No! I refuse! You Can't Make me become a paedobaptist!
- Thread starter BlackCalvinist
- Start date
- Status
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Presbyrino
Puritan Board Freshman
Here's some even sounder exegesis you may not have considered:
http://reformedsermons.org/compile_topic.asp/site//category/subjects/topic/Infant Baptism
john_Mark
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi John,
I guess I need to add some context to my thoughts.
The first quote, "For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise." I see this as assuming that neither to baptize or not to baptize infants is explicit so the current belief will stand unless told to do otherwise. Also, it assumes that to have continuity we must baptize infants.
Next we have, "œSame here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question." I don´t see this in the same light as above (obviously). We are explicitly told to baptize. So the question becomes what are the elements involved in baptism? From which we draw the question of paedo-baptism being valid or not. So this question is derived from what should be the proper administration of baptism rather than a stand alone question to prove the position.
Just my thoughts.
Your friendly neighborhood, second-class, baptist PB member.
I guess I need to add some context to my thoughts.
The first quote, "For me it was to presume continuity between the covenants unless God says otherwise." I see this as assuming that neither to baptize or not to baptize infants is explicit so the current belief will stand unless told to do otherwise. Also, it assumes that to have continuity we must baptize infants.
Next we have, "œSame here. Specifically, I realized that "where is paedobaptism mentioned in Scripture?" is the wrong question." I don´t see this in the same light as above (obviously). We are explicitly told to baptize. So the question becomes what are the elements involved in baptism? From which we draw the question of paedo-baptism being valid or not. So this question is derived from what should be the proper administration of baptism rather than a stand alone question to prove the position.
Just my thoughts.
Your friendly neighborhood, second-class, baptist PB member.
Philip A
Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by john_Mark
For Kerry: Last night, Dr. White said he's going to have to send you the last two issues of the RBTR where this issue is addressed.
Kerry,
This is a very good resource, take your time studying them both. Also consider picking up the full version of Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes by Michael Renihan (which is contained in partial form in both of these issues of RBTR). As you study though the issue, and seek to find answers to the assertions of our paedobaptist brethren, you may well find that most if not all of your previous reasons for holding to Credobaptism no longer hold up. At this point, however, it would be a mistake to therefore conclude that there is therefore no basis for Credobaptism. The modern Baptist case is in many ways quite different from the case of the early Particular Baptists, especially that of Nehemiah Coxe and the other writers of the 1689 Confession.
There was a point at which I tried to become a paedobaptist, to take on the presupposition that infant baptism was correct, and try to find support for it in the scriptures. This helped me to clear up my position to quite a degree (not that I have, or can ever, fully plumb the depths of scripture) but I was never able to justify it.
I have never been able to force the Abrahamic Covenant to be coextensive with the Covenant of Grace.
.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Do you not consider the Abrahamic covenant to be the covenant of promise (the CoG)? There is a vast amount of NT texts that prove they are coextensive.
Some simple examples:
The continuity between the stipulations/obligations and makeup of the Old and New Covenants is very clear:
[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Originally posted by blhowes
That's what I was afraid of. Thanks for the head up.Originally posted by joshua
Bob, I think he has a new perspective on stuff...
Love you guys anyway.
Its because you are misunderstanding the Covenant of Works. If you do not understnad why I say that, then that is saying something important about your understanding of "covenant".
[Edited on 3-29-2005 by webmaster]
Philip A
Puritan Board Sophomore
Its because you are misunderstanding the Covenant of Works. If you do not understnad why I say that, then that is saying something important about your understanding of "covenant".
[/quote]
Well, if someone would get on with COLO....
But seriously now, my comment was very general, as I did not identify the particular points at which I see a mismatch, but nevertheless, I am particularly interested to find out that to which you are referring. By all means, please explain.
-Philip
(not so patiently waiting on Rutherford
)[Edited on 3-29-2005 by Philip A]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Sorry about COLO. We are trying to get through that and two other books at the same time. I hope to have all 3 done soon. (No really, soon!) I'll let Rutherford explain.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
This is pretty fascinating. I've been deluged with IMs, Doc sent me the articles from the RBTR (I printed one - still reading) and even on my AACL list, someone posted about it which touched off a discussion about paedobaptism! and after all that.... Tony gave me a call (matter of fact, I pointed him to this page so he could have a good laugh too)
I had no idea that folks actually paid any attention to what I write
That said, I'm going to pick up Joachim Jeremias' book, Bromily's book, Sartelle's book, Murray's book and also the resource listed above by Philip A and stuff by Fred Malone, Doc's sermon on Hebrews and his two articles and others. I do intend to study this issue out in full...
I think what I may need to do ahead of all of that is pick up a 'primer' on Covenant Theology, since everyone else involved in the debate is starting there except for me (I'm still on the 'center' of the fence as a progressive dispensationalist....).
That's a nice cover, Matthew.
I've been deluged with IMs, Doc sent me the articles from the RBTR (I printed one - still reading) and even on my AACL list, someone posted about it which touched off a discussion about paedobaptism! and after all that.... Tony gave me a call (matter of fact, I pointed him to this page so he could have a good laugh too)I had no idea that folks actually paid any attention to what I write
That said, I'm going to pick up Joachim Jeremias' book, Bromily's book, Sartelle's book, Murray's book and also the resource listed above by Philip A and stuff by Fred Malone, Doc's sermon on Hebrews and his two articles and others. I do intend to study this issue out in full...
I think what I may need to do ahead of all of that is pick up a 'primer' on Covenant Theology, since everyone else involved in the debate is starting there except for me (I'm still on the 'center' of the fence as a progressive dispensationalist....).
That's a nice cover, Matthew.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Not just in this area, but in others as well, Bobby. You're not completely off base........ I'm always 'in-flux' - always challenging what I believe and constantly checking it again and again by the scriptures. At the end of the day, I want to be theologically correct - not simply because it looks good to have all my theological ducks in a row properly or because that's the name of my website, but because right doctrine is glorifying to God when proclaimed in love (truth in love... you know...that thing).
A lot of 'issues' theologically have been popping up for me ever since 98 (which is when Bill Kilgore from Scripture Thoughts - http://home.flash.net/~thinkman ) first challenged me on the issue of total depravity, a challenge that began a 2-year trek into Calvinism (culminating in a reading of Custance's The Sovereignty of Grace and Doc's The Potter's Freedom ). Since then, as I've grown in my undestanding of the doctrines of grace, other areas of my theology have been affected as well. I don't know how MacArthur stays put where he is, but I can't. So over the past 2-3 years, I've quietly, almost unnoticably floated closer to Covenant Theology, courtesy of Saucy, C. Marvin Pate, Bock and Blaising. Dispensationalist roots die hard... and some still do make sense. I've spent more time interacting with folks in the reformed/calvinistic camp than not... so issues of baptism and other CT related issues keep coming up because... I'm around them.
I wonder where I'll 'end up' after all of this, sometimes. I think a trip to RTS and an M.Div degree may help.
I appreciate beyond words that you are and have been praying for me. That may be part of the reason my heart has softened on some issues.
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Kerry,
Without a doubt study the scriptures. But don't be afraid to read some good authors if you so desire. Anyone fighting against that is in fear of the truth, the truth WILL stand either way. I've studied the issue going on 5 years now and the more I read scriptures "the dots were connecting" and the more I was convinced in the infant position (meaning covenant position traditionally understood).
I can tell you with a honest heart I NEVER had a preconceived idea about baptism one way or the other. I was baptized in a baptist church from atheism/agnosticism. No "churchy tradition baggage" to speak of (I had irreligious baggage). But the more and more I studied the more the Scriptures opened up in that direction for me. When I finally did read some authors, either way, what I found was that what I studied was increasingly falling into the paedeo corner. I was being and am convinced from the Word of God, prayer to that end and nothing less. I actually fought, mentally, at one time to stay in the other corner - but logic and reason alone militated against it.
Finally, I prayed with all earnest and heart that justified layman sinner can that God would open my eyes one way or the other. I also, prayed for both camps that the truth would be revealed to the one or the other which ever it was.
I say all that to hopefully encourage you in this journey of our faith and not to convince you of a particular position (though I have to state my position for open honesty). I know what those "epiphany of truth" moments are like. I know what your talking about! I've had three big ones in my life, Christ revealed to me at conversion, what we nickname as Calvinism and covenant theology strictly speaking. Every time the Scriptures literally have "come alive".
So again, God's word will lead and don't fear reading sound teachers - nothing wrong with that at all. There is a lot to be gained reading both those in opposition to the truth and those in position of the truth for one learns from the wrong as well as the correct position by way of contrast.
I'll remember you in my prayers.
In Christ,
Larry
[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]
Without a doubt study the scriptures. But don't be afraid to read some good authors if you so desire. Anyone fighting against that is in fear of the truth, the truth WILL stand either way. I've studied the issue going on 5 years now and the more I read scriptures "the dots were connecting" and the more I was convinced in the infant position (meaning covenant position traditionally understood).
I can tell you with a honest heart I NEVER had a preconceived idea about baptism one way or the other. I was baptized in a baptist church from atheism/agnosticism. No "churchy tradition baggage" to speak of (I had irreligious baggage). But the more and more I studied the more the Scriptures opened up in that direction for me. When I finally did read some authors, either way, what I found was that what I studied was increasingly falling into the paedeo corner. I was being and am convinced from the Word of God, prayer to that end and nothing less. I actually fought, mentally, at one time to stay in the other corner - but logic and reason alone militated against it.
Finally, I prayed with all earnest and heart that justified layman sinner can that God would open my eyes one way or the other. I also, prayed for both camps that the truth would be revealed to the one or the other which ever it was.
I say all that to hopefully encourage you in this journey of our faith and not to convince you of a particular position (though I have to state my position for open honesty). I know what those "epiphany of truth" moments are like. I know what your talking about! I've had three big ones in my life, Christ revealed to me at conversion, what we nickname as Calvinism and covenant theology strictly speaking. Every time the Scriptures literally have "come alive".
So again, God's word will lead and don't fear reading sound teachers - nothing wrong with that at all. There is a lot to be gained reading both those in opposition to the truth and those in position of the truth for one learns from the wrong as well as the correct position by way of contrast.
I'll remember you in my prayers.
In Christ,
Larry
[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Larry Hughes]
Philip A
Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by webmaster
I'll let Rutherford explain.
Oh, now that's a low down trick.... double tongues for you
Seriously though, I want to know how my inability to see what's going on in your head translates to not understanding covenant.
If you want to know how I understand "covenant", just go read Witsius....
Tirian
Puritan Board Sophomore
My background is in the Bretheren church (non-exclusive) - the Lord led me to the RP church only last year, though for my wife it was a return to the church of her childhood. This is one area that I just haven't studied hard enough though. I feel like I have "come home" myself, but there is no automatic mechanism to align myself completely with the testimony of the church - I need to bring myself there through a great deal of prayer and study. For me, this particular issue of baptism is not one set in stone - I'm not rejecting any view nor am I blindly embracing any view.
Matt
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Matthew writes:
"For me, this particular issue of baptism is not one set in stone - I'm not rejecting any view nor am I blindly embracing any view."
I applaud this idea. At least Matthew is not subscribing to a view by default like the majority.
"For me, this particular issue of baptism is not one set in stone - I'm not rejecting any view nor am I blindly embracing any view."
I applaud this idea. At least Matthew is not subscribing to a view by default like the majority.
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
This issue to my very logical mind (for a woman) is very easy. God deals with households. All through the OT and NT. This has all coalesced for me very recently in an even firmer manner upon understanding God's order of headship. I learned more about this by understanding the headcovering issue in 1 Cor. 11. God's created order is unimpeachable. It is from creation and has never in any way been abbrogated but only strengthened in the NT in 1 Cor. 7:14-16 in addition to all of the "households" that are baptized. The man is the head of the household. In the OT are numerous examples of household blessing and household curses. Noah et al, Lot et al, and even Achan and his poor family and their animals were killed because of his sin in Joshua 7. The burden of proof that God deals with everyone on an individual basis all of a sudden is on the Baptists. I still think this is a subtely arminian view left over that says we have a work that we must do of our own not so "free will." Ick!
Brian Schwertley deals with this less oft used arguement in the sermon below. It is the 4th in a series but the first 3 deal with what is already hashed out all of the time ad nauseum. There is also a 5th part which should be interesting. I haven't got to that one yet.
Baptism pt 4 B. Schwertley
) is very easy. God deals with households. All through the OT and NT. This has all coalesced for me very recently in an even firmer manner upon understanding God's order of headship. I learned more about this by understanding the headcovering issue in 1 Cor. 11. God's created order is unimpeachable. It is from creation and has never in any way been abbrogated but only strengthened in the NT in 1 Cor. 7:14-16 in addition to all of the "households" that are baptized. The man is the head of the household. In the OT are numerous examples of household blessing and household curses. Noah et al, Lot et al, and even Achan and his poor family and their animals were killed because of his sin in Joshua 7. The burden of proof that God deals with everyone on an individual basis all of a sudden is on the Baptists. I still think this is a subtely arminian view left over that says we have a work that we must do of our own not so "free will." Ick!Brian Schwertley deals with this less oft used arguement in the sermon below. It is the 4th in a series but the first 3 deal with what is already hashed out all of the time ad nauseum. There is also a 5th part which should be interesting. I haven't got to that one yet.
Baptism pt 4 B. Schwertley
street preacher
Puritan Board Freshman
Children of believing parents are holy in the sight of God. Holy in the Greek is translated in other passages of Scripture as SAINT. Children in the Covenant Community are set apart by God Himself. They are church members! In Ephesians Paul says that the letter is written to the SAINTS in Ephesus. If the letter to the Ephesians is written to and addresses the Saints, then why does he directly address the children in this letter, hmmmmm?
[Edited on 3-31-2005 by street preacher]
[Edited on 3-31-2005 by street preacher]
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
If it is such a "new" covenant and not just a fulfilled and refreshed covenant that all in the covenant are elect, why then does the bible say that the tares will grow among the wheat? And we are not to try to separate them but that is for the Lord to do in the final judgment.
The good seeds are the invisible church obviously because they are the seed that the "Son of Man" had planted and are the "the sons of the kingdom." Then satan sows the bad seeds "among" the good seeds close enough that the tares are not to be pulled up so as not to damage the wheat. Notice that it doesn't mention the daughters of the kingdom but the sons because women and children were always subject to their fathers or husbands. The "covenant household" view is upheld again.
Schwertley and others I have heard it from say that in that geographical area there was a weed that would grow with the wheat that was called bearded darnell. It looked just like the wheat until it came to full bloom and "bore its fruit" and had this bearded looking appearance and then you could tell them apart. So we will know them by their fruit in due time but will not be able to pick them out right away.
Not to mention that in the vineyard parable the reprobate grow right on the vine but are cut off in the final judgment. Is not the vine a symbol of the visible church?
Matthew 13:
37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
The good seeds are the invisible church obviously because they are the seed that the "Son of Man" had planted and are the "the sons of the kingdom." Then satan sows the bad seeds "among" the good seeds close enough that the tares are not to be pulled up so as not to damage the wheat. Notice that it doesn't mention the daughters of the kingdom but the sons because women and children were always subject to their fathers or husbands. The "covenant household" view is upheld again.
Schwertley and others I have heard it from say that in that geographical area there was a weed that would grow with the wheat that was called bearded darnell. It looked just like the wheat until it came to full bloom and "bore its fruit" and had this bearded looking appearance and then you could tell them apart. So we will know them by their fruit in due time but will not be able to pick them out right away.
Not to mention that in the vineyard parable the reprobate grow right on the vine but are cut off in the final judgment. Is not the vine a symbol of the visible church?
Matthew 13:
37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
But everyone always has a default position. The issue is that we should not just accept the default but should study the issue carefully.
In this issue, one either would baptise their children currently or they would not. There is no neutral position. Now you could discuss how strongly one holds to a particular belief and how hard it would be to convince a person otherwise.
Personally, I have studied the issue some but am not completely convince d for the paedobaptist position. My default position is the WCF. So if the question came up regarding baptizing a child of mine, I would baptize them.
CT
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I'd like to discuss that sometime. It seems to me that this is a biased statement, Hermonta, as it comes from a default position
But, I see your point also. You're saying the same thing that I would have. The truth is there for us to see, and it is the aim of instruction and study to attain to the truth of a matter.
I'm so glad to see these posts, defending the rightful place of children within the family of God, and that baptism has an application to that end. But I know that from my Dutch roots that there has come a view of baptism, wrongly called PR, that thinks that that is the basic application of baptism. And I find that I have to struggle against misconceived views of Paedo baptism more than I struggle against Credo baptism. I guess that's because I've seen many, family and friends, turn from Paedo to Credo (Arminianist) because of such reasons, showing that they didn't understand it in the first place. So I like seeing these kinds of posts; it shows that we are all thinking about it a lot more.
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
In Christ we are individuals but in covenant we are households with a covenant head. This is consistent with the OT sign of the covenant and how it was administered (to households). God didn't suddenly change his means and covenant. He fullfilled it, and the OT believers were eschatologically "now, not yet" one with us in the invisible church from before the foundations of the world.
1 Cor. 10
1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 all ate the same spiritual food,
4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
In Egypt when the angel of death was sweeping through it was the "households" that were covered by the blood of the passover lamb. They were told if any stepped out of that covered house they would die. If they stayed they were safe.
I challenge any baptist to listen to Schwertley's entire series on baptism. It's a 6 part series and very in-depth. Yes, I thought it was 5 but it's 6 and he gives out so much info in each part. He is really fast paced and thorough. He deals with the covenant family very well. It is free and can be downloaded in mp3 form for ipods or for burning to discs to listen in the car. Check it out.
Schwertley Baptism series
Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
Found an awesome quote by Rushdooney from The Institutes of Biblical Law:
"Circumcision on the eighth day removes the power of the rite from man to God. The young child is not capable of justifying, regenerating, or santifying itself. He is entirely passive in the rite. The fact of divine grace is thus set forth. Just as the covenant wholly represents Gods initiative in grace, so the sign of the covenant represents the same."
How cool is that! You can't get much more reformed than that!
"Circumcision on the eighth day removes the power of the rite from man to God. The young child is not capable of justifying, regenerating, or santifying itself. He is entirely passive in the rite. The fact of divine grace is thus set forth. Just as the covenant wholly represents Gods initiative in grace, so the sign of the covenant represents the same."
How cool is that! You can't get much more reformed than that!
1Timothy 6:20Originally posted by pastorway
Originally posted by LawrenceU
Kerry,
You don't need Malone. All you need is in the Scriptures
Yep. The light did not have to come on for me because it was already on and has just gotten brighter and brigheter the longer I confirm and defend the credo position from the Scriptures.
All these years on the Puritan Board and I am more a Baptist today than I was when I signed up!
Phillip
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
Nice use of ad hominem there, buddy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
