Secondary Issue - Baptism

[Scott Bushey]

Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.

Consider federal headship; and the covenant. how Jews thought in regards to their children, based on that covenant. For thousands of years, the nation of Israel saw their seed as instrumental to God's plan of redemption; then, the NT comes along and all of a sudden, the Jews are to think differently? Their seeds are not included any longer, in fact, they are, by default, outside the camp. This notion would be classical if in fact, this were true. But, since we see no indications that the children are now 'outside', this is exactly why we see no conversions of children at all in NT writings because they were already under the covenant.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Another important distinction would be to see that we see no mass baptisms in the NT; meaning, all those people that already had the sign on their flesh via circumcision, prior to Christ's death, submitting to water. Consider infants that had the sign placed on them, prior to this time period as well. Do u really think that the church at large was telling all these Jews, 'Your son's are no longer 'in covenant'?

 

[Reformed]

then, the NT comes along and all of a sudden, the Jews are to think differently? Their seeds are not included any longer, in fact, they are, by default, outside the camp.

Yes, exactly.

this is exactly why we see no conversions of children at all in NT writings because they were already under the covenant.

That's reading into the text also known as eisegesis.

Another important distinction would be to see that we see no mass baptisms in the NT; meaning, all those people that already had the sign on their flesh via circumcision, prior to Christ's death, submitting to water. Consider infants that had the sign placed on them, prior to this time period as well. Do you really think that the church at large was telling all these Jews, 'Your son's are no longer 'in covenant'?

No, it is saying there is a new covenant and here is how things are done now. You seem to read a lot into the text that is not there.

 

[Taylor]

That's reading into the text also known as eisegesis.

You seem to read a lot into the text that is not there.

Remember, brother, there does not appear to be any reference whatsoever of a second-generation baptism of a person upon confession of faith in the New Testament. Therefore, are not Baptists reading something into the text that isn’t there—namely, the assumption that adult baptisms of first-generation converts at a special point in redemptive history without question translates into the baptism of adult converts only and ever? The point is this: we are all "reading things into the text that aren’t there," and that’s not always a bad thing (remember, there is no reference to the Trinity as such in Scripture). As I tried to say before, with my quotation of Bavinck as support (did you see that a while back, as you never responded?), this issue is biblical-theological, not so much textual.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.

If this is your argument, then paedobaptism is just as scriptural as children of believers coming to faith in the New Testament.

 

[Grant]

Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.

Could that include an explicit account of infant baptism?

 

[sc_q_jayce]

Could that include an explicit account of infant baptism?

Stalker!

 

[Grant]

Stalker!

 

[Tom Hart]

Seriously, I again take strong issue with anybody who thinks you can't enjoy rich fellowship with those who differ on this.

Who has said that?

 

[Tom Hart]

Because not everything that happened in the first 30 years of the church are recorded in the New Testament.

That's not a particularly strong argument. What keeps paedobaptists from asserting the same? You appear to be operating on an assumption of credobaptism.

 

[Reformed]

Therefore, are not Baptists reading something into the text that isn’t there—namely, the assumption that adult baptisms of first-generation converts at a special point in redemptive history without question translates into the baptism of adult converts only and ever?

Matthew's Gospel commands us to make disciples and then to baptize them. It doesn't specify only adults. It just says to make disciples and then to baptize them. There are also many other verses that show baptism follows salvation, not prior to salvation.

If this is your argument, then paedobaptism is just as scriptural as children of believers coming to faith in the New Testament.

No, see above.

Could that include an explicit account of infant baptism?

No, infants would not get saved and make a profession of faith.

That's not a particularly strong argument. What keeps paedobaptists from asserting the same? You appear to be operating on an assumption of credobaptism.

See above. I operate under the assumption that what is taught in Scripture is what should be followed.

 

[Taylor]

Matthew's Gospel commands us to make disciples and then to baptize them. It doesn't specify only adults. It just says to make disciples and then to baptize them. There are also many other verses that show baptism follows salvation, not prior to salvation.

That’s not necessitated from the text, no. In fact, I would argue that you are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing: "reading into the text something that’s not there." Most scholars I have consulted (even Baptist ones, if I am not mistaken), on the contrary, take the present participle βαπτίζοντες as a participle of means, not time. In other words, the text says, "Make disciples of all nations by baptizing them, etc...."

In other words, on the level of pure exegesis of this text, baptism is the initiation of discipleship, not its end.

 

[Reformed]

That’s not necessitated from the text, no. In fact, I would argue that you are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing: "reading into the text something that’s not there." Most scholars I have consulted (even Baptist ones, if I am not mistaken), on the contrary, take the present participle βαπτίζοντες as a participle of means, not time. In other words, the text says, "Make disciples of all nations [you]by[/you] baptizing them, etc...."

In other words, on the level of pure exegesis of this text, baptism is the initiation of discipleship, not its end.

I agree it is the initiation of discipleship. But it comes after the conversion. This is evident in many other passages in the NT that speak on baptism. Never do we see in the NT baptism coming prior to conversion.

 

[Taylor]

Never do we see in the NT baptism coming prior to conversion.

With all respect, brother, I think you are conveniently ignoring what has been said in this thread, by both me and others. No one has denied that there are no explicit instances of infant baptisms recorded in the New Testament. But you seem to be missing what I said above: there are also no instances of anything other than first-generation Christians being baptized upon profession of faith in the New Testament, either! Therefore, the Baptist operation of withholding the baptism of children of believers until they make a credible profession is quite literally just as absent in the New Testament as is infant baptism.

So, I could just as easily turn a challenge you posed earlier around against you: Show me one instance of a child of a believing Christian being denied baptism until a credible profession in the New Testament, and I will change my position. This issue cuts both ways, and therefore requests for "explicit examples" are not as useful as your pleas might make them seem.

 

[Reformed]

But you seem to be missing what I said above: there are also no instances of anything other than first-generation Christians being baptized upon profession of faith in the New Testament, either!

I don't see how this is relevant.

Therefore, the Baptist operation of withholding the baptism of children of believers until they make a credible profession is quite literally just as absent in the New Testament as is infant baptism.

Actually, that, in my opinion, is comparing apples and oranges.

I do not see the point of distinguishing a difference between first-generation converts and subsequent generations.

 

[Reformed]

But you seem to be missing what I said above: there are also no instances of anything other than first-generation Christians being baptized upon profession of faith in the New Testament, either!

I don't see how this is relevant.

Therefore, the Baptist operation of withholding the baptism of children of believers until they make a credible profession is quite literally just as absent in the New Testament as is infant baptism.

Actually, that, in my opinion, is comparing apples and oranges.

I do not see the point of distinguishing a difference between first-generation converts and subsequent generations.

 

[Taylor]

I don't see how this is relevant.

I do not see the point of distinguishing a difference between first-generation converts and subsequent generations.

It’s actually very relevant. Because if Acts only records, as Bavinck says above, the baptisms of original converts from Judaism and paganism, then that explains why we only see adults being baptized in Acts; it is not necessarily because, as you have said, only adults are to be baptized. To ask, then, for someone to prove something from such a special occasion by specific example is unreasonable, and to act as if the absence of that thing proves any conclusion is fallacious.

Now, if Acts did in fact present us with even one instance of the child of a believer (for this is what I mean by "second-generation believer") being denied baptism until a profession of faith is made, then yes, your case is closed and shut. But the fact is that such a thing does not exist in the Scripture, and therefore for you to appeal from this silence as if it proves your case is highly fallacious.

Here is an example. Say I were a dog breeder. Say I bred, for the first time ever, a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle, making a "Labradoodle." I record my findings in a book about how this new breed came about, but nothing further. Say someone else comes along, reads my findings, and says, "The only way to make a Labradoodle is to breed a Poodle and Labrador Retriver," not knowing that I actually found out later on that I could also breed Labradoodles to make more Labradoodles, only I did not record this finding. So, say this person argues, "Look, in his writings there is absolutely no example whatsoever of Taylor ever breeding Labradoodles together to make more Labradoodles. There is only the first way of breeding the two original breeds!" Well, this argument is fallacious, and obviously so, because my findings only described the first generation of Labradoodles and how they came about, and therefore of course this is the only way described in my findings. Now, if in my findings I had tried to breed two Labradoodles only to find out they were sterile, then and only then would our friend have a case.

In the same way, because Acts only shows us the origins of the original, first-generation converts, then of course they would be baptized upon profession; that’s how it had to work, but that doesn’t mean that the narrative is teaching only adults professing faith may be baptized. Now, if Acts depicted for us, again, a specific example of a child of a believer (of which there are no examples!) being denied baptism until a profession is made, then and only then would your case be as strong as you are trying to make it seem.

 

[Reformed]

it is not necessarily because, as you have said, only adults are to be baptized.

In the same way, because Acts only shows us the origins of the original, first-generation converts, then of course they would be baptized upon profession; that’s how it had to work, but that doesn’t mean that the narrative is teaching only adults professing faith may be baptized.

I have actually never argued this. I agree children can be baptized upon profession of faith as prescribed by Scripture.

 

[Taylor]

I have actually never argued this. I agree children can be baptized upon profession of faith as prescribed by Scripture.

Did you read the rest of what I said? You’re getting caught on something not even a part of my main argument.

 

[Reformed]

Did you read the rest of what I said? You’re getting caught on something not even a part of my main argument.

Yes, I read what you said but I don't agree with your premise. I thought I had already made that clear perhaps I didn't. I don't think the scenarios are of equal comparison. I also do not see a point of distinction between the first converts and subsequent converts. There, in my view, is no reason to make any such distinction.

So on that point, you and I will have to agree to disagree because I don't think we are going to change each other's minds on that.

 

[Taylor]

I also do not see a point of distinction between the first converts and subsequent converts. There, in my view, is no reason to make any such distinction.

The reason it is important is because the very definition of our different practices demands the distinction. Both credobaptists and paedobaptists agree that all first-generation converts—that is, those who are the first in their families to believe—ought to be baptized upon a confession of faith and not before. The disagreement lies, rather, in what to do with the children of believers, or the "second generation"; one position says baptize them, the other says not to.

You have argued that because there is no example of a person getting baptized before a profession of faith in the New Testament that no one ought to be baptized until they make such a profession. However, your conclusion contains more than your premise(s), because your argument does not account for the fact that in the New Testament it is only the baptisms of first-generation converts that are depicted, yet it is precisely on this point that the two positions agree! Therefore, your argument is, at best, incomplete. And it will remain incomplete because the New Testament simply does not give us an example of any second-generation believers in the context of the question of their baptism. The whole point is that your position, just like ours, contains at least some level of argument from silence. You may not recognize or admit it, but the fact remains that it does.

 

[Reformed]

The reason it is important is because the very definition of our different practices demands the distinction. Both credobaptists and paedobaptists agree that all first-generation converts—that is, those who are the first in their families to believe—ought to be baptized upon a confession of faith and not before. The disagreement lies, rather, in what to do with the children of believers, or the "second generation"; one position says baptize them, the other says not to.

The only reason there is disagreement on 2nd generation is because they port over the old covenant of circumcision and transpose it into baptism without any direction to do so from Scripture.

So no, I still do not believe there needs to be a distinction made. In the old covenant, circumcision was commanded to be given to the children. Baptism was not. It's not an equal porting of the covenant, it is very different actually. In the OT it was by birth and the race you were in. In the NT it is by being born again into a family, not because of the race that you are. They are not equivalent.

 

[Taylor]

So no, I still do not believe there needs to be a distinction made.

And yet the very impetus and foundation of Baptist sacramentology requires this distinction. Otherwise, why all the fuss and protest, historically speaking? You can deny the distinction, but you do so in denial of both Scripture and your own theological ancestry.

 

[Reformed]

And yet the very impetus and foundation of Baptist sacramentology requires this distinction. Otherwise, why all the fuss and protest, historically speaking? You can deny the distinction, but you do so in denial of both Scripture and your own theological ancestry.

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'll bow out now. I've hijacked this thread enough.

 

[Taylor]

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

That’s fair enough, brother. I was never trying to convince you if paedobaptism, but rather pointing out that your own argument is not at all free of the same holes you so quickly identify in others'. Thoroughness in this matter is paramount. This is more than just "show me an explicit example." If that’s all good exegesis is, then none of us should be Trinitarians!

(By the way, I would love to talk with you sometime about my journey from 1689 Federalism to Westminster Federalism, a shift which is actually quite recent—within the past year.)

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree. I'll bow out now. I've hijacked this thread enough.

Before you depart, David, I think you owe Rev. Strange a response:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-4#post-1180250
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-5#post-1180282

 

[Reformed]

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-4#post-1180250
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/secondary-issue-baptism.96455/page-5#post-1180282

Somewhere in this crazy thread firestorm, I did send a response saying that was not my intent. I already sent him a PM explaining a little while ago. Everything is good. I was not attacking him, I was simply saying how it can come across even though I know that was not his intent.

Someone else commented that was even what I had meant once they re-read my post.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

(By the way, I would love to talk with you sometime about my journey from 1689 Federalism to Westminster Federalism, a shift which is actually quite recent—within the past year.)

I am keen to learn from you I am still struggling with the issue.

Reformed Baptists make much of the fact that Christ is mediator of the New Covenant and that he actually mediates. But I now see at least two problems with this. Firstly Christ, as mediator, had Judas as a disciple. Secondly, the Reformed Baptist arguement for the New Covenant falls short of its claims. The New Covenant (Heb 8) states that all will know the Lord, and that we will not need teachers in the New Covenant. But Reformed Baptists need teachers. And they do not infallably know that all their baptised members know the Lord. There is clearly a yet - not yet tension here which needs to be acknowledged.

 

[Tom Hart]

Matthew's Gospel commands us to make disciples and then to baptize them. It doesn't specify only adults. It just says to make disciples and then to baptize them. There are also many other verses that show baptism follows salvation, not prior to salvation.

This is an old credobaptist talking point. I am no scholar, but I have learned that the Greek does not say what you are trying to force it to say. Perhaps English translations can be somewhat less clear, but know of no English translation that necessarily says what you are saying it should. (@Taylor Sexton has made the point about the grammar already.)

Again, it seems that without engaging the text seriously, you continue to make similar bold assertions. You say you have studied that matter, but, to me at least, it's not showing. I see a bias towards credobaptism to the point that it is colouring your exegesis. (I was a credobaptist once, some years ago, and I made the same points you're making now.)

 

[Herald]

Somewhere in this crazy thread firestorm, I did send a response saying that was not my intent. I already sent him a PM explaining a little while ago. Everything is good. I was not attacking him, I was simply saying how it can come across even though I know that was not his intent.

Someone else commented that was even what I had meant once they re-read my post.

David,

Patrick is right. You owe Rev. Strange a direct response. Your tone toward him was harsh.