Fessing Up...

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
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

I do believe it is an important thing to be baptized. As circumcision was administered to show you were a member of the covenant and a part of the nation Isreal, I believe a persons confession should lead to baptism and thus being admitted into God's New Covenant Holy nation..(The visible Church)

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Paul Manata said
Adults have ALWAYS had to profess faith. Were you under the impression that Abraham ran around like a wide-eyed maniac, tying down those adults who did not want to be part of Israel on a slab of rock, and then removing foreskin with a knife laughing under the pale light of a full moon?

Now that would make a cool movie.

You know I am not saying that. I am only saying that the New Covenant seems to only include those whom the Lord knows are his. The sign of baptism has implications of being placed into Christ. Unbelievers are not in Christ.

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes

What ever happened to examining a person by their profession.

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]

What does Romans 10:9,10 say. I am not capable of judging the heart but I am capable of listening. Every Pastor is considered an Elder. So the SBC does have someone to examine a persons confession. The Deacons are also considered to be someone of reputations most of the time. But we all know that there is no perfect church so we just try and do what the scriptures say. The old saying let's just kill'em all and let God sort em out seems appropriate sometimes.

I admit this is a hard subject to discern. I have looked at this for years and still have problems. It would be much easier for me to just cave and fully accept Paedo baptism but my conscience being bound by scripture just won't allow me to do that. I am not saying your consciences are not bound to scripture if you are a paedo baptist. I am saying mine doesn't accept your premises based upon what I understand the scriptures to say. I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last. If the subject was so clear everyone would agree. I do not think it is as clear as some think it is.

My only contention is that I believe that the New Covenant member is regenerate according to the Scriptures. The only way of seeing that on this side is by their confession. We do our Best and let God sort out the rest.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Good Night. It is almost 2:00 a.m. Yes this is a shameless way to get another post.

 

[Dan....]

I still don't get this. Was I saved JUST BECAUSE my parents were Christian?

We were not chosen to salvation because our parents were Christians (John 1:13, "not of blood"). We are saved because God chose us in Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will (Eph 1).

However, God not only ordained that His chosen would be saved, He also ordained the means leading to their conversion. The Christian home is one of those means. God is a God of generations (Gen 17:7).

Did God positively promise to save all the children of believers?

No. He promised to be a God to them. Covenantally, He is a God to them. Just as He was the covenant God of the nation of Israel (to both the elect and the non-elect), so He is the covenant God of the church. The church (those who profess the true religion and their children, WCF XXVII:2), as was Israel, is a mixed multitude. Just as unbelieving Israelites were cut off from the people of God with Whom they were in covenant, so unbelieving church members are cut off from the people of God with Whom they are in covenant.

If not, then WHAT covenant promise is baptism the sign of?
Someone will probably quote the WCF at this point which is fine,

WCF XXVIII:1 - Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

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?

We baptize them because they are in covenant with God; they are included as members of the New Testament Church. We place on them the outward sign of that covenant relationship.

We do not know who is regenerate and who is not, but we do know who are visibly included in His covenant community -and such are the ones who the church ought to baptize.

The promises of the covenant give us hope. God is a faithful God. He does work among the generations of those who love and obey Him.

 

[Scott Bushey]

~Preaching to the choir......

1) For all that has been said above in regards to the "profession". Profession is what a believer does; it is a *James* thing. It is NOT a requirement for salvation; it is proof of it. (And even in that profession, there will be false professors) The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account. Paul is telling the Romans that by their faith, they WILL 'confess'.......

2) Discipleship = Baptism

3) *Baptism does not equal regeneration (necessarily)

*There are many examples in scripture where disciples fell away. The admonition in the book of Hebrews in reference to 'falling away' is to visible church members who have obviously been baptised



[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Mark,
Don't make me have to take you outside and give you a bleesing like you'll never forget pal!

I don't think I want a.......bleesing.......

Thats it; go to your room. Do a report on the book of numbers and the Geneology in Matthew chapter 1 or no soup for you!

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account.

Excellent point, something that is often missed.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by Scott Bushey The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account.

Excellent point, something that is often missed.

It may not be an account of someones salvation but it surely explains it, unless you want to look a Jacobs election. It is partially explained.

 

[Larry Hughes]

What does Romans 10:9,10 say. I am not capable of judging the heart but I am capable of listening. Every Pastor is considered an Elder. So the SBC does have someone to examine a persons confession. The Deacons are also considered to be someone of reputations most of the time.

v.9, "œthat if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; v.10, for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."

It is a proclamation of the Gospel (Good News) to the readers (the church) for the hearers/readers not instructions for the elders or deacons.

Please don´t here me wrong, I´m not saying baptize adults without any profession. And I realize that every Pastor (if he is not forsaken his call or was actually called) is considered an Elder. As for Deacons in the SB community, yes strictly speaking "˜as they should be´, but most of the deacons I´ve encountered (how do I say this kindly)"¦are really not too scripturally established or balanced and theology/doctrine would not be their cup of tea. Great, dear and nice men who would help in a pinch do anything, but doctrine? At least this is the pervasive case in this part of the south, I cannot speak for other areas. E.g. we (a previous church) had a deacon go on a mission trip to Utah, he came back with the conclusion that the Mormons are just like us.

I am not capable of judging the heart but I am capable of listening.

Doesn´t this then concede the point of guaranteeing in this life that baptism cannot be issued based upon infallible knowledge. If not why not? And if so how can one say that the timing of it is ESSENTIAL? Because that is what one is commanding to be done. One cannot achieve the strict command one is issuing, thus it is conceded.

All I´m looking at is a piece of the argument as much as I can examining it from the baptisic side only. Does it hold water by its own requirements? If it doesn´t then why not? Could it be that it is fundamentally incorrect somewhere down the line?

but my conscience being bound by scripture just won't allow me to do that. I am not saying your consciences are not bound to scripture if you are a paedo baptist. I am saying mine doesn't accept your premises based upon what I understand the scriptures to say. I could be wrong.

Same here (on the fence so to speak) and I deeply respect that. I don´t think or view these discussions on either side as trying to force bind one - one way or another, but discussions of what does the bible really teach us. Which ever side one comes from. If someone is moved to a different position let it be from convinced scripture well reasoned. I don´t think ANYONE from any side that I´ve read here desires ANYTHING less than that.

Blessings In Christ Alone Always,

Larry

 

[daveb]

Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by Scott Bushey The book of Romans is an epistle; it is to the church. This is not a gospel account.

Excellent point, something that is often missed.

It may not be an account of someones salvation but it surely explains it, unless you want to look a Jacobs election. It is partially explained.

Absolutely Randy. Thats the point of this passage. Look at verse 8:

Rom 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

The Word is near to you! How near you ask; It's in your mouth and even in your heart; that is the word that saves men. The same word which we all proclaim.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

This same gospel which has saved you is not impartial. It will even save the gentile; it saved you Romans didn't it? All who call on Christ will be saved, even those not of Israel.

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Take to the gentiles and Jews that which is already in your mouth and heart, by doing so, you validate that which already resides within you; how can they hear if someone doesn't bring them the message? beautiful are ye whom are obedient to the commision.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Men cannot be saved unless they hear the preached word; be faithful to your calling!

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by daveb
Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.

Bruce dealt with that well in another thread, which I linked above - sorry for not emphasizing that link more in my overall response to Phillip. I think it is a sound argument, indeed.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by daveb
Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.

Dave, contrast this idea along side the immutability of God, what it meant in OT times in relation to circumcision, how the converts reacted according to scripture and the resultant response towards their households. There you will have it!

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The whole household had the sign placed upon them via command. Notice this wording: "must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant". EVERLASTING...IN YOUR FLESH! (In your flesh/your children)

Not to disrespect anyone, i.e. Phillip way or Macarthur, but dispensational theology has obvious fractures in that dispensationalism creates all sorts of unbiblical segmentation and in my opinion, alters Gods immutability. It creates inconsistancy in Gods economy.


[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by daveb
Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.

Bruce dealt with that well in another thread, which I linked above - sorry for not emphasizing that link more in my overall response to Phillip. I think it is a sound argument, indeed.

Thanks very much Chris, this is exactly what I was looking for.

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by daveb
Maybe I've missed it but I do not believe I have seen a response to MacArthur's take on the household baptisms that Phillip posted. I find the "all believed....all were baptized" to be a fairly good argument for the credo side. If the "believed" was associated with a singular person then the plural were baptized that would be a strong argument for the other side.

Dave, contrast this idea along side the immutability of God, what it meant in OT times in relation to circumcision, how the converts reacted according to scripture and the resultant response towards their households. There you will have it!

Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

The whole household had the sign placed upon them via command. Notice this wording: "must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant". EVERLASTING...IN YOUR FLESH! (In your flesh/your children)

Not to disrespect anyone, i.e. Phillip way or Macarthur, but dispensational theology has obvious fractures in that dispensationalism creates all sorts of unbiblical segmentation and in my opinion, alters Gods immutability. It creates inconsistancy in Gods economy.
[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Scott Bushey]

Your points here are timely and well taken.

Everyone in the household had the sign of the covenant placed upon them due to the faith of the parent and not the faith of the children. It is the duty of the parent to have the sign placed upon the child in response to passages such as Gen 17.

God's immutability is something I think I've not considered in regards to this discussion for too long. In the OT God is a God of households requiring that all in that household receive the sign of His covenant. Not all who receive circumcision were saved and those who were of the elect receive the sign before coming to faith. Even though not all who receive the sign will come to faith God still requires it placed upon them. Even Esau whom God knew would not be counted among the elect had to receive the sign.

Now it comes down to this: has God changed in the way He deals with households? We know for fact that God acted in a certain way in the OT in this regard, has He abrogated this in any way? If it cannot be proven that God in fact deals differently now than He once did then the default position must be the of the paedobaptist.

Acts 2:39

"For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."

I do not see any change.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Furthermore, Randy, even if the New Covenant did "only include those whom the Lord knows are his," how is man's profession of faith any more a reliable and sound ground on which to presume such status with the Lord than are God's promises to bless and favor the children of believers?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
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

I do believe it is an important thing to be baptized. As circumcision was administered to show you were a member of the covenant and a part of the nation Isreal, I believe a persons confession should lead to baptism and thus being admitted into God's New Covenant Holy nation..(The visible Church)

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]

I believe that is the point...as a member of Israel was circumsized...so are we baptized. Didn't they also circumsize their infants or did they wait until they were grown? Physical nation is moot as many went off and started their own nations.

 

[turmeric]

Thanks, Dan, that helps!

 

[pastorway]

if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by pastorway
if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.

I for one would rather not see the universe implode. Will you guys please be careful!

 

[Larry Hughes]

(Calvin asked what arguments could the credo urge against us that could not have been given to Abraham?).

Paul,

That makes a lot of sense!!!

E.G.:

Romans 3: 1-3, "œThen what advantage has the Jew? <<<Or what is the benefit of circumcision?>>> Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. <<<What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?">>>

Verse 3 seems to answer the questions regarding those baptized that would fall away.

Paraphrased: "œThen what advantage has the Jew (the baptized Christian)? <<<Or what is the benefit of circumcision (baptism)?>>> Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. <<<What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?">>>

Genesis 17:14, "œBut an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."

Seems similar to and answer the questions arising from households in which only one of the spouses is converted and is baptized while the unbelieving spouse is not - as opposed to the children. In other words they openly cut themselves off by rejecting it in the same household.

Larry

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by blhowes

Originally posted by pastorway
if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.

I for one would rather not see the universe implode. Will you guys please be careful!

Is that like when you see yourself in Back to the Future?

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by pastorway
if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.

touche.

Immutability helps in recognizing that God still continues to work in a certain way since it hasn't been abrogated. However, because females are able to receive baptism (unlike circumcision) they are included the same way as sons always were.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Is that like when you see yourself in Back to the Future?

Yeah, or maybe more like the old Star Trek where matter and anti-matter met.

I do trust you guys...just be careful.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by pastorway
if you are following the OT and think that immutability answers the questions then by all means baptize your infant sons, but don't dare ever baptize your daughters......that would be a change in how things are done and the universe might implode.

The implosion is obviously occuring at the cerebral level as many are coming to understand paedo baptism as the purest form of biblical theology here on PB. Obviously, without too much effort one can rationalize why women were not circumcised (Please do not go there and tell me women can be circumcised; As a medical person I am well aware of the barbaric practice in the middle east known as FGM. This circumcision happens on the labia minora. If it is a sign, no one could see it based upon what is actually circumcised) I will add, woman of the OT were infact circumcised as the male seed past through the circumcised male, i.e. the federal head of the family, to fertilize the female seed......

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm)

In the administration change, obviously woman could partake of a right such as baptism.


[Edited on 1-9-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Exactly - Covenant Theology is not a doctrine that says "eternal continuity on every point" but rather a hermeneutic that says "assume continuity on each point until instructed otherwise on that point." Kind of like the difference between "innocent despite any contrary evidence" and "innocent until proven guilty."

 

[daveb]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Exactly - Covenant Theology is not a doctrine that says "eternal continuity on every point" but rather a hermeneutic that says "assume continuity on each point until instructed otherwise on that point." Kind of like the difference between "innocent despite any contrary evidence" and "innocent until proven guilty."

This is a great way of summarizing it Chris. Exactly what I was trying to say, just much better.

 

[Larry Hughes]

I´ve heard arguments in the past in the form that if baptism had replaced circumcision then in Galatians would not have Paul mentioned this to end the controversy about the Jews requiring such for Gentile converts. But wouldn´t that miss the entire point of what Paul is addressing in Galatians? Is he not addressing works/law righteousness Vs. grace. That seems to be the point concerning circumcision and why the Galatians ´lost their joy´.

Furthermore his example in addressing Peter´s denial of grace via his actions as well seems to support the thrust of Paul"˜s ere works/law Vs. grace. Thus we see that even actions can deny grace. It would not have made sense for Paul to have merely replaced circumcision with baptism at this point in addressing the issue since grace alone was the issue and not the signs. Simply replacing baptism for circumcision would look something like: "˜You foolish Galatians it is not circumcision that saves you, baptism is the sign´.

Also the Jews of that time already showed a propensity to err and be confusion greatly over the sign (not unlike Rome"˜s formulation). And to have done so IN this situation could have run the danger of making baptism "˜the work necessary´ (e.g., & we know this error is possible by way of Rome"˜s grasp of baptism).

The issue Paul was addressing was not covenant signs but grace alone.

It seems that a correct (emphasis on correct, just like circumcision was misunderstood) understanding of infant baptism actually would accentuate the "˜grace alone´ aspect rather than detract from it. Even John MacArthur makes a tremendous and wonderful argument about infants dying and going to heaven due to the sovereign election of God and that Calvinism can only allow for this - that "œwe have no more to do with our election than does an infant".

Though the danger to err with the signs is always there since fallen humans by nature LOVE to work their way to heaven, even misapplying God´s institutions. It would also seem that to solely require profession only (formerly believers) baptism - that emphasis is placed on man to "œdo something", in this case make his profession the work required.

Is this not what we see pervasively in the church? I know when we use to go door to door one of the problematic things one would run into was people responding, "œOh, I made a profession, was baptized, walked an aisle, prayed a prayer, etc"¦ X years ago." Thus, hanging their hats on the work done. Of course the same could happen for infant baptism but either way merely shows the error of men seeking to work their way to heaven.


Blessings,

Larry