For those of you who are Reformed Baptist, what do you think of a baptist church who waits until a child is 18 or older in order to baptize them. I ask this because one of my good friends is an intern at Capitol Hill Baptist Church and they have been debating on whether they should do this. They want to see how the person reacts when they are tempted (such as going off to college, etc.)
Credo Baptists
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
- Status
My initial reaction when reading the question was, "nonsense."
There is no evidence of waiting between profession and baptism in the NT. I understand the caution, but think that they are overreacting.
Can people not go astray after age 18? Perhaps we should only do deathbed baptisms then so that they can't mess up after they are baptized!
I am afraid that their view, if adopted, reveals a misunderstanding about the meaning of baptism. They need to be dealing with assurance and perseverance, not the age at which to baptize.
My :wr50:,
Phillip
There is no evidence of waiting between profession and baptism in the NT. I understand the caution, but think that they are overreacting.
Can people not go astray after age 18? Perhaps we should only do deathbed baptisms then so that they can't mess up after they are baptized!
I am afraid that their view, if adopted, reveals a misunderstanding about the meaning of baptism. They need to be dealing with assurance and perseverance, not the age at which to baptize.
My :wr50:,
Phillip
cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
This is just a thought and only a thought because I agree with Pastor Way. This may sound off the wall and it is. Perhaps they are thinking that if they are baptized before they turn 18, then they will have voting privileges during business meetings because they become members of the church when they are baptized. Many churches do not allow minors to vote in business meetings and others allow anybody and everybody who is on the membership role to vote, even 6 year olds.
Like I said, it is off the wall.
Like I said, it is off the wall.
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree Paul could you please elaborate
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:cc48bf2b2a][i:cc48bf2b2a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:cc48bf2b2a]
trying to [i:cc48bf2b2a]really[/i:cc48bf2b2a] make sure that they are only baptizing proper subjects, i.e., elect. [/quote:cc48bf2b2a]
So would the Presbyterian Church be really consistent if they waited tell the age of 18 before they gave Communion?
trying to [i:cc48bf2b2a]really[/i:cc48bf2b2a] make sure that they are only baptizing proper subjects, i.e., elect. [/quote:cc48bf2b2a]
So would the Presbyterian Church be really consistent if they waited tell the age of 18 before they gave Communion?
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
Why would baptism only be appropriate for those of an age that supposedly communicates a maturity? I don't know oodles of Reformed Baptists, but the consensus from what I do hear in Reformed Baptist teaching seems to be that whenever a sincere profession is made one would would baptize the professor. Age isn't the determining factor, professed faith in Christ is.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,
The difference between our positions (as I see it) is the supremecy of God's word and the roll of faith in the Sacraments... I do not think baptism or the Lord's Supper can be of any value without the faith to preceive God's words given in the sacraments (In fact I would argue it is one of the worst thing possible to do for a person for a sacrament without faith gives false assurance and in the end will testify against the person on the last day making their judgment all the more greater)... also I do not think that it is right to deny the Lord's Supper to Church members for I think the sacraments are for all those who have faith in Christ. My point in comparing the identicial pratices of the Lord's Supper in Presbyterian circles with the practice of baptism in credobaptist circiles is not to show that both were wrong but that both were right! Neither the Presbyterians nor credobaptist force us humans to read hearts for the Presbyterian and credobaptist positions only depend upon a "judgment of charity" (to echo Calvin) that a persons has the faith they profess to have.
Reformed credobaptist do not discreminate against infants because of age for you could be as old as our fathers before Noah yet if you do not have faith then you cannot be baptized Christian baptism does not work in empty space but is dependent upon faith in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Tyler
The difference between our positions (as I see it) is the supremecy of God's word and the roll of faith in the Sacraments... I do not think baptism or the Lord's Supper can be of any value without the faith to preceive God's words given in the sacraments (In fact I would argue it is one of the worst thing possible to do for a person for a sacrament without faith gives false assurance and in the end will testify against the person on the last day making their judgment all the more greater)... also I do not think that it is right to deny the Lord's Supper to Church members for I think the sacraments are for all those who have faith in Christ. My point in comparing the identicial pratices of the Lord's Supper in Presbyterian circles with the practice of baptism in credobaptist circiles is not to show that both were wrong but that both were right! Neither the Presbyterians nor credobaptist force us humans to read hearts for the Presbyterian and credobaptist positions only depend upon a "judgment of charity" (to echo Calvin) that a persons has the faith they profess to have.
Reformed credobaptist do not discreminate against infants because of age for you could be as old as our fathers before Noah yet if you do not have faith then you cannot be baptized Christian baptism does not work in empty space but is dependent upon faith in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Tyler
Ianterrell
Puritan Board Sophomore
Paul, I'm not going to pretend that your question isn't an interesting challenge. Those preparing to baptize a new convert ideally examine the confession biblically to see if it is sincere. So yes hypothetically there would be nothing wrong with baptizing a two year old. If they exhibited signs of being a true convert, repentance and faith.
Obvious objection: How could a two year-old possibly exhibit those signs? This is a real problem, I'm not sure. I don't know for sure if it is realistic to expect a two year old to be able to communicate those kind of ideas.
I'm not afraid to say I don't have a solid solution for this problem.
Obvious objection: How could a two year-old possibly exhibit those signs? This is a real problem, I'm not sure. I don't know for sure if it is realistic to expect a two year old to be able to communicate those kind of ideas.
I'm not afraid to say I don't have a solid solution for this problem.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:4979a7b20a][i:4979a7b20a]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:4979a7b20a]
It is an objective sign...OF GOD!
[quote:4979a7b20a]
(In fact I would argue it is one of the worst thing possible to do for a person for a sacrament without faith gives false assurance and in the end will testify against the person on the last day making their judgment all the more greater
[/quote:4979a7b20a]
your argument is against God and Abraham here, Tyler.[/quote:4979a7b20a]
Not really circumcision and baptism are not identicial and have different meanings. Circumcision symbolyzed the destruction of Covenant breakers (see Klines arguements) and baptism symbolyizes the legel juducial innocence from the destruction symbolyzed in circumcision. After all during John the Baptist ministry baptism and circimcision coexisted showing that the one did not replace the other... indeed even after Jesus asscended Paul allowed the Jews to continue to circumcise which he most certinaly would not have done if baptism and circumcison meant the same thing.
Baptism alows the person to see what covers all the regenerate and thus He gains a clear conscience as he hears the Gospel preached to him with all his senses and baptism only can accomplish this by faith with God's word kept supreme (again see Klines arguements). Hence faith is essential in baptism but not in the other for we are condemned by birth but justified by faith.
All I need from you to disprove this is one verse that shows that circumcision clears the conscience the way baptism for the individual circumcised (see 1 Peter 3:21) and if "Romans 4" is the best you can give me then I think I have made my case.
[quote:4979a7b20a][quote:4979a7b20a]
Reformed credobaptist do not discreminate against infants because of age for you could be as old as our fathers before Noah yet if you do not have faith then you cannot be baptized Christian baptism does not work in empty space but is dependent upon faith in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[/quote:4979a7b20a]
And the problem is that YOU judge what counts as "having faith!" Tyler, would your church baptize a 2 yr old if they said "I believe in Jesus as my savior?" As I said, 99.9% of all the baptists churches I know..would not (and I know alot. I go and street evangelize with them. I am friends with the co-founder of FIRE, etc) [/quote:4979a7b20a]
If a 2 yr old had faith as Calvin following Scripture defined faith... meaning a faith that clines to the promises of God... then sure I would baptize that 2 yr old but that type of 2 year old is the exception not the rule and certinally not every child born of Christian parents fits that bill.
-Tyler
[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Tertullian]
It is an objective sign...OF GOD!
[quote:4979a7b20a]
(In fact I would argue it is one of the worst thing possible to do for a person for a sacrament without faith gives false assurance and in the end will testify against the person on the last day making their judgment all the more greater
[/quote:4979a7b20a]
your argument is against God and Abraham here, Tyler.[/quote:4979a7b20a]
Not really circumcision and baptism are not identicial and have different meanings. Circumcision symbolyzed the destruction of Covenant breakers (see Klines arguements) and baptism symbolyizes the legel juducial innocence from the destruction symbolyzed in circumcision. After all during John the Baptist ministry baptism and circimcision coexisted showing that the one did not replace the other... indeed even after Jesus asscended Paul allowed the Jews to continue to circumcise which he most certinaly would not have done if baptism and circumcison meant the same thing.
Baptism alows the person to see what covers all the regenerate and thus He gains a clear conscience as he hears the Gospel preached to him with all his senses and baptism only can accomplish this by faith with God's word kept supreme (again see Klines arguements). Hence faith is essential in baptism but not in the other for we are condemned by birth but justified by faith.
All I need from you to disprove this is one verse that shows that circumcision clears the conscience the way baptism for the individual circumcised (see 1 Peter 3:21) and if "Romans 4" is the best you can give me then I think I have made my case.
[quote:4979a7b20a][quote:4979a7b20a]
Reformed credobaptist do not discreminate against infants because of age for you could be as old as our fathers before Noah yet if you do not have faith then you cannot be baptized Christian baptism does not work in empty space but is dependent upon faith in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[/quote:4979a7b20a]
And the problem is that YOU judge what counts as "having faith!" Tyler, would your church baptize a 2 yr old if they said "I believe in Jesus as my savior?" As I said, 99.9% of all the baptists churches I know..would not (and I know alot. I go and street evangelize with them. I am friends with the co-founder of FIRE, etc) [/quote:4979a7b20a]
If a 2 yr old had faith as Calvin following Scripture defined faith... meaning a faith that clines to the promises of God... then sure I would baptize that 2 yr old but that type of 2 year old is the exception not the rule and certinally not every child born of Christian parents fits that bill.
-Tyler
[Edited on 4-26-2004 by Tertullian]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,
I argued that 1 Peter 3:21teaches that a clear conscience is given in baptism [i:3bc1b866e5]through faith[/i:3bc1b866e5] so does that mean that I said that everyone baptized without faith is given a clear conscience? I see no reason to think so. This is one of the reasons why I view faith as so essential to baptism because without faith no clear conscience is given in baptism.
The fact that Scripture speaks of a "Circumcision of the heart" in contrast to "circumcision in the flesh" does nothing to [i:3bc1b866e5]dis[/i:3bc1b866e5]prove my thesis that "circumcision" represents the punishment of "Covenant breaking" for sinners and so only being born as someone who must be punished as a "Covenant breaker" qualifies one for curcumcison for all those whom God has called unto himself to be [i:3bc1b866e5]His People[/i:3bc1b866e5] must be redeemed from all sin. This is evident because sinners can only gain entrance into the holiness of God if their sins have been wiped away... hence everyone whom approaches God must have their sins dealt with and hence circumcision singles them out as those who must have their sins dealt with (i.e. as those who are Covenant breakers). Christians that have been covered by the "greater" circumcision done without hands on the cross spoken about in Col 2:11-13 have had their sins dealt with because Christ paid the penalty for Covenant breakers. Christ curcumcison is greater in every respect than that circumcision in the flesh which could only symbolize this type of cleansing. Hence circumcision speaks of how all sinners are covenant breakers and must pay the penalty for sin before they can serve God. Hence "circumcision of the heart" does not speak or need to work in the person [i:3bc1b866e5] subjective faith [/i:3bc1b866e5] but it testifies to the just punishment of this child and calls upon God to punish this child in his justice... praise God somebody took our punishment upon himself for us. (Kline's arguments for this thesis are very compelling and worthy of examination if you have not already read his works on this subject)
The reason I do not accept Romans 4 as a verse to support that circumcision only works by faith is because Romans 4 teaches the opposite it teaches that Abraham had been justified by faith before he was circumcised and that the given of circumcision sealed and was sign that Abraham already justified by faith apart from works of the law- hence Paul presupposes that "circumcision" was not given to Abraham's physical children because of their personal faith. Hence this verse is not a proof text that circumcision only works by faith... in fact its administration to male infants and male unbelieving servant rules against the interpretation that circumcision required faith.
Finally how do I know that infants born of Christian parents do not have faith? Well Scripture speaks of infants as those without understanding and those who do not yet know right from wrong and Scriptures word is good enough for me... I admit that Scripture is speaking normatively when says that infants are without understanding and so there can be exceptions like John the Baptist... but again I will baptize any infant that has the "faith" required for baptism but as a rule this is not the case with every infant born of Christian parents.
God's word must be kept supreme over baptism and God's word can only be appreciated when faith is present... hence only if faith is present in baptism will God's word be kept supreme over baptism.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Tertullian]
I argued that 1 Peter 3:21teaches that a clear conscience is given in baptism [i:3bc1b866e5]through faith[/i:3bc1b866e5] so does that mean that I said that everyone baptized without faith is given a clear conscience? I see no reason to think so. This is one of the reasons why I view faith as so essential to baptism because without faith no clear conscience is given in baptism.
The fact that Scripture speaks of a "Circumcision of the heart" in contrast to "circumcision in the flesh" does nothing to [i:3bc1b866e5]dis[/i:3bc1b866e5]prove my thesis that "circumcision" represents the punishment of "Covenant breaking" for sinners and so only being born as someone who must be punished as a "Covenant breaker" qualifies one for curcumcison for all those whom God has called unto himself to be [i:3bc1b866e5]His People[/i:3bc1b866e5] must be redeemed from all sin. This is evident because sinners can only gain entrance into the holiness of God if their sins have been wiped away... hence everyone whom approaches God must have their sins dealt with and hence circumcision singles them out as those who must have their sins dealt with (i.e. as those who are Covenant breakers). Christians that have been covered by the "greater" circumcision done without hands on the cross spoken about in Col 2:11-13 have had their sins dealt with because Christ paid the penalty for Covenant breakers. Christ curcumcison is greater in every respect than that circumcision in the flesh which could only symbolize this type of cleansing. Hence circumcision speaks of how all sinners are covenant breakers and must pay the penalty for sin before they can serve God. Hence "circumcision of the heart" does not speak or need to work in the person [i:3bc1b866e5] subjective faith [/i:3bc1b866e5] but it testifies to the just punishment of this child and calls upon God to punish this child in his justice... praise God somebody took our punishment upon himself for us. (Kline's arguments for this thesis are very compelling and worthy of examination if you have not already read his works on this subject)
The reason I do not accept Romans 4 as a verse to support that circumcision only works by faith is because Romans 4 teaches the opposite it teaches that Abraham had been justified by faith before he was circumcised and that the given of circumcision sealed and was sign that Abraham already justified by faith apart from works of the law- hence Paul presupposes that "circumcision" was not given to Abraham's physical children because of their personal faith. Hence this verse is not a proof text that circumcision only works by faith... in fact its administration to male infants and male unbelieving servant rules against the interpretation that circumcision required faith.
Finally how do I know that infants born of Christian parents do not have faith? Well Scripture speaks of infants as those without understanding and those who do not yet know right from wrong and Scriptures word is good enough for me... I admit that Scripture is speaking normatively when says that infants are without understanding and so there can be exceptions like John the Baptist... but again I will baptize any infant that has the "faith" required for baptism but as a rule this is not the case with every infant born of Christian parents.
God's word must be kept supreme over baptism and God's word can only be appreciated when faith is present... hence only if faith is present in baptism will God's word be kept supreme over baptism.
Tyler
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Tertullian]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:7b87b249b7]
Finally how do I know that infants born of Christian parents do not have faith? Well Scripture speaks of infants as those without understanding and those who do not yet know right from wrong and Scriptures word is good enough for me... I admit that Scripture is speaking normatively when says that infants are without understanding and so there can be exceptions like John the Baptist... but again I will baptize any infant that has the "faith" required for baptism but as a rule this is not the case with every infant born of Christian parents.
[/quote:7b87b249b7]
Where ? ?
Seems the opposite to me.
1Pe 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
(Note the writer here does not exempt infants from the faith, only marks them as immature.)
Heb 5:12-14
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Also, if infants have no covenantal status, why did God command the wholesale destruction of them when conquering the pagan Amalekites ? ?
1Sa 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, [b:7b87b249b7]infant and suckling[/b:7b87b249b7], ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Psa 8:2
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
Mat 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Finally how do I know that infants born of Christian parents do not have faith? Well Scripture speaks of infants as those without understanding and those who do not yet know right from wrong and Scriptures word is good enough for me... I admit that Scripture is speaking normatively when says that infants are without understanding and so there can be exceptions like John the Baptist... but again I will baptize any infant that has the "faith" required for baptism but as a rule this is not the case with every infant born of Christian parents.
[/quote:7b87b249b7]
Where ? ?
Seems the opposite to me.
1Pe 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
(Note the writer here does not exempt infants from the faith, only marks them as immature.)
Heb 5:12-14
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Also, if infants have no covenantal status, why did God command the wholesale destruction of them when conquering the pagan Amalekites ? ?
1Sa 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, [b:7b87b249b7]infant and suckling[/b:7b87b249b7], ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Psa 8:2
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
Mat 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:04c7ec3579]Where ? ?
Seems the opposite to me.[/quote:04c7ec3579]
"I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot Or your brides when they commit adultery, For {the men} themselves go apart with harlots And offer sacrifices with temple prostitutes; So the people [i:04c7ec3579]without understanding[/i:04c7ec3579] are ruined." (Ho 4:14)
Note this prophet's charge is that since Israel sins have hurt themselves and that they have made victims of their own children because their children will not grow up to learn righteousness but sin... so the innocent are ruined by their parents.
"He will eat curds and honey at the time [i:04c7ec3579]He knows {enough} to refuse evil and choose good[/i:04c7ec3579]. (Isa 7:15)
[quote:04c7ec3579] 1Pe 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
(Note the writer here does not exempt infants from the faith, only marks them as immature.) [/quote:04c7ec3579]
All the right says is that newborn babies like milk and I concur but does that mean that all children with Christian parents have faith... I really don't think that was Peters point in this passage.
[quote:04c7ec3579]Heb 5:12-14
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
The author of Hebrews point is that infants do not know "good and evil" but have to be taught and learn all of these things... I am in complete agreement with Hebrews and say that some infants of Christian parents are not born knowing Christ but must learn by the word of God about Christ when the gain understanding into these matters.
[quote:04c7ec3579] Also, if infants have no covenantal status, why did God command the wholesale destruction of them when conquering the pagan Amalekites ? ?
1Sa 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, [b:04c7ec3579]infant and suckling[/b:04c7ec3579], ox and sheep, camel and ass. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
Infants have covenant status they are either in Christ and saved or in Adam and damned and the Amalekites infants were killed for the same reason the Amalekites cattle was killed because of the ban of God.
[quote:04c7ec3579] Psa 8:2
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
Amen God has ordained praises from unbelieving enemies and even rocks... but does not mean that rocks have faith does it? Also the Pharisees complained to Christ because he allowed the children to continue note the Pharisees held Christ responsible because the children know not what they did.
[quote:04c7ec3579]Mat 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
Christ often used hyperbole, case in point, for Christ point was not that all infants of Christians have faith but that God has chosen the week and the foolish things over the wise and understanding... note Christ hyperbole only works if we assume that infants do not usually having understanding in these matters but again Christ is speaking figuratively and not entering into a physiological dissertation answering the question "do infants have faith." But again I do grant that some infants may have faith but that does not prove that all infants of Christian parents have faith... indeed I think I have deduced Scripture that shows that some infants of Christian parents do not have faith.
-Tyler
Seems the opposite to me.[/quote:04c7ec3579]
"I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot Or your brides when they commit adultery, For {the men} themselves go apart with harlots And offer sacrifices with temple prostitutes; So the people [i:04c7ec3579]without understanding[/i:04c7ec3579] are ruined." (Ho 4:14)
Note this prophet's charge is that since Israel sins have hurt themselves and that they have made victims of their own children because their children will not grow up to learn righteousness but sin... so the innocent are ruined by their parents.
"He will eat curds and honey at the time [i:04c7ec3579]He knows {enough} to refuse evil and choose good[/i:04c7ec3579]. (Isa 7:15)
[quote:04c7ec3579] 1Pe 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
(Note the writer here does not exempt infants from the faith, only marks them as immature.) [/quote:04c7ec3579]
All the right says is that newborn babies like milk and I concur but does that mean that all children with Christian parents have faith... I really don't think that was Peters point in this passage.
[quote:04c7ec3579]Heb 5:12-14
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
The author of Hebrews point is that infants do not know "good and evil" but have to be taught and learn all of these things... I am in complete agreement with Hebrews and say that some infants of Christian parents are not born knowing Christ but must learn by the word of God about Christ when the gain understanding into these matters.
[quote:04c7ec3579] Also, if infants have no covenantal status, why did God command the wholesale destruction of them when conquering the pagan Amalekites ? ?
1Sa 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, [b:04c7ec3579]infant and suckling[/b:04c7ec3579], ox and sheep, camel and ass. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
Infants have covenant status they are either in Christ and saved or in Adam and damned and the Amalekites infants were killed for the same reason the Amalekites cattle was killed because of the ban of God.
[quote:04c7ec3579] Psa 8:2
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
Amen God has ordained praises from unbelieving enemies and even rocks... but does not mean that rocks have faith does it? Also the Pharisees complained to Christ because he allowed the children to continue note the Pharisees held Christ responsible because the children know not what they did.
[quote:04c7ec3579]Mat 11:25
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. [/quote:04c7ec3579]
Christ often used hyperbole, case in point, for Christ point was not that all infants of Christians have faith but that God has chosen the week and the foolish things over the wise and understanding... note Christ hyperbole only works if we assume that infants do not usually having understanding in these matters but again Christ is speaking figuratively and not entering into a physiological dissertation answering the question "do infants have faith." But again I do grant that some infants may have faith but that does not prove that all infants of Christian parents have faith... indeed I think I have deduced Scripture that shows that some infants of Christian parents do not have faith.
-Tyler
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Christ was not using hyperbole there.
He could raise up disciples from the stones.
And I never said infants receive the punishment for their parent's sins. But they do sometimes live with the consequences. And they still bear the covenantal curses. So why not the blessings of Godly parents ? ? ?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute]
He could raise up disciples from the stones.
And I never said infants receive the punishment for their parent's sins. But they do sometimes live with the consequences. And they still bear the covenantal curses. So why not the blessings of Godly parents ? ? ?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:d85626011c][i:d85626011c]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:d85626011c]
Christ was not using hyperbole there.
He could raise up disciples from the stones. [/quote:d85626011c]
so would you baptize rocks? I am not really sure I follow your arguement.... for note we did not take Christ as speaking figuratively we would have to say that Christ taught that infants in general (not merely infants of Christians) have justifing faith... hence we ought to baptize all infants for Christ has revealed his truth to babes... but this hardly seems to be Christ point... Christ is simply trying to draw emphasis to the fact that the father's will and not the abilites of men is what regenerates people.
[quote:d85626011c]And I never said infants receive the punishment for their parent's sins. But they do sometimes live with the consequences. And they still bear the covenantal curses. So why not the blessings of Godly parents ? ? ?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:d85626011c]
Of course they share the blessings... that has never been indespute... but remember female infants under the Old Covenant did not get circumcised but that does not mean that God did not bless them as much as the males... also Christian children will be baptized when they have the faith to enjoy it... all Reformed Baptist are advocating is patiences for baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present.
Tyler
Christ was not using hyperbole there.
He could raise up disciples from the stones. [/quote:d85626011c]
so would you baptize rocks? I am not really sure I follow your arguement.... for note we did not take Christ as speaking figuratively we would have to say that Christ taught that infants in general (not merely infants of Christians) have justifing faith... hence we ought to baptize all infants for Christ has revealed his truth to babes... but this hardly seems to be Christ point... Christ is simply trying to draw emphasis to the fact that the father's will and not the abilites of men is what regenerates people.
[quote:d85626011c]And I never said infants receive the punishment for their parent's sins. But they do sometimes live with the consequences. And they still bear the covenantal curses. So why not the blessings of Godly parents ? ? ?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute] [/quote:d85626011c]
Of course they share the blessings... that has never been indespute... but remember female infants under the Old Covenant did not get circumcised but that does not mean that God did not bless them as much as the males... also Christian children will be baptized when they have the faith to enjoy it... all Reformed Baptist are advocating is patiences for baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present.
Tyler
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Nepios can mean immature, feeble-minded or infant.
The context is the gift of repentance, and the testimony of His miraculous signs.
How can you say that is not literal ? ? And how can you imply it means all infants ? ? We know he is speaking of the elect because of the verb "revealed".
[quote:371d25d024]
Of course they share the blessings... that has never been indespute... but remember female infants under the Old Covenant did not get circumcised but that does not mean that God did not bless them as much as the males... also Christian children will be baptized when they have the faith to enjoy it... all Reformed Baptist are advocating is patiences for baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present.
[/quote:371d25d024]
I would like to see the scripture that says, "baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present", I Peter is not saying that. It does not add your conditional "if".
The "appeal" to God can just as easily be applied to the parent bringing their child for baptism.
And, you are asserting arminian pragmatism by waiting for a testimony.
Instead of believeing the promise of God, you rely upon the vain and fickle testimony of man.
You say "Reformed Baptists ar advocating patience".
Patience for what ? ?? I see nothing but [b:371d25d024]urgency[/b:371d25d024] for little infants to be baptised into the Church.
Where is the woe or curse tied to baptizing an infant, or anyone for that matter, that does not have the gift of faith?
Bottom line is, you do not BELIEVE when God says he will be the God of your children, and that His Spirit is upon them, and His word shall not depart from them.
Belief is acted out in the ritual of water baptism. It is not presumption of any kind. It is FAITH.
The context is the gift of repentance, and the testimony of His miraculous signs.
How can you say that is not literal ? ? And how can you imply it means all infants ? ? We know he is speaking of the elect because of the verb "revealed".
[quote:371d25d024]
Of course they share the blessings... that has never been indespute... but remember female infants under the Old Covenant did not get circumcised but that does not mean that God did not bless them as much as the males... also Christian children will be baptized when they have the faith to enjoy it... all Reformed Baptist are advocating is patiences for baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present.
[/quote:371d25d024]
I would like to see the scripture that says, "baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present", I Peter is not saying that. It does not add your conditional "if".
The "appeal" to God can just as easily be applied to the parent bringing their child for baptism.
And, you are asserting arminian pragmatism by waiting for a testimony.
Instead of believeing the promise of God, you rely upon the vain and fickle testimony of man.
You say "Reformed Baptists ar advocating patience".
Patience for what ? ?? I see nothing but [b:371d25d024]urgency[/b:371d25d024] for little infants to be baptised into the Church.
Where is the woe or curse tied to baptizing an infant, or anyone for that matter, that does not have the gift of faith?
Bottom line is, you do not BELIEVE when God says he will be the God of your children, and that His Spirit is upon them, and His word shall not depart from them.
Belief is acted out in the ritual of water baptism. It is not presumption of any kind. It is FAITH.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:1e4bb94093][i:1e4bb94093]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:1e4bb94093]
Of course they share the blessings... that has never been indespute... but remember female infants under the Old Covenant did not get circumcised but that does not mean that God did not bless them as much as the males... also Christian children will be baptized when they have the faith to enjoy it... all Reformed Baptist are advocating is patiences for baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present.
Tyler [/quote:1e4bb94093]
So let's test your assumptions. If an adult professes faith and is baptized, you say that baptism through faith cleanses his conscience. So lets say this man's profession was not genuine. And he discovers this years later after he was baptized and comes to true faith. Does his baptism still cleanse his conscience now that he has the faith years later? Or must he be rebaptised to have his conscience cleansed?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor]
Of course they share the blessings... that has never been indespute... but remember female infants under the Old Covenant did not get circumcised but that does not mean that God did not bless them as much as the males... also Christian children will be baptized when they have the faith to enjoy it... all Reformed Baptist are advocating is patiences for baptism can only give a clean consience if faith is present.
Tyler [/quote:1e4bb94093]
So let's test your assumptions. If an adult professes faith and is baptized, you say that baptism through faith cleanses his conscience. So lets say this man's profession was not genuine. And he discovers this years later after he was baptized and comes to true faith. Does his baptism still cleanse his conscience now that he has the faith years later? Or must he be rebaptised to have his conscience cleansed?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
And furthermore, those born in the household of faith are his servants (Ex. 21).
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, [b:3af1c3da98]whom thou hast borne unto me[/b:3af1c3da98], and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. [Is this] of thy whoredoms a small matter,
Eze 16:21 That thou hast slain [b:3af1c3da98]my children[/b:3af1c3da98], and delivered them to cause them to pass through [the fire] for them?
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
David understood this and appeals to his covenant status received from his mother:
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Psa 116:16
O LORD, truly I [am] thy servant; I [am] thy servant, [and] [b:3af1c3da98]the son of thine handmaid: [/b:3af1c3da98] thou hast loosed my bonds.
(cf. Ex. 21)
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
He believes he is entitled to the LORD's protection:
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Psa 86:16
O turn unto me, and have mercy upon me; give thy strength unto thy servant, and save [b:3af1c3da98]the son of thine handmaid. [/b:3af1c3da98]
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
The handmade is his Earthly Mother, and Israel/The Church.
David alludes to the law of the servant elsewhere:
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Psa 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
[b:3af1c3da98]mine ears hast thou opened;[/b:3af1c3da98] or "dug", or "bored" (m); in allusion, as is thought by many, to Exo_21:6; though the phrase rather signifies the formation and excavation of the ear; or the preparing and fitting it for its use; that is, to hearken to the will of his heavenly Father, to become man, offer himself a sacrifice, and suffer and die in the room of his people; to which he became obedient, taking upon him the form of a servant, when found in fashion as a man; and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; see Isa_50:4; in Heb_10:5, the words are rendered as by the Septuagint, "but a body hast thou prepared me"; and with it the Arabic and Ethiopic versions agree; and so Apollinarius,
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
Seeing himself the Son of God's handmaid, and the servant of the LORD, in lifelong bondage to Him. Ergo, the children born to the Lord's slaves are the Lord's posession.
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Gen 17:27
[b:3af1c3da98]And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. [/b:3af1c3da98]
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute]
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, [b:3af1c3da98]whom thou hast borne unto me[/b:3af1c3da98], and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. [Is this] of thy whoredoms a small matter,
Eze 16:21 That thou hast slain [b:3af1c3da98]my children[/b:3af1c3da98], and delivered them to cause them to pass through [the fire] for them?
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
David understood this and appeals to his covenant status received from his mother:
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Psa 116:16
O LORD, truly I [am] thy servant; I [am] thy servant, [and] [b:3af1c3da98]the son of thine handmaid: [/b:3af1c3da98] thou hast loosed my bonds.
(cf. Ex. 21)
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
He believes he is entitled to the LORD's protection:
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Psa 86:16
O turn unto me, and have mercy upon me; give thy strength unto thy servant, and save [b:3af1c3da98]the son of thine handmaid. [/b:3af1c3da98]
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
The handmade is his Earthly Mother, and Israel/The Church.
David alludes to the law of the servant elsewhere:
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Psa 40:6
Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
[b:3af1c3da98]mine ears hast thou opened;[/b:3af1c3da98] or "dug", or "bored" (m); in allusion, as is thought by many, to Exo_21:6; though the phrase rather signifies the formation and excavation of the ear; or the preparing and fitting it for its use; that is, to hearken to the will of his heavenly Father, to become man, offer himself a sacrifice, and suffer and die in the room of his people; to which he became obedient, taking upon him the form of a servant, when found in fashion as a man; and was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; see Isa_50:4; in Heb_10:5, the words are rendered as by the Septuagint, "but a body hast thou prepared me"; and with it the Arabic and Ethiopic versions agree; and so Apollinarius,
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
Seeing himself the Son of God's handmaid, and the servant of the LORD, in lifelong bondage to Him. Ergo, the children born to the Lord's slaves are the Lord's posession.
[quote:3af1c3da98]
Gen 17:27
[b:3af1c3da98]And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. [/b:3af1c3da98]
[/quote:3af1c3da98]
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Wintermute,
Who are the true children of Abaraham?
Who are the true children of Abaraham?
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
[quote:65c6cd63f9]
Who are the true children of Abraham?
[/quote:65c6cd63f9]
Believers and their seed.
Act 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute]
Who are the true children of Abraham?
[/quote:65c6cd63f9]
Believers and their seed.
Act 2:39
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Wintermute]
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
Paul,
Faith is needed in baptism for without faith a person gains no clear conscience but has just been made wet or worse... circumcision did not need faith to work for circumcision symbolized the cleansing that all those who draw close to God must undergo (Christ went through that cleansing for us)... hence faith is a requirement for one and not for the other for we have been circumcised in Christ by his cross and our baptism now confirms that we no longer need to be cleansed.
-Tyler
Faith is needed in baptism for without faith a person gains no clear conscience but has just been made wet or worse... circumcision did not need faith to work for circumcision symbolized the cleansing that all those who draw close to God must undergo (Christ went through that cleansing for us)... hence faith is a requirement for one and not for the other for we have been circumcised in Christ by his cross and our baptism now confirms that we no longer need to be cleansed.
-Tyler
Tertullian
Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:1385c67f00][i:1385c67f00]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:1385c67f00]
So let's test your assumptions. If an adult professes faith and is baptized, you say that baptism through faith cleanses his conscience. So lets say this man's profession was not genuine. And he discovers this years later after he was baptized and comes to true faith. Does his baptism still cleanse his conscience now that he has the faith years later? Or must he be rebaptised to have his conscience cleansed?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:1385c67f00]
That would be an interesting challenge but just because there is a dawn does not mean that there is no day or night... all I know is Scripture says that faith is essential for the sacraments. So I guess my answer would be that he was baptized in two halfs... first he got the water then he got the faith... and I would leave it to his conscience to decide if he should be baptized but I am not dogmatic about that answer.
-Tyler
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Tertullian]
So let's test your assumptions. If an adult professes faith and is baptized, you say that baptism through faith cleanses his conscience. So lets say this man's profession was not genuine. And he discovers this years later after he was baptized and comes to true faith. Does his baptism still cleanse his conscience now that he has the faith years later? Or must he be rebaptised to have his conscience cleansed?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:1385c67f00]
That would be an interesting challenge but just because there is a dawn does not mean that there is no day or night... all I know is Scripture says that faith is essential for the sacraments. So I guess my answer would be that he was baptized in two halfs... first he got the water then he got the faith... and I would leave it to his conscience to decide if he should be baptized but I am not dogmatic about that answer.
-Tyler
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by Tertullian]
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
[quote:062eb81d46][i:062eb81d46]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:062eb81d46]
[quote:062eb81d46][i:062eb81d46]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:062eb81d46]
So let's test your assumptions. If an adult professes faith and is baptized, you say that baptism through faith cleanses his conscience. So lets say this man's profession was not genuine. And he discovers this years later after he was baptized and comes to true faith. Does his baptism still cleanse his conscience now that he has the faith years later? Or must he be rebaptised to have his conscience cleansed?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:062eb81d46]
That would be an interesting challenge but just because there is a dawn does not mean that there is no day or night... all I know is Scripture says that faith is essential for the sacraments. So I guess my answer would be that he was baptized in two halfs... first he got the water then he got the faith... and I would leave it to his conscience to decide if he should be baptized but I am not dogmatic about that answer.
-Tyler
[/quote:062eb81d46]
So you would not tie the efficacy of the sacrament to the time of it's administration then, correct?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor]
[quote:062eb81d46][i:062eb81d46]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:062eb81d46]
So let's test your assumptions. If an adult professes faith and is baptized, you say that baptism through faith cleanses his conscience. So lets say this man's profession was not genuine. And he discovers this years later after he was baptized and comes to true faith. Does his baptism still cleanse his conscience now that he has the faith years later? Or must he be rebaptised to have his conscience cleansed?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:062eb81d46]
That would be an interesting challenge but just because there is a dawn does not mean that there is no day or night... all I know is Scripture says that faith is essential for the sacraments. So I guess my answer would be that he was baptized in two halfs... first he got the water then he got the faith... and I would leave it to his conscience to decide if he should be baptized but I am not dogmatic about that answer.
-Tyler
[/quote:062eb81d46]
So you would not tie the efficacy of the sacrament to the time of it's administration then, correct?
[Edited on 4-27-2004 by puritansailor]
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Infant baptism points to the Covenant God who show mercy in his majesty toward the children of his children and who does not just gives them over to destruction. The LORD remembers his covenant forever. It finds its security in him. It is originated by him. There is hope, not in the feeble faith of the parents, but in the promising God.
[quote:a4b3ca4ada]
Exodus 20:5,6
I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
[b:a4b3ca4ada] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments[/b:a4b3ca4ada].
[/quote:a4b3ca4ada]
The Credo cannot answer this or the following proofs:
• The New Covenant is richer than the Old one and therefore definitely knows all covenantal privileges. That need not be confirmed in the New Testament for it to be valid.
• The idea of community in Scriptures, such as expressed e.g. in the verses about 'households'.
• The data in Scripture that show that children are not a foreign element in a Christian family: 1 Cor. 7:14, Eph. 6:1, 4, Col. 3:20, 2 John 1:1.
[quote:a4b3ca4ada]
Exodus 20:5,6
I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
[b:a4b3ca4ada] And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments[/b:a4b3ca4ada].
[/quote:a4b3ca4ada]
The Credo cannot answer this or the following proofs:
• The New Covenant is richer than the Old one and therefore definitely knows all covenantal privileges. That need not be confirmed in the New Testament for it to be valid.
• The idea of community in Scriptures, such as expressed e.g. in the verses about 'households'.
• The data in Scripture that show that children are not a foreign element in a Christian family: 1 Cor. 7:14, Eph. 6:1, 4, Col. 3:20, 2 John 1:1.
[quote:77256f6a65]The Credo cannot answer this or the following proofs[/quote:77256f6a65]
There is a difference between not having and answer and providing and answer that is not listened to or even acknowledged.
You really believe that Baptists have no answer at all for these things?
Sad if you do.
Why don't we give this debate a rest for a while. Okay?
Phillip
There is a difference between not having and answer and providing and answer that is not listened to or even acknowledged.
You really believe that Baptists have no answer at all for these things?
Sad if you do.
Why don't we give this debate a rest for a while. Okay?
Phillip
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
For the sake of conscience...........
Click; Lights out.
Click; Lights out.
- Status