etiquette.

With that in mind, I will be closing several of these threads later on tonight.

Finish up, brethren, in peace.

Now, I'm going to take a break, and listen to ... "The Narrow Mind"

 

[44jason]

Now concerning the inference vs. command.
There is no goal post moving.
This thread has proven what we already knew. There are no clear verses that give explicit commands about infant baptism that we agree upon.

That has been stated and is not anything new or surprising.

So in the spirit of doctrinal unity, I was offering a conversation about what is common ground among paedo's and credo's. And that common ground includes both commands and inferences.

We both agree on the command to baptize professors (as Bruce duly noted).
And we both agree on the inference of male and female disciples being welcomed to the Lord's Table.

Am I right?
If so, Baptist are at least right as far as most of the Reformed community agree.
Paedo's are at least right as far as they are like the Baptist, but then we both split in different directions from there.
Am I right?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'd like to suggest that maybe 9 days of discussing the debate (and the aftermath) are enough.

And we can close the baptism forum for a few days. Take a breather. Visit completely different parts of the board. Get into some other discussions.

And before anyone comes back, refresh your memory on the etiquette.

With that in mind, I will be closing several of these threads later on tonight.

Finish up, brethren, in peace.

Now, I'm going to take a break, and listen to ... "The Narrow Mind"

I agree Bruce.

Gents, part of the etiquette was not to engage in tactics. Now, I think the point has been adequately made that the request for a single verse to establish the recipients of baptism is impossible for both sides.

By the powers vested in me as an Admin I declare that issue to be resolved. Sidetracks into arguing over women taking the Lord's Supper are, as Jason noted, arguing over common ground.

Jason: Please do note that people are still arguing with you over the initial insistence on a single verse command. I think we all need to honestly agree that this standard is impossible if you don't accept Bruce's passage but is not if you do.

Further, gentlemen, I want to move away from the idea that all discussions on baptism, henceforth, are in reaction to the debate itself. The last few days, I have not been interacting to defend Paul's presentation but I have been trying to interact simply to answer Baptist objections in general. This thread was split off of the debate thread purposefully. It was intended to split the discussion to an issue that is neither connected to Manata or Cook at that point but a Baptist asking a Paedbaptist a question and interacting on it.

If people want to continue to interact on baptism questions in general then let us do so. But let's keep discussions about the propriety/impropriety of specific arguments in the debate itself to that thread or simply let it die.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But where is TNM tonight? Says right there on the homepage: 6PM PST. :frownyface:

 

[Jim Johnston]

You're being a bit pedantic in your reading of what I write, too. Writers have certain rhetorical license they can take. I think your question was more of a stall tactic and an attempt to undermine my scholarship. You're failing to engage with the *substance* of my arguments.

Paul, with all due respect you tend to make conversation impossible with comments like the one's above. I am trying to go back as I have time and read something you wrote which you insist that I must answer or be a failure as a scholar or coward or moron or something like that. But when I ask for a clarification, you can't just give it to me. You must throw these little pop shots at me.

[By the way, your explanation of "mature" to mean "age" made all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding your argument.]

So, I find myself remembering some things you wrote Monday, and think to myself, "Is it even worth spending the time trying to talk to this guy in such a forum." If this is what the Puritan Board is all about I am not interested. If it is just you... well, I will have to think about if it is worth my time to wade through all of the pop shots and taunt... risking even more such silly remarks as, "Oh you are just stalling."

Does anyone understand my dilemma?

Jason, I thout we were all good. After all, you're having aball making fun of me on Fide-o. You've said that I'm "pouting" online when you spoke to MVC about the debate. and, may I remind you what you told me about all the previous discussions:

With all this aside, I want you to know that I never was as bothered by our debate/discussion as others were. I guess a little "back and forth" never bothered me.

So I was just taking you at your word.

I understand that getting your arguments refuted hurts. Sometimes we get emotionally attached to our arguments. I would try to separate myselof from my arguments, though. For what it's worth.

 

[44jason]

My question was answered to my satisfaction. And I was trying to move on.
And I, too, feel all that needs to be said has been said.
Thanks, LtCol.

 

[44jason]

Paul, You crack me up, really.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I know.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry Bruce but I have an unanswered question that I want to address.

I think the seed of our different understandings is right here. I agree that as an unregenerate heathen, I could not grasp the "fear and admonition of the Lord", but that doesn't mean that it didn't have an effect. Before I grasped the gospel, I grasped the idea that God must be feared. I even grew to fear a judgment and did all I could to reason my way out of such a thing.

I remember even daring God to come down and reason with me, I'd show him a thing or two! Praise him that he left me alone to my own foolishness.

So, in a nutshell, I take the notion of raising children to fear the Lord as something akin to teaching them the truth of Romans 1. I don't think a child understands without instruction what sin is, what God's law is, etc. They can be raised to understand these things, but it takes preaching and the Spirit to regenerate their mind to the point of holding to them.

I think if I knew for sure that this was the monolithic view of Baptists on this point, Victor, it would be easier to interact with. Be that as it may, it is quite arbitrary to my mind that God is using the means of just "Romans Chapter 1"-like material to train and admonish children. This is my argument with Bill in the other thread about this issue. By presuming they are unregenerate, you (it seems to me) are sensibly advocating that only Romans 1 be preached to them while Romans 6 cannot be rightly used to sanctify them because there is nothing to sanctify - just flesh that has to be regenerated.

I also think this runs aground of what Paul teaches about the nature of knowledge in Romans 10:

1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel[a] is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

It is in the nature of unregenerate man to even take something like Romans Chapter 1 and twist that into "do this and live". It is a supernatural gift to actually pursue real righteousness. It's not that the Pharisees disagreed that God was Holy. They didn't argue with Jesus about hell and that men are justly deserving of Hell. They just thought it didn't apply to them.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bruce,

If you think we ought to close the Baptism forum for a couple of days then let me know. I can make it read only.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich,
with all the kissing and sweetness, I don't know what to think. Go Right Ahead, start another thread if ya'll want.

 

[VictorBravo]

Bruce,

If you think we ought to close the Baptism forum for a couple of days then let me know. I can make it read only.

I think shutting this one down is fine (read only), given the original title has been exhausted into irrelevence

Thanks, Rich, for your response. I think we could probably discuss more fully...another time.