Fessing Up...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by pastorway

See? Infant baptism must be derived from a systematic theology and inserted into the text. We throw Sola Scriptura out the window when we say that the Bible teaches us to baptize our children.

Phillip
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it's wrong to use systematic theology when studying the scriptures? (Just curious as I will admit to being new and ignorant in these terms and ideas)
 
There is a bit of irony in this from the "believers only" who are Calvinistic side. If an Armenian asks us, "If all that are saved are elect only, then why do you evagelize?" The answer is always, "Because we don't know who the elect are." But if asked, "Why do you baptize professers only", the answer is, "Because only the elect receive baptism."

On another note. The minute I learn my ABC's in order to read the bible, I've began systematizing my thoughts. Then on to the English language, etc...Systematizing anything is just a matter of building upon knowlege before hand and analyzing/re-analyzing older knowledge for clarity.



[Edited on 1-7-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
I remember reading Piper on this passage and he said that what is equated in this passage is the "circumcision made without hands" and baptism. Since only those who are regenerate receive the "circumcision made without hands" so also only the regenerate should receive baptism.
Click to expand...

....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
 
sa 44:2 Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen.
Isa 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.
Isa 44:4 They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams.
 
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
There is a bit of irony in this from the "believers only" who are Calvinistic side. If an Armenian asks us, "If all that are saved are elect only, then why do you evagelize?" The answer is always, "Because we don't know who the elect are." But if asked, "Why do you baptize professers only", the answer is, "Because only the elect receive baptism."
Click to expand...

:up:

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
On another note. The minute I learn my ABC's in order to read the bible, I've began systematizing my thoughts. Then on to the English language, etc...Systematizing anything is just a matter of building upon knowlege before hand and analyzing/re-analyzing older knowledge for clarity.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
Larry Hughes,
I'm glad that I went back and skimmed through the thread. I missed your post initially somehow and it looks like you've asked some really good questions.

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Second, if it were hypothetically possible and I had heard Peter's sermon and ever before ever having joined any denomination to skew my thinking in any direction - before I understood one iota of doctrine - a pure ignorant irreligious no background Gentile - if I heard Peter say "and the promise is to you and your children and to all those who are far off..." My immediate reaction would have been to have myself and family baptized. At least until Peter or somebody stopped me and said, "You can't have your baby baptized because...we meant spiritual children and so forth". If that would be the understanding for an ignorant formerly irreligious Gentile for which I can best honestly answer, then how much more would a Jew having a tremendously strong covenant/covenant sign upbringing/teaching?
Click to expand...
If I were in your hypothetical character's shoes, I might have reacted a little bit differently. Since my thinking hadn't yet been skewed in any theological direction, I wouldn't automatically think that all the family should be baptized. After Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you" and the Holy Spirit had pricked my heart, I would have probably spoken to the rest of the family and encouraged them to repent and be baptized. If there was an infant in the family, I would probably have asked Peter, "What about baby Bob here. He's too young to repent?" If Peter was a good baptist, he'd tell me to wait until the baby's old enough to repent and believe. If he was a Presbyterian, he'd tell me to hand him the baby.

I've gotta go catch a train home from work. I'll try and give your other questions some thought and respond later.

Nice questions,
Bob
 
Originally posted by Dan....
....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
Click to expand...

Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
 
Originally posted by daveb
Originally posted by Dan....
....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
Click to expand...

Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
Click to expand...

Exactly - and thus it is inevitably presumption that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?
 
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Originally posted by daveb
Originally posted by Dan....
....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?
Click to expand...

Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
Click to expand...

Exactly - and thus it is inevitably presumption that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?
Click to expand...

God's promises are more reliable than man's profession to be sure. If I'm going to trust anything it's the promises of God.

Those who were not baptized as infants must be baptized under a profession of faith, we see this as good enough evidence in this scenario.

Can you tell I'm running out of arguments? :bigsmile:

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by daveb]
 
Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.
Click to expand...



Exactly - and thus it is inevitably presumption that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris.

Double exactly.

Then how can timing be essential to baptism whereby men´s consciences are bound to a timing (true and real regeneration), whereby they may have no idea whether they "œgot it right or not". One tells a man, he must X otherwise he is being disobedient and if disobedient to God thus committing sin - which is manifestly binding his conscience. Most of the time this is done very softly and implicitly rather than harshly saying it just as I´ve stated. But people can put two and two together. To continue, he may not be able to discern this and a second baptism if it IS indeed a second baptism even by "œbelievers only" standards would be a sin (because it is claimed we do not re-baptize, at least the more conservative Baptist. My wife grew up around groups that dunked every time the weather changed). Telling a man he must do something yet not explaining how he is to go about doing it can only drive to despair or wrath, causing further sin.

It seems if it is by presumption then the whole process is conceded. That is why the issue never began about infants for myself (I didn´t even have children then, nor was married).

In one sense it is a very practical pastoral issue.

And are not the promises of God to both adult hearers and their children to engender faith and trust or in the strictest sense the occasion whereby faith may occur whenever it may occur - even the recollection from memory of such? Isn´t that the point of Gospel promise to engender faith and not unbelief.

Blessings Always,

Larry

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Quote:
Originally posted by daveb
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan....
....how can we know who is regenerate? Who's to say that my infant daughter isn't regenerate?


Ultimately we cannot know who is regenerate. People may profess that they are Christians but that's no guarantee they are of the elect.


Exactly - and thus it is inevitably presumption that guides the baptism of anyone, infant or professing adult. And are not God's promises to spiritually bless and favor the children of believers at least as reliable a ground on which to presume as is man's own profession to believe?


God's promises are more reliable than man's profession to be sure. If I'm going to trust anything it's the promises of God.

Those who were not baptized as infants must be baptized under a profession of faith, we see this as good enough evidence in this scenario.

Can you tell I'm running out of arguments?

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by daveb]
Click to expand...

Close..

Only, I would add that it is not only the infant children, but all the children who are in the household that must be baptized. A 14 year old should be baptized if one or more of his/her parents are professing believers. The household baptisms of the New Testament and that the Old Testament saint were to circumcise all males (regardless of their age, hence Ishmael) in their households both evidence this.
 
if we are going to baptize the children we should also baptize the adults - even if they are not saved and have not made a profession - 1 Cor 7:14 - "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife...."

Also, I do not discount systematic theology, but to hold to a systematic that requires you to insert things in the Scriptures that are not there is dangerous.

And we must admit that all of our children are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. They all need to hear the gospel. Think about Nicodemus - if we could rpesume anyone in Israel was regenerate, would it not be him? But Jesus told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the kingdom of heaven. Just because we are saved does not mean that we assume our children are also - not until they show fruit, repent, and believe. Otherwise there is no need to preach to them the gospel and they will grow up with a deadly false assurance.

All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.

Phillip :banghead:
 
I've mentioned this before but I'm somewhere in between the two camps. I do believe children should be baptized but I don't believe that it is a "seal" like the confession states. I believe that adult converts need to be baptized and also that the children of believing parents (or one believing parent) should be baptized. Children of believers are "set apart" in the sense that they are in a christian home where they will hear the gospel. That doesn't mean they are "sealed." If someone is "sealed" in the biblical sense then they are regenerate.

I believe that believing parents are to put the sign of baptism on their children in hopes that their sins will be "washed" away. A sign OF the seal, not a sign AND a seal.

This puts me in the middle somewhere. I disagree with both sides somewhat. I've asked before and I'll ask again: What am I?
 
Phillip writes:
All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.
Click to expand...

Phillip,
How do you come to the conclusion that we do not preach the gospel to our children just because we place the sign on them? Again I say, regeneration is not conversion and conversion is not regeneration....our rearing of our children comprises all the components of Gods gospel. Conversion requires Gods message proclaimed; either way you look at it.

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by pastorway
if we are going to baptize the children we should also baptize the adults - even if they are not saved and have not made a profession - 1 Cor 7:14 - "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife...."

Also, I do not discount systematic theology, but to hold to a systematic that requires you to insert things in the Scriptures that are not there is dangerous.

And we must admit that all of our children are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. They all need to hear the gospel. Think about Nicodemus - if we could rpesume anyone in Israel was regenerate, would it not be him? But Jesus told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the kingdom of heaven. Just because we are saved does not mean that we assume our children are also - not until they show fruit, repent, and believe. Otherwise there is no need to preach to them the gospel and they will grow up with a deadly false assurance.

All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.

Phillip :banghead:
Click to expand...

But just as one side is asserting (inserting) that infants are to be baptized, are you not also asserting (inserting) that infants are not to be baptized?
 
Originally posted by Scot
I've mentioned this before but I'm somewhere in between the two camps. I do believe children should be baptized but I don't believe that it is a "seal" like the confession states. I believe that adult converts need to be baptized and also that the children of believing parents (or one believing parent) should be baptized. Children of believers are "set apart" in the sense that they are in a christian home where they will hear the gospel. That doesn't mean they are "sealed." If someone is "sealed" in the biblical sense then they are regenerate.

I believe that believing parents are to put the sign of baptism on their children in hopes that their sins will be "washed" away. A sign OF the seal, not a sign AND a seal.

This puts me in the middle somewhere. I disagree with both sides somewhat. I've asked before and I'll ask again: What am I?
Click to expand...

Scot, I personally am right where you are at!
 
Originally posted by Paul manata
Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Originally posted by pastorway
if we are going to baptize the children we should also baptize the adults - even if they are not saved and have not made a profession - 1 Cor 7:14 - "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife...."

Also, I do not discount systematic theology, but to hold to a systematic that requires you to insert things in the Scriptures that are not there is dangerous.

And we must admit that all of our children are conceived in iniquity and born in sin. They all need to hear the gospel. Think about Nicodemus - if we could rpesume anyone in Israel was regenerate, would it not be him? But Jesus told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the kingdom of heaven. Just because we are saved does not mean that we assume our children are also - not until they show fruit, repent, and believe. Otherwise there is no need to preach to them the gospel and they will grow up with a deadly false assurance.

All children are born totally depraved. Pray for their souls and preach to them the gospel.

Phillip :banghead:
Click to expand...

But just as one side is asserting (inserting) that infants are to be baptized, are you not also asserting (inserting) that infants are not to be baptized?
Click to expand...

No, you see, we can only do what the Bible expressly tells us (positive command) since baptism is a new covenant positive institution. So, to baptise children we need a command to.


(pssst, don't ask me about giving women the Lord's supper because then I'll have to draw inferences like those silly presbyterians.)
Click to expand...

okay, then from the household baptism view, couldn't that be considered leaving out what is commanded (therein lies the arguement)

as far as that last part goes (and I know your Italian ego is going to love this) I haven't a clue what you are speaking of.
 
I'm sorry if I am butting in where I am not wanted. What ever happened to examining a person by their profession.

I do admit to seeing and instance of a child being born regenerate in the life of John the Baptist. Get it. He was a Baptist. I bet he was baptized by pouring. Anyways we are to look at a persons profession of faith. Remember the Romans 10 passage. Confession is part of this.

because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justfied, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Romans 10:9&10

Confession seems to play some part of this. Children in the Mosaic Covenant were not necesarily members in Christ. They were circumcised to be members of nationalistic Isreal. Children of the New Covenant are suppose to be members of a nation also. But in order to be a part of this nation we have to be regenerate converts.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possesion, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people... 1Peter 2:9,10a

And the passage in Ephesians 2:12,13
 
Randy,
You have given many verses that could be shown, perhaps, to preclude paedocommunion. They do not touch infant baptism. Do you see baptism as my testimony to the world or God's testimony that he is a Covenant-keeping God faithful to his promises.
 
My point exactly. Infant baptism isn't biblical because their is no confession of faith. The only babes to be Baptized are those confessing Christ. I think Paul does refer to young immature Christians as being babes. We can discern babes in Christ by their confession. I didn't see a rebuttal of Pastor Ways argument of household. I would like for Scott to respond instead of just pulling on Calvins name and neglecting the argument. I'm not trying to be disrespectful Scott. I just believe you brushed off his scriptural argument that came from MacArthur. I am not a big MacArthur fan either but I would like to hear what you have to say.
 
I still don't get this. Was I saved JUST BECAUSE my parents were Christian? Did God positively promise to save all the children of believers? If not, then WHAT covenant promise is baptism the sign of? Someone will probably quote the WCF at this point which is fine, but I've read those quotes and I still don't know what God promised to do for believers' children. I don't think He guaranteed that they would all be regenerated, so why do we baptise them?
BTW; I was baptised twice before becoming a believer, then when I did get saved, being a Baptist at the time, I got re-baptised.
 
I believe the debate comes down to:

Since we know that Baptism has no role in salvation then...

Is baptism for those that have confessed first and only

or

Is it ALSO for those that are within the household where the head is a believer

and do these two items equate with...
a sign of ourselves or a sign of the Lord
 
Originally posted by turmeric
I still don't get this. Was I saved JUST BECAUSE my parents were Christian? Did God positively promise to save all the children of believers? If not, then WHAT covenant promise is baptism the sign of? Someone will probably quote the WCF at this point which is fine, but I've read those quotes and I still don't know what God promised to do for believers' children. I don't think He guaranteed that they would all be regenerated, so why do we baptise them?
BTW; I was baptised twice before becoming a believer, then when I did get saved, being a Baptist at the time, I got re-baptised.
Click to expand...

I think the doctrine is called unconditional election. Not because he saw anything in us or our Parents. Maybe based upon some promises to our parents. Being a parent I am hopeful that God does promise to save my babies. I don't want to go with out them. But the doctrine is called unconditional.
 
PuritanCovenater said:

I do admit to seeing an instance of a child being born regenerate in the life of John the Baptist. Get it. He was a Baptist. I bet he was baptized by pouring.

Wouldn't John the Baptizer be more correct? And I'll bet he was circumsized, not baptized (as an infant). But, since I am opposed to gambling . . .
 
What ever happened to examining a person by their profession.
Click to expand...

Depends. What is meant by "examine"? How elaborate, what language because they may not speak "church language" especially the more pure never churched, to what extent, how much time for fruit, what fruits specifically, how does one discern false fruit since we are all very capable masters of hypocrisy, by whose infallible ability to discern?

AND all of this assumes elders exist at all in your church, which in the SB community and about 99% of the other "believers only" churches by-in-large is not the facts. And how will one see the heart of a professor by this anyway? And how much examination was given to Simon Magnus? Or for that matter in Acts where do we see any examination? The E. Eunice seemed to be pretty quick, "here is water what prevents me...". No elaborate disertation defense or board examination.

That is the danger, the examination tends to grow from mere profession to a man made scheme, depending upon the church by-laws, all in a vain attempt to "guarantee regeneration" before baptism.

Simple profession by an adult seems necessary for obvious reasons but beyond that? Our own by-laws state that the elder should be assured of regeneration. How? How does an elder today do what an Apostle could not do and Scripture very plainly says no man can do?

I had a family member who is an other wise sound pastor tell me on a number of occassions that he wouldn't baptize a particular person who asked because he didn't feel or think they were 'saved yet' (meaning born again). Awful, just plain awful.

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Larry Hughes]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top