Question for Paedo Baptists

[Brian Withnell]

A lot has already been posted, but one thing I think has been somewhat missed. The sign of circumcision in the OT was done exactly like the sign (baptism) in the NT. While it was normal for the sign to be applied through the descendants of Abraham (long before faith in the individual was evident) it was also applied at the point of conversion to those that came from outside the family of Abraham.

Exodus 12:48

“But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

Those that came to believe in the OT were circumcised, even as the native in the land. If the head of the house believed, all the house was circumcised. That is not to say all believed, but if the father believed, the house was set apart.

If there were to be a change, it would have to be very clear that the change would have to be stated. That circumcision is replaced by baptism is clearly stated (Col 2:11, 12). If the persons to whom the sign is to be applied is to be changed ... those who believe as they come into belief and their children ... and it would be more restrictive than the already established OT order, then it should be stated explicitly.

While I see plenty of statements that those who believe should be baptized, I see no statements that say their children should not be baptized. To have such a sign change, it would seem incumbent upon those that would say it has changed to produce some verse that positively states not to baptize the children of those who believe. We already have a command to apply the covenant sign to the children of believers in the OT, to revoke that command should be by as clear a command as the original.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

I was wondering if I could address something/ask a question about something that I saw earlier on the thread that didn't make any sense to me:

WE part ways there.
Regeneration is the fulfillment of circumcision not baptism-baptism is only it's NT counterpart.
The covenant of grace unfolded over redemptive history to reveal more and more of the same truth, namely salvation in Christ. Those covenant embraced types and shadows, promise and fulfillment-all culminating and fulfilled in the finished work of Christ in the New Covenant, the types and shadows being no more.

How can that be when regeneration preceeded circumcision? In the book of Genesis, one of the key terms for regeneration is to speak of someone who hithallek 'et 'elohim, walked with God [Genesis 5:24, 6:9]. This is used all over the place for people who were regenerated, long before circumcision was ever instituted. If regeneration was the fulfillment of circumcision, then it would seem that circumcision should have never gotten off the ground, since regeneration both preceeded and followed the giving of circumcision. How can something be fulfilled by something that both preceeded and followed it in redemptive history?

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Quickened]

Excellent thread. I gained a good idea of insight here

 

[A.J.]

How can that be when regeneration preceeded circumcision? In the book of Genesis, one of the key terms for regeneration is to speak of someone who hithallek 'et 'elohim, walked with God [Genesis 5:24, 6:9]. This is used all over the place for people who were regenerated, long before circumcision was ever instituted. If regeneration was the fulfillment of circumcision, then it would seem that circumcision should have never gotten off the ground, since regeneration both preceeded and followed the giving of circumcision. How can something be fulfilled by something that both preceeded and followed it in redemptive history?

God Bless,
Adam

Good point, Adam. As I see it, this argument against infant baptism is more of a failure to understand the implications of sacramental union. Paedo-baptists believe that baptism has come in place of circumcision precisely because the reality signified by circumcision is signfied today by baptism. The sign changed, but the thing signified did not. As Paul explains, "In Him (the Lord Jesus) also you were circumcised . . . having been buried with Him in baptism...." (Col. 2:11-12) We are circumcised when we are baptized. So since baptism signifies the same reality which circumcision signified, and since circumcision could be given to both believing Abraham and to infant Isaac (who could not profess faith, cf. Rom. 4:11-12), the conclusion is inevitable. Baptism could and should be administered to believers and their children. Also, there are Baptists who have no problem with asserting that baptism does replace circumcision.

 

[A2JC4life]

That is true; and of the facts we do possess there is not one example of the child of a believer being baptised on his own profession of faith.

Are you certain? In Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer and his family were baptized, the text says, "having believed in God with all his household." The entire household believed. It seems to me that there is as much evidence here that his children were baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there was an infant present within the household. And, in fact, it seems to be statistically more likely that there was some child of reasoning age than that there was an infant, just given that the first category spans a far greater number of years.

In Acts 18, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, "believed in God with all his household." It doesn't specify that they were baptized, but given the context of the verse that seems a reasonable assumption. And, again, there is as much evidence here that there were children baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there were infants present.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.

Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.

 

[A2JC4life]

Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.

Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.

I agree. However, large numbers of paedobaptists point to these same passages as support for the baptism of infants. I am simply pointing out that there is just as strong (or weak) support for either the baptism of an as-yet unprofessing child or a professing child in these passages. We simply cannot know for certain that there were young children in these households at all. We may assume so, but we cannot know so. (The passages do, however, indicate that if there were children present and counted as part of the "household," they believed.)

 

[smhbbag]

So since baptism signifies the same reality which circumcision signified, and since circumcision could be given to both believing Abraham and to infant Isaac (who could not profess faith, cf. Rom. 4:11-12), the conclusion is inevitable

Those two points are not sufficient. The conclusion is not inevitable, as stated.

I agree with both - that baptism replaces circumcision, and that circumcision was given to infants who could not profess faith. We would both agree that circumcision/baptism are, at least, outward signs that formally establish one's membership with the visible covenant community. They are more than that, and I reject the misguided Baptist notion that it's just a symbol, or serves only as an announcement of or tribute to their conversion.

Only a third point would make your conclusion inevitable, and that is if the composition of the covenant community remained unchanged. If that has changed, and infants are no longer to be presumed to be included, then infant baptism is not established. The Baptist position maintains OT to NT continuity on the priesthood, while the paedo position maintains continuity on the membership - it has to be one of them. But just those two points are not enough.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.

Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.

I agree. However, large numbers of paedobaptists point to these same passages as support for the baptism of infants. I am simply pointing out that there is just as strong (or weak) support for either the baptism of an as-yet unprofessing child or a professing child in these passages. We simply cannot know for certain that there were young children in these households at all. We may assume so, but we cannot know so. (The passages do, however, indicate that if there were children present and counted as part of the "household," they believed.)

OK. I just don't know that disagreeing with Todd's post was apropos if your point was merely to demonstrate that the examples don't support either.

The paedo-baptist position doesn't rest upon narrative passages in the Scriptures where the credo-baptist position does. I don't say that to be pejorative but the paedo-baptist position begins with the continuity of the household principle in the Covenant of Grace whereas the credo-baptist position starts with the principle that the New Covenant is with the Elect alone.

Yet, the identity of the Elect is known only to God and so the Baptist would be completely unable to baptize anybody if they tried to base the actual baptism of a believer on this didactic principle. Thus the Baptist shifts to higher probabilities and notes that a professor is more likely to be elect than a non-professor and so it is best to wait to hear a person profess faith in Christ before they are baptized preventing any more false baptisms than necessary. At this point, as well, the "example of the Scriptures" is brought where historical narrative is appealed to buttress the baptism of professors. As already indicated, all passages with household baptisms mentioned are assumed to contain no infant children because that goes against the "higher probability that a professor is elect" assumption previously noted. Yet, as you noted, barring this assumption, there is nothing in historical narratives that explicitly supports the previous assumption.

Incidentally, in the final analysis, baptism does not confer membership in the New Covenant but in the visible Church alone as Baptist theology forces this distinction to be made for reason that it is admitted that false professors are inadvertently baptized. It is often overlooked that the membership of the New Covenant is visibly unrelated to the actual administration of Baptist baptisms because it is assumed they are connected. Yet, the real goal is to get the visible Church to match the identity of those in the NC as much as possible and the statistical probability issue is the principle issue of baptizing professors.

As far as I'm concerned, I could grant the Baptist view of the identity of those in the NC for the sake of argument and it would still not grant the subjects of who is to be baptized. I don't think there is any Scriptural support for the "greater probability of being elect" argument nor, as you have pointed out, do the historical narratives provide any further evidence one way or the other.

And, oh by the way, there is also no explicit retraction of the household principle that has operated within the visible/invisible Church since the time of Adam.

 

[smhbbag]

The paedo-baptist position doesn't rest upon narrative passages in the Scriptures where the credo-baptist position does. I don't say that to be pejorative but the paedo-baptist position begins with the continuity of the household principle in the Covenant of Grace whereas the credo-baptist position starts with the principle that the New Covenant is with the Elect alone

As a note, this is the case for the vast majority of Baptists, including the Reformed ones, but it is not necessary in the credo position to start that way. Many, including myself, are fully on-board with the principle of continuity within the Covenant of Grace between the administrations of Old and New, and use that as a starting point. This is evidenced by the existence of credo Theonomists who argue for theonomy on that very basis. Baptists in this position would say that the credo position actually maintains more significant continuity than the paedo does.

 

[tellville]

Tim: Cool, you're from Vancouver. There are a few of us here!

Glenn: For some reason, you're avatar just oozes credo-baptist. I know you're not but every time I see your avatar I think "there's a baptist!"

 

[A.J.]

Are you certain? In Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer and his family were baptized, the text says, "having believed in God with all his household." The entire household believed. It seems to me that there is as much evidence here that his children were baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there was an infant present within the household. And, in fact, it seems to be statistically more likely that there was some child of reasoning age than that there was an infant, just given that the first category spans a far greater number of years.

In Acts 18, Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, "believed in God with all his household." It doesn't specify that they were baptized, but given the context of the verse that seems a reasonable assumption. And, again, there is as much evidence here that there were children baptized upon their own professions of faith as there is that there were infants present.

Bruce gave an exegesis of Acts 16:31-34 in post #22. Please check it out. Moreover, even if we read the 16:34 as saying that the jailer rejoiced, believing in God with all his house (rather than the the jailer rejoiced with his house, he having believed in God, cf. ASV and ESV), the words used by Luke points still to a paedobaptist reading of the text. I have read a booklet defending paedobaptism that actually argues in a much similar way. An article I found from the OPC website makes the same observation.

The most detailed and informative account is that of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30�34). “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” he was told, “and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31; cf. 11:14). Accordingly, the gospel was preached “to him together with all who were in his house” (vs. 32). In response, he “believed in God with his whole household” (vs. 34), whereupon “he was baptized, he and all his household” (vs. 33).

The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed “with” his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had.

This crucial distinction between “with” and “and” (regrettably obscured by some translations) is clear in similar passages in Acts: 1:14; 3:4; 4:27; 5:1; 10:2; 14:13; 15:22; 21:5. In each case, “with” introduces those who follow the lead of others and join with them in their activity, however actively or passively. In Acts 21:5, for example, Paul is escorted to the harbor by all the men in the church at Tyre, “with wives and children,” which no doubt included a number of small infants.

In the household baptism passages, the head of the house always believes “with” his household, but he “and” they are baptized. Just as the heads of households escorted Paul to the harbor “with” infants who were only passive participants, so also heads of households were baptized “with” whatever infants were in their families.

Quoted rom The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism by James W. Scott.

I agree. However, large numbers of paedobaptists point to these same passages as support for the baptism of infants. I am simply pointing out that there is just as strong (or weak) support for either the baptism of an as-yet unprofessing child or a professing child in these passages. We simply cannot know for certain that there were young children in these households at all. We may assume so, but we cannot know so. (The passages do, however, indicate that if there were children present and counted as part of the "household," they believed.)

From your statements, it woud seem that you are saying that even Baptists themselves cannot conclusively establish the proper recipients of baptism from these historic examples. It is admiited by paedobaptists that there is no explicit example of infants/little children getting baptized. And yet there is no explicit example either of the "believer's baptism" of children of believing parents. In fact, all the explicit examples we have in Acts and 1 Cor. are those of adults coming from Jewish or non-pagan backgrounds who professed faith before getting baptized. We are not told when their children (if there are any) received baptism. Were they baptized as infants/little children or as adults? The question can only be answered by examining the entire Biblical data avaialble.

So since baptism signifies the same reality which circumcision signified, and since circumcision could be given to both believing Abraham and to infant Isaac (who could not profess faith, cf. Rom. 4:11-12), the conclusion is inevitable

Those two points are not sufficient. The conclusion is not inevitable, as stated.

I agree with both - that baptism replaces circumcision, and that circumcision was given to infants who could not profess faith. We would both agree that circumcision/baptism are, at least, outward signs that formally establish one's membership with the visible covenant community. They are more than that, and I reject the misguided Baptist notion that it's just a symbol, or serves only as an announcement of or tribute to their conversion.

Only a third point would make your conclusion inevitable, and that is if the composition of the covenant community remained unchanged. If that has changed, and infants are no longer to be presumed to be included, then infant baptism is not established. The Baptist position maintains OT to NT continuity on the priesthood, while the paedo position maintains continuity on the membership - it has to be one of them. But just those two points are not enough.

Infant circumcision started with Abraham, not with Moses. The nation of Israel, the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, etc. officially came into existence 430 years later after God made a covenant with Abraham (Exo. 12:40; Gal. 3:17). This is an important distinction many Baptists fail to consider. The contrast set by the Biblical writers is between Moses (Old/Mosaic Covenant) and the Lord Jesus (New Covenant), not between Abraham and Christ. See Jer. 31; Heb. 8; 2 Cor. 3; Rom. 4; Gal. 3. Dr. R. Scott Clark has recently written a blog post discussing this all too common Baptist objection in detail. See Abraham was not Moses.

 

[smhbbag]

Infant circumcision started with Abraham, not with Moses. The nation of Israel, the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, etc. officially came into existence 430 years later after God made a covenant with Abraham (Exo. 12:40; Gal. 3:17). This is an important distinction many Baptists fail to consider. The contrast set by the Biblical writers is between Moses (Old/Mosaic Covenant) and the Lord Jesus (New Covenant), not between Abraham and Christ. See Jer. 31; Heb. 8; 1 Cor. 3; Rom. 4; Gal. 3. Dr. R. Scott Clark has recently written a blog post discussing this all too common Baptist objection in detail. See Abraham was not Moses.

I'm not too sure why you responded this way, and rebutted with that article. That article is so exactly my own thoughts and words it was a little scary to read it. The author of it is completely right in every respect.

 

[Michael Doyle]

Infant circumcision started with Abraham, not with Moses. The nation of Israel, the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, etc. officially came into existence 430 years later after God made a covenant with Abraham (Exo. 12:40; Gal. 3:17). This is an important distinction many Baptists fail to consider. The contrast set by the Biblical writers is between Moses (Old/Mosaic Covenant) and the Lord Jesus (New Covenant), not between Abraham and Christ. See Jer. 31; Heb. 8; 2 Cor. 3; Rom. 4; Gal. 3. Dr. R. Scott Clark has recently written a blog post discussing this all too common Baptist objection in detail. See Abraham was not Moses.

Wow, that was a fantastic article. Thanks

 

[A2JC4life]

The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed “with” his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had.

Believe it or not, I would tend to agree with this. This is one of the reasons my husband and I would prefer that churches not engage in "children's ministry" - VBS and such. These often seem to be the church's lazy way to say they've "evangelized" because it's less disconcerting than talking to heads of households, or households as a whole. However, statistics demonstrate the same thing noted above. When daddies are the first ones to come to the Lord, their families are far more likely to follow. That's somewhat off-topic, though.

From your statements, it woud seem that you are saying that even Baptists themselves cannot conclusively establish the proper recipients of baptism from these historic examples. It is admiited by paedobaptists that there is no explicit example of infants/little children getting baptized. And yet there is no explicit example either of the "believer's baptism" of children of believing parents. In fact, all the explicit examples we have in Acts and 1 Cor. are those of adults coming from Jewish or non-pagan backgrounds who professed faith before getting baptized. We are not told when their children (if there are any) received baptism. Were they baptized as infants/little children or as adults? The question can only be answered by examining the entire Biblical data avaialble.

Yes, I agree. It is clear that new adult believers were baptized, but of course no one is disputing that. Certain narratives may "add evidence" to a particular view, so to speak, but I don't think that we can arrive at any firm conclusions on the matter from them, no. And, frankly, I think it's kind of selling us Baptists short to assert, as someone did a few posts back, that our entire doctrine is built on narrative passages. Neither of us can rely on a passage that teaches as clearly as to say, "Baptize your babies," or, "Do not baptize your babies." That's why there are solid Christians on both sides of the fence. But I think it's fair to say that both base their teachings on something firmer than "so-and-so did it."

 

[galactic reformer]

Assuming you all are correct can you tell all of your children after they are baptized in infancy, and while they still are infants, what St. Paul told the Romans and the Galatians?

3Do you not know that all of us(C) who have been baptized(D) into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were(E) buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as(F) Christ was raised from the dead by(G) the glory of the Father, we too might walk in(H) newness of life.

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Can you GAURANTEE that to anybody? If not, your argument is a strawman.

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 01:11:31 EST-----

A lot has already been posted, but one thing I think has been somewhat missed. The sign of circumcision in the OT was done exactly like the sign (baptism) in the NT. While it was normal for the sign to be applied through the descendants of Abraham (long before faith in the individual was evident) it was also applied at the point of conversion to those that came from outside the family of Abraham.

Exodus 12:48

“But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

Those that came to believe in the OT were circumcised, even as the native in the land. If the head of the house believed, all the house was circumcised. That is not to say all believed, but if the father believed, the house was set apart.

If there were to be a change, it would have to be very clear that the change would have to be stated. That circumcision is replaced by baptism is clearly stated (Col 2:11, 12). If the persons to whom the sign is to be applied is to be changed ... those who believe as they come into belief and their children ... and it would be more restrictive than the already established OT order, then it should be stated explicitly.

While I see plenty of statements that those who believe should be baptized, I see no statements that say their children should not be baptized. To have such a sign change, it would seem incumbent upon those that would say it has changed to produce some verse that positively states not to baptize the children of those who believe. We already have a command to apply the covenant sign to the children of believers in the OT, to revoke that command should be by as clear a command as the original.

Thank you. Precisely. OIKOS inclusion is the rule of all scripture. If the family covenant was done away with, I would like to see where.

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 01:19:10 EST-----

Statistical probabilities are not the foundation of the identification of those who are proper recipients of baptism.

Todd's point is that if one is looking for explicit command then there is no explicit example of a child baptized on the profession of faith. Your example only speaks to "...it seems likely...." Well, given the nature of the term "household", it is just as likely that there were small children in one of the many households mentioned. The point is that a narrative, reporting some facts and leaving others unmentioned, doesn't permit a person to make a statistical inference and form a didactic principle upon the basis of that probability. The person that goes to a text, as yours above, is bringing a principle with her when she infers support for a view.

How does said SILENCE require a baptist hermeneutic? IF OIKOS is not specifically addressed as to scope in the NT, can we go to the OT to help us? Especially given that the NT was written in a historical setting, which would have ramifications on the interpretation of the issue. So which method is correct? Looking elsewhere in scripture to help understand how signs and seals are given, or interjecting a definition not found oustide NT-baptist thinking? OIKOS in the OT was inclusive...OIKOS today is still defined as all members of a household. ONLY in the NT does OIKOS never come with an EXclusive understanding. I'll take historical-grammatical continuity.

 

[A2JC4life]

Assuming you all are correct can you tell all of your children after they are baptized in infancy, and while they still are infants, what St. Paul told the Romans and the Galatians?

3Do you not know that all of us(C) who have been baptized(D) into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were(E) buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as(F) Christ was raised from the dead by(G) the glory of the Father, we too might walk in(H) newness of life.

Can you GAURANTEE that to anybody? If not, your argument is a strawman.

I agree. (And I'm Baptist.)