Paedo-Baptism Answers How confident are you in Paedo-baptism?

[Wretched Man]

I'm pleased that you've begun this theological journey. Spiritual riches await you!

The experience you describe in your post, was exactly mine. My credo theology suffered an awful breach one morning when in my devotionals I read a Scripture passage that shook up my theology. After that, was a determined study to search out the issue of baptism from the Scriptures and to see if it really was New Testament practice. Not church history, not on the authority of the Reformers, but Sola Scriptura. Those who hold the position and have studied it well will affirm they feel no need to quote church history or the Reformers to give authority to their position (though these are useful secondary supports), and that Scripture alone is sufficient to make--and does make--the case for household baptisms.

What scripture passage did you read?

 

[Solparvus]

What scripture passage did you read?

Sure, but to be clear, this passage alone didn't bring me all the way. There was much intense study I had to do afterward.

Romans 11, the olive tree. You have both Jewish branches and Gentile branches in the same tree, and both can be cut off. They also share a common fatness, as the passage itself says.

So, if the New Testament church is a different entity than Israel, then why are they in the same tree?

I also understood that Christ would be the life--the fatness--of the New Testament church. If Israel was only physical and temporal, and not spiritual per se, then why are they sharing the same fatness as the New Testament church? If Christ is the life of one, He must be the life of the other. Then it cannot be said Israel was primarily about physical and temporal blessings, but spiritual ones.

Thus, no argument can be made that because the NT church is spiritual, but OT Israel is carnal, therefore we do assume to not include children of those who profess.

They receive similar treatments--branches can be cut off in one, as well as in the other.

I'm forced to the conclusion that the NT church is the continuation of the church in Israel, thus the same organization.

And if they are the same organization, I may conclude that the children are included now as they were back then, unless it's clear they were cut off. So, when we read of household baptisms, we are reading about a rite performed far back as Abraham--just with water now.

And if branches can be cut off but the elect cannot be cut off from Christ, Romans 11 is basis for the visible/invisible membership. Thus, it destroys any ambition of having a church membership which strictly resembles the invisible one. One less argument on why to presume to cut out children, or to put off believing their profession for an elongated period of time.

Again, that's not everything. You have much study to do. But it's a rich study, well worth it. This study was revolutionary in my spiritual life if only for the fact that it got me to see the goodness of God in a way I never had before. Whatever you do, keep Christ at the center. Don't study to argue, but to be a better disciple to Him who shed His blood for you, and to the Father who loved you and gave Himself to you. You'll get out of the cage much faster if you do that.

 

[Ed Walsh]

If you are convicted that infants were baptized or Biblically intended to be baptized in the early church times based purely on Scripture (despite no explicit references or commands to baptize infants) without any traditional influence, that's great.

It would have been bizarre if children were not included in the Covenant sign since they are included in the Covenant. Including infants may have seemed so obvious to the Apostle Paul that he never saw the need to mention it. On the other hand, if children were excluded, that would have been earth-shattering news to the Jewish converts and would have required much teaching.

I know I am arguing from silence, but that is not in all cases fallacious. Jesus never argued on the Trinity because the Jews already believed that God has a Son who was himself God. They just couldn't accept that Jesus was that Son.

 

[Wretched Man]

Sure, but to be clear, this passage alone didn't bring me all the way. There was much intense study I had to do afterward.

Romans 11, the olive tree. You have both Jewish branches and Gentile branches in the same tree, and both can be cut off. They also share a common fatness, as the passage itself says.

So, if the New Testament church is a different entity than Israel, then why are they in the same tree?

I also understood that Christ would be the life--the fatness--of the New Testament church. If Israel was only physical and temporal, and not spiritual per se, then why are they sharing the same fatness as the New Testament church? If Christ is the life of one, He must be the life of the other. Then it cannot be said Israel was primarily about physical and temporal blessings, but spiritual ones.

Thus, no argument can be made that because the NT church is spiritual, but OT Israel is carnal, therefore we do assume to not include children of those who profess.

They receive similar treatments--branches can be cut off in one, as well as in the other.

I'm forced to the conclusion that the NT church is the continuation of the church in Israel, thus the same organization.

And if they are the same organization, I may conclude that the children are included now as they were back then, unless it's clear they were cut off. So, when we read of household baptisms, we are reading about a rite performed far back as Abraham--just with water now.

And if branches can be cut off but the elect cannot be cut off from Christ, Romans 11 is basis for the visible/invisible membership. Thus, it destroys any ambition of having a church membership which strictly resembles the invisible one. One less argument on why to presume to cut out children, or to put off believing their profession for an elongated period of time.

Again, that's not everything. You have much study to do. But it's a rich study, well worth it. This study was revolutionary in my spiritual life if only for the fact that it got me to see the goodness of God in a way I never had before. Whatever you do, keep Christ at the center. Don't study to argue, but to be a better disciple to Him who shed His blood for you, and to the Father who loved you and gave Himself to you. You'll get out of the cage much faster if you do that.

Thanks Jake. I have considered that angle and it has influenced me, though I didn't arrive at the same conclusion you did. I will continue to study and perhaps I will arrive at a similar conclusion.

It would have been bizarre if children were not included in the Covenant sign since they are included in the Covenant. Including infants may have seemed so obvious to the Apostle Paul that he never saw the need to mention it. On the other hand, if children were excluded, that would have been earth-shattering news to the Jewish converts and would have required much teaching.

I know I am arguing from silence, but that is not in all cases fallacious. Jesus never argued on the Trinity because the Jews already believed that God has a Son who was himself God. They just couldn't accept that Jesus was that Son.

I'm trying avoid getting into a debate on the subject, as there have been plenty of threads on that. Suffice my response to be I wouldn't consider my children excluded from the Covenant. They may or may not be excluded, per God's will, but my hope is they are included and I may be blessed to witness them come to Christ.

In line with the intent of this thread... my response to you was posed more out of perplexity. The OT clearly prescribed and commanded male infants to be circumcised. I can understand you arriving at your conclusion with resounding confidence through deep-study involving proper hermeneutics. However, to state you are as convicted about the baptizing of all infants in Christian families as you are about the circumcision of male infants in ancient Israel seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This thread is posted in PaedoBaptism Answers only and forum rules state no debate of PB vs CB is allowed. If you want debate the poll should move to the general Baptism forum.

I'm trying avoid getting into a debate on the subject, as there have been plenty of threads on that.

 

[De Jager]

Thanks Jake. I have considered that angle and it has influenced me, though I didn't arrive at the same conclusion you did. I will continue to study and perhaps I will arrive at a similar conclusion.


I'm trying avoid getting into a debate on the subject, as there have been plenty of threads on that. Suffice my response to be I wouldn't consider my children excluded from the Covenant. They may or may not be excluded, per God's will, but my hope is they are included and I may be blessed to witness them come to Christ.

In line with the intent of this thread... my response to you was posed more out of perplexity. The OT clearly prescribed and commanded male infants to be circumcised. I can understand you arriving at your conclusion with resounding confidence through deep-study involving proper hermeneutics. However, to state you are as convicted about the baptizing of all infants in Christian families as you are about the circumcision of male infants in ancient Israel seems a bit of a stretch.

Your children are covenant children, they are holy, set apart by God himself (1 Cor. 7:14). They will never lose that status. They are called by God to believe the gospel. The gospel promise is to you and to your children.

There's a difference of course, between being a covenant child and being elect. Some covenant children are not elect (like Esau).

The similarities between circumcision and baptism run quite deep. The expansion of the covenant sign to include females does not nullify these parallels. Both signs were used as rites of initiation into the covenant community, and both are symbolic of cleansing. Both signs point to the work of Christ as taught in Colossians 2. Both signs are applied regardless of ethnicity (circumcision was applied to believing foreigners - see Exodus 12). Since we see baptism functioning the same in the NT and circumcision did in the OT, we apply the sign to our children. In fact the burden of proof is on baptists as to why the sign should not be placed on children.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I just listened to this sermon today from Rev. Todd Ruddell, “Whose Children Are They?” (This is Part 2, I have not listened to Part 1 but intend to do so). http://tinysa.com/sermon/82320243546721

 

[Eyedoc84]

Romans 4:11 was a lightbulb moment for me in becoming a paedo after 20+ years of being credo. Went back and read all the OT passages on circumcision, and then came back to the NT and read of all the “household” baptisms, and said, “OF COURSE!”