The Case for "Believer's Only" Baptism

Status
Not open for further replies.

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
One of my favourite jokes! :D

Greetings:

One must ask where in the Bible does it say "Believers only"? Are we not to disciple our children as well?

Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.

The understanding of "Covenant Theology" by credo-baptists is skewed by their dispensational approach to the subject. And John Owen was an infant-baptist by the way.

Yes, the joke is very funny to credo-baptists, but the reality is that when asked where the Bible tells us "Believers only" they fail to prove it.

Blessings,

-CH
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:

One must ask where in the Bible does it say "Believers only"? Are we not to disciple our children as well?

Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.

The understanding of "Covenant Theology" by credo-baptists is skewed by their dispensational approach to the subject. And John Owen was an infant-baptist by the way.

Agreed.

Yes, the joke is very funny to credo-baptists, but the reality is that when asked where the Bible tells us "Believers only" they fail to prove it.

Blessings,

-CH

:candle:
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

"If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done." - C.H. Spurgeon
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

"If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it. I myself am quite incapable of performing such a feat, or even of imagining how it can be done." - C.H. Spurgeon

Well Spurgeon is capable of imagining it now. Are you asking how you might rightly interpret the passage you cited?
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
Well Spurgeon is capable of imagining it now. Are you asking how you might rightly interpret the passage you cited?

Spurgeon is capable of imagining it now because now that Spurgeon is dead and has realized what you believe is true? lol Let us not reduce what can be a gentlemanly conversation to such trivialities.

No, I am not asking how I may interpret these Scriptures. They read quite plain and clear. Baptism is representative of a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ Jesus, our union with Christ. Like Spurgeon, I cannot imagine or fathom any system of thought that could apply this to an infant, who is still in Adam. I cannot fathom this baptism being for anyone but a true, born again child of God.

Spurgeon wrote, "If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it."

I suppose if you would like to make this attempt I should like to see you do it as well.
 

Semper Fidelis

2 Timothy 2:24-25
Staff member
Spurgeon is capable of imagining it now because now that Spurgeon is dead and has realized what you believe is true? lol Let us not reduce what can be a gentlemanly conversation to such trivialities.
I actually considered your two quotations to be quite trivial and I was responding in like humor.

No, I am not asking how I may interpret these Scriptures. They read quite plain and clear. Baptism is representative of a death, burial, and resurrection in Christ Jesus, our union with Christ. Like Spurgeon, I cannot imagine or fathom any system of thought that could apply this to an infant, who is still in Adam. I cannot fathom this baptism being for anyone but a true, born again child of God.
Yes, I agree that Baptism signifies union with Christ. I don't believe that all who are baptized are united to Christ but that it signifies it nevertheless. The pasage highlights that fact. Would you care to explain how an infant is precluded from that union based on an exegesis of the text you cited?

Spurgeon wrote, "If any person can give a consistent and instructive interpretation of the text, otherwise than by assuming believers' immersion to be Christian baptism, I should like to see them do it."
I don't find anything in the text that deals with immersion at all. Nothing concerning mode is even relevant to the text. Also, nobody is questioning that a person who is elect will believe but election is not of him who wills or runs but of Him who shows mercy. Union with Christ is on the basis of election. Is it your assertion that election is on the basis of "him who wills"?

Off to bed now.

Blessings!
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.

This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.

*Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.

Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."—Romans 6:3-4.

I am a simple Christian, and consider the spiritual sense of the passage with a higher esteem than the external sign. As Spurgeon commented, "May God the Holy Spirit help us to reach its inner teaching."

Taking this passage, and reading it, we cannot take the Apostle to be speaking of anyone but of proper persons. He must not be speaking of unbelievers, hypocrites, or decievers. The Apostle says, "so many of us" putting himself into the grouping which I cannot imagine to be anything but the children of God.

Baptism then is the representation of the believer's union with Christ, in His death, burial, and ressurection. It is also our realized union with Christ. Baptism doesn't not merely represent our profession or creed. Hypocrites may have words only. It represents the true spiritual reality that we have died with Him, been buried with Him, and have been raised with Him.

Where in the world do we rightly bury those who are alive? How is it that some suppose it is right to bury in Baptism those we know who are not dead in Christ? Even in our Baptist churches we will not baptism one who shows no sign of repentance and faith.

I imagine that I will not be able to presuade your mind in regards to baptism. I already read in your words the daggers of debate. If we are both born again children of God let's not sit accross the table from one another and throw things, giving the appearance of enmity. Let's sit on the same side of the table as brothers and understand one another. In Spurgeon's sermon he also preached:

"It would seem that some had been baptized who did not clearly know the meaning of their own baptism. They had faith, and a glimmer of knowledge sufficient to make them right recipients of baptism, but they were not well instructed in the teaching of baptism; perhaps they saw in it only a washing, but had never discerned the burial. I will go further, and say that I question if any of us yet know the fullness of the meaning of either of the ordinances which Christ has instituted. As yet we are, with regard to spiritual things, like children playing on the beach while the ocean rolls before us. At best we wade up to our ankles like our little ones on the sea shore. A few among us are learning to swim; but then we only swim where the bottom is almost within reach. Who among us has yet come to lose sight of shore and to swim in the Atlantic of divine love, where fathomless truth rolls underneath, and the infinite is all around? Oh, may God daily teach us more and more of what we already know in part, and may the truth which we have as yet but dimly perceived come to us in a brighter and clearer manner, till we see all things in clear sunlight. This can only be as our own character becomes more clear and pure; for we see according to what we are; and as is the eye such is that which it sees. The pure in heart alone can see a pure and holy God. We shall be like Jesus when we shall see him as he is, and certainly we shall never see him as he is till we are like him. In heavenly things we see as much as we have within ourselves. He who has eaten Christ's flesh and blood spiritually is the man who can see this in the sacred Supper, and he who has been baptized into Christ sees Christ in baptism. To him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly."

Good words of wisdom filled with humility I think. Worthy of imitation.
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.

*Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.

Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?

This has always been one problem for me as well. Paedos are so sure that since "children" were circumcised at 8 days old under the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant, they says the promises go to our children as well. Therefore they go to all our children and they baptize them.

Except for one thing. All children weren't circumcised under the Old Covenant. Only MALE children were circumcised. So to be consistent, paedos ought to baptize only male children.
 

JohnOwen007

Puritan Board Sophomore
Paedos are so sure that since "children" were circumcised at 8 days old under the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant, they says the promises go to our children as well. Therefore they go to all our children and they baptize them.

No paedos believe that children were baptised in the OT! Yes, there is an example of children being baptised in the Bible, contrary to what credos say.

Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 10:1-2 that Israel's exodus was their baptism (an illustration of Christ's work). And there would've been plenty of children who were in the Exodus. Hence, there were plenty of children who had a sign of Christ's cross-work applied to them.

As for Romans 6, how do we know that is talking about water baptism? Christ said he had a "baptism" to undergo, and that was a reference to the cross. Hence, "baptism" is a word that does not always refer to water baptism.

God bless.
 

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.

*Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.

Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?

Greetings:

Well, the Bible says:

And every man-child of eight days old among you shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised so my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant, Genesis 17:12-13.
I think the word "every" here means "every" and not "some" for the context tells us that even slaves, and the children of slaves in the house of Abraham were to be circumcised.

God persued Moses to kill him because Moses did not circumcize his children, Ex. 4:24.

What I hear from credo-baptists are rationalizations rather than Scripture.

Now, one credo-baptist has given a passage in Scripture as a defense of his views, Rom. 6:3ff. Paul states, "all that have been baptized," (vs. 3) and does not mention "faith only" as a requirement. The promises of entering into the death of Christ, being raised up, and to walk in newness of life are given to "all that have been baptized."

Maybe the credo-baptist can point out where Paul requires "faith only" in order to be baptized here? The interpretation of the credo-baptist is an interpretation from their prejudice - reading something into the Bible that is not there - and is not a matter of an exegetical nature.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 

Me Died Blue

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This kind of statement is one of the stumbling blocks for me in understanding the paedo view.

*Children* were not circumcised in the OT. *Some* children were baptized in the OT. So according to the logic above that would mean that *some* children were brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old.

Then, when you say, "Why are *they* given special privileges...", I assume you mean those 8 day old infants who were circumcised. Therefore, aren't you trying to argue that because *some* infants in the OT were given the special privilege of being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision, that *all* infants should be given the special privilege of being brought into the New Covenant by baptism? If so, there seems to be, to my uneducated mind, a disconnect. Could you show me the missing piece of the puzzle?

One necessary clarification here from the paedo view is that baptism (or circumcision) itself does not actually bring the children of believers into the visible covenant, which they are already in from birth. Rather, the sign serves as the commanded recognition of that status by the parents and the Church. Biblically, this can be seen in Genesis 15-17, observing the temporal relationship between Abraham's being in covenant with God and him receiving the sign of that covenant. Confessionally, it is clear that this is the historic paedo view from WCF 25.2 and 28.5-6:

WCF 25.2

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Note that it does not say, "and of their children who have received the covenantal sign."

WCF 28.5-6

Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
Greetings:
Now, one credo-baptist has given a passage in Scripture as a defense of his views, Rom. 6:3ff. Paul states, "all that have been baptized," (vs. 3) and does not mention "faith only" as a requirement. The promises of entering into the death of Christ, being raised up, and to walk in newness of life are given to "all that have been baptized."

Maybe the credo-baptist can point out where Paul requires "faith only" in order to be baptized here? The interpretation of the credo-baptist is an interpretation from their prejudice - reading something into the Bible that is not there - and is not a matter of an exegetical nature.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."

The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:

1) He will put His law in their minds
2) He will put His law in their hearts
3) He will be their God and they His people
4) He will cause them all to know Him
5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more

NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.

This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.
 

CDM

Puritan Board Junior
As for Romans 6, how do we know that is talking about water baptism? Christ said he had a "baptism" to undergo, and that was a reference to the cross. Hence, "baptism" is a word that does not always refer to water baptism.

God bless.

Right.

Romans 6:3-4 does not have a drop of water in it. It is dry.
 

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."

The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:

1) He will put His law in their minds
2) He will put His law in their hearts
3) He will be their God and they His people
4) He will cause them all to know Him
5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more

NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.

This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.

Excellent post.
 

Barnpreacher

Puritan Board Junior
CH, we have been through this before and you refuse to recognize our argument. The interpretation is not from prejudice. It involves who is actually in the New Covenant as described in Jeremiah 31.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 - Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Pay close attention. The New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, which is described in the New Testament by Paul in Romans and Galatians as all those who are "of the faith of Abraham."

The actions of God on those in the New Covenant are as follows:

1) He will put His law in their minds
2) He will put His law in their hearts
3) He will be their God and they His people
4) He will cause them all to know Him
5) He will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more

NOW, the reason why credo-baptists believe that only those who have at least professed faith in Christ should be baptized has to do with who the covenant is made with. The sign of the covenant can only be placed on those who are in covenant - those who are of the faith of Abraham and have had the actions of God (according to the terms of the covenant in Jeremiah 31) done to them. This is simply not true of infants and young children, as well as adults who continue in unbelief.

This is the biblical reason, far from your claim of prejudice. It has everything to do with the Bible and nothing to do with prejudice.


Paul says in Romans 9, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." This stands true for the Old Covenant as well as the New Covenant. The passage in Jeremiah 31 is to the elect. How do you know who the elect are? Is not the promise made in the New Covenant the same as the Old Covenant - to the believer and our seed (Acts 2)? Yet, it was a given that not all that received the sign and seal of circumcision under the Old Covenant were truly of Israel. Why does that change with the sign and seal of baptism? Or better yet, where does Scripture say that changes?
 

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...

To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a PLAIN and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?

Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-

"and they brought their children to be baptized"

or

"having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"

I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.
 

Reformed Baptist

Puritan Board Sophomore
I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...

To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a PLAIN and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?

Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-

"and they brought their children to be baptized"

or

"having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"

I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.

:amen:
 

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...

To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a PLAIN and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?

Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-

"and they brought their children to be baptized"

or

"having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"

I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.

Do we agree that in the OT, children of believers were given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members? Do we presume continuity or discontiniuty between the OT/NT (covenantal hermeneutics or dispensational hermeneutics)? To me it is even more astounding that we aren't given clear scripture to now disinclude children from the visible church/covenant community.
:candle:
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
Do we agree that in the OT, children of believers were given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members? Do we presume continuity or discontiniuty between the OT/NT (covenantal hermeneutics or dispensational hermeneutics)? To me it is even more astounding that we aren't given clear scripture to now disinclude children from the visible church/covenant community.
:candle:

Children of unbelievers were also given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members under the Old Covenant.

The "continuity" of the Testaments does not mean exact one-to-one equality. It means there is not a complete separation of peoples like the dispensationalists want to have. The New Covenant advances the Old Covenant to new heights. Now the children are not physical, but spiritual. The promise is made to the spiritual children of Abraham, not the physical. You keep wanting to see the promise being made not to physical Jews and physical Jewish children (which is right) and yet want to apply the promises to physical Christians and physical Christian children. You have formed a new physical race of God's people. You are a dispensationalist with a different group of people.

BTW, doesn't Paul deal with the promises made to the seed of Abraham in Galatians?

Galatians 3:16 - Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

This is the verse that moved me completely out of dispensationalism. The covenant promises are made ultimately to Christ, not to individual people. Therefore, the sign of the covenant goes only to those who are in Christ, where all the promises find their fulfillment. I know, you will say, "how do you know they are elect?" We don't, but we do know that they have at least professed to be in Christ before we give them the sign that they are in Christ.
 

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Is it a "new" covenant? If it is, then why would there be discontiniuty? Does new mean discontiniuty? I also find it very unfair to label this "dispensational" the bogey-man word amongst us all.
 

ReformedWretch

Puritan Board Doctor
Children of unbelievers were also given the sign and seal of the covenant and treated as covenant members under the Old Covenant.

The "continuity" of the Testaments does not mean exact one-to-one equality. It means there is not a complete separation of peoples like the dispensationalists want to have. The New Covenant advances the Old Covenant to new heights. Now the children are not physical, but spiritual. The promise is made to the spiritual children of Abraham, not the physical. You keep wanting to see the promise being made not to physical Jews and physical Jewish children (which is right) and yet want to apply the promises to physical Christians and physical Christian children. You have formed a new physical race of God's people. You are a dispensationalist with a different group of people.

BTW, doesn't Paul deal with the promises made to the seed of Abraham in Galatians?

Galatians 3:16 - Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.

This is the verse that moved me completely out of dispensationalism. The covenant promises are made ultimately to Christ, not to individual people. Therefore, the sign of the covenant goes only to those who are in Christ, where all the promises find their fulfillment. I know, you will say, "how do you know they are elect?" We don't, but we do know that they have at least professed to be in Christ before we give them the sign that they are in Christ.

:up::book2:
 

tellville

Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:

One must ask where in the Bible does it say "Believers only"? Are we not to disciple our children as well?

Children in the OT were circumcised and brought into the Covenant when they were 8 days old. Why are they given special priviledges that the children of the New Covenant (of whom the Bible tells us are "holy" 1 Cor. 7:14) do not receive.

The understanding of "Covenant Theology" by credo-baptists is skewed by their dispensational approach to the subject. And John Owen was an infant-baptist by the way.

Yes, the joke is very funny to credo-baptists, but the reality is that when asked where the Bible tells us "Believers only" they fail to prove it.

Blessings,

-CH

1 Cor 7:14 also says that the unbelieving husband has been sanctified because of his believing wife. If you are using this passage to say that children are rightful subjects of baptism because they are holy should not the unbelieving husband who is sanctified (another word for justified) also be baptised?

Or maybe this passage has a use other than Baptismal theology?

And yes, the joke does seem to be a lot funnier to Credo-Baptists :D And when Catholics ask us where the Bible tells us "faith only" we can't show them either, and actually, the only place where those two words are in the same sentence the word "not" is in front of them. Yet, we both would agree faith alone is the obvious teaching of scripture.

And I think my fellow Baptists are doing a fine job of showing where Believers Baptism is taught in scripture.
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
I always tell myself that I'm staying out of these discussions but...

To me, why would this be so difficult/veiled in scripture? Why wouldn't Christ or one of the authors of Scripture have a PLAIN and easy to see teaching on baptizing children?

Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-

"and they brought their children to be baptized"

or

"having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"

I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.

Is not the term "plain" relative to one's background and upbringing/worldview? If one's worldview is much different from another, then it will take a lot of discussion to get on the same page.

This being the case, the "plainness" argument only gets, that you are coming at the text much differently than a paedobaptist. At that point, one needs to argue that your way is better and more faithful to scripture. There are no free lunches.

CT
 

Davidius

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes, I know this doesn't "prove" anything. It's just a simple question from a simple guy. You would think one would read somewhere in scripture something like-

"and they brought their children to be baptized"

or

"having given birth to the child she brought him to be baptized"

I dunno...something like that. Instead, we have to have deep theological studies, lengthy debates, and entire books written to explain why infants need to be baptized. I just find that a little odd.

We have them. They're the household baptisms in Acts that the credobaptists always try to squirm their way out of.

[bible]Acts 16:13-15[/bible]

:up::up:
 

ChristianTrader

Puritan Board Graduate
Also to be fair to "plainness" ;) A term other than, "household" could have been used in terms of baptism of families". It could have simply been, "And each individual person repented and believed and was baptized due to their own belief". :D

CT
 

Calvibaptist

Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan
We have them. They're the household baptisms in Acts that the credobaptists always try to squirm their way out of.

[bible]Acts 16:13-15[/bible]

:up::up:

So, you know that Lydia had children (and infants) how? It seems that paedos assume infants to be there while we credos assume infants to not be there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top