What is the CredoBaptist answer to this?

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

When recently asked by an inquirer as to how I would succinctly defend PaedoBaptism from the New Testament I used the following explanation:

I would point you to the Great Commission:

Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen, Mt 28:19-20.

I would then point out that disciples are not converts. Judas Iscariot, for example, was a disciple, but not a convert. Also, when we consider John 6:65-68 we see in verse 66, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." Indicates that one can be considered a "disciple" but not a convert to Jesus Christ.

A disciple, or "learner," is one who is brought under the teaching authority of another, or, of the church. We are commanded everywhere in the Bible to disciple our children, Dt 4:10, 6:7, 11:19, Ps 34:11, Prb 22:6, Gal 4:1,2, Eph 6:4, 1 Th 2:11.

The logical conclusion is a necessary one:

1) Since we are to baptize disciples, and,
2) Since the children of believers are disciples, then,
3) We should baptize the children of believers.

I look forward to an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[MarieP]

Luke 14
25 Now great multitudes went with Him. And He turned and said to them, 26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. 27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it— 29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’? 31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. 33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Marie:

Your post does not answer the question - unless you are arguing that there is a contradiction in Scripture - because John 6:66 specifically says that many of the disciples of Christ left him. Now, I would agree with you that they were not true disciples, but, while they walked with Jesus they were considered the disciples of Christ. Otherwise, why then would the Apostle John call them disciples?

Blessings,

Rob

 

[JM]

It's like asking if you come to faith in your 60's should your 30 year old children be baptized. The logical infant baptist conclusion is a necessary one, yes.

 

[MarieP]

Hi Marie:

Your post does not answer the question - unless you are arguing that there is a contradiction in Scripture - because John 6:66 specifically says that many of the disciples of Christ left him. Now, I would agree with you that they were not true disciples, but, while they walked with Jesus they were considered the disciples of Christ. Otherwise, why then would the Apostle John call them disciples?

Blessings,

Rob

Rob,

I agree that there are false disciples. But I believe that a credible profession of faith (setting aside whether it's true saving faith or not) is necessary to being a disciple (false or not).

 

[Skyler]

The logical conclusion is a necessary one:

1) Since we are to baptize disciples, and,
2) Since the children of believers are disciples, then,
3) We should baptize the children of believers.

I look forward to an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

Rob

"A disciple, or "learner," is one who is brought under the teaching authority of another, or, of the church."

Potential converts who are learning about Christianity from someone in the church are, by your reasoning, disciples. Therefore, we should baptize them--whether or not they have actually made a profession of faith (and, whether or not they have believing parents).

Unless we wish to propose this system (and no one I've heard does) there must be some limitation on this passage not explicit in this verse.

As pointed out above, we Baptists impose the limitation of a confession of faith. Presbyterians expand that limitation to include being children of believing parents. But neither one takes this verse in the sense that you present it, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Please pay attention to forum rules folks.
Credo-Baptism Answers: A place where only Credo-Baptists may answer questions posed regarding the Confessional understanding of the Ordinance of Baptism.

 

[rbcbob]

The only way that your syllogism holds together is if you meant the following:

1) Since we are to baptize ALL disciples, and,
2) Since ALL the children of believers are disciples, then
3) We should baptize ALL the children of believers.

What if some of the children who are disciples are notorious sinners?
What if some of the children of believers are cognitively unable to learn?

 

[Grimmson]

The first thing I would do is define who the disciples are that are baptized. Let us go back in time in the Patristic period. Now as am sure many in here know that there were catechism schools that taught the faith and many times in took one to three years before a catechumen, a learner, as an adult was allowed to be baptized. Also, I can name at least four church fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, and Augustine of Hippo) that came from a Christian home with at least one believer in the home that were not baptized until they were an adult. The fact that these same four defended the paedo position isn’t really the issue, but the applied observed historical practice. I would make the case that a Christian disciple is under the teaching care of the Church, under ordained ministers based on the Great Commission as it related to the proclamation of the Gospel. Outside of the Gospel in faith there can be no discipleship, no qualification to be a child of God. I would suggest looking at part of a passage you referenced and look at the broader scope of that passage, being Galatians 3:28-4:7. This same point is scattered in the testimony of gathered disciples in Acts.

Now are children to be learner of Christ under their parents? Yes, and I think Ephesians 6:4 makes that fact clear. But are they disciples under the care of the church and confessioning, worshipping members of the covenant community? Their primary care for all things, scared and common, comes from their parents and not directly by care of a ordained minister. Why? Because the structure of family is a common grace intuition. Children are holy, or what I prefer to say as set apart, in the same way or sense as a non-Christian spouse is. Does that mean a non-Christian spouse is a disciple, a follower of Christ? I would say that the non clarifies answers such a question. If we define disciple as one who is a learner and follower of Christ, and become such through their baptism as entry way into the visible Church then I think we have real issue if an infant (not necessarily a child) can qualify to be a disciple.

Of course this moves on to your second premise Rob. If an infant cannot follow Christ by means of a basic confession of faith in Christ regarding forgiveness of sins and recognize Jesus Christ as Lord then the child should not be classified as a disciple and member of the church. Why? Basically because these two points are foundational to the church and being part of the church and presupposes a basic understanding of the Gospel (See Matthew 16:18, Romans 1:17,10:13,17). This is not to say however that a child faith cannot mirror the faith of their parents or have required a in-depth systematic understanding.

If the foundation of the Church is Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. Then that should be foundational to what makes a disciple of Christ within the church. This leads to my two reasons to baptize anyone, the first being on the divine command and the second being on the confession of faith. Without the confession you cannot say someone is a brother or sister in Christ in faith and admit them to the Table. Once that confession is made however that another story. We don’t say that children do not need to be taught, but their status as members as a disciple is only in relation to the New Covenant within a confession of faith. I am equating being a disciple and being a member. The only children that should be baptized are the spiritual children of God ( a continuation from Gen. 17 of a type that pointed to the reality in Christ), shown by that confession and cry to the Lord as Abba, Father. I am not saying that children cannot be spiritual children as well, experiencing I mean that new birth by the Holy Spirit, in relation to the New Covenant. I think many children are. The promise is for Children, but in the same way it is for you and for those who are far off. The promise is not based on the family, but on the electing power of God to draw as many to himself who he will also call.

If I said anything that is confusing then ask a question for qualification. But in short I would challenge Rob’s second premise of equating church discipleship with the Great Commission compared with parents teaching the faith to their children as disciples as it relates under the technical realm of how discipleship typically is used in relation to following a man, a philosophy, or a particular movement of people.


On a side note, I would say Judas Iscariot was a disciple and a convert, in the technical sense, but not a convert in a salvational sense. He was proved to be a false brother, a false disciple.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hi:

When recently asked by an inquirer as to how I would succinctly defend PaedoBaptism from the New Testament I used the following explanation:

I would point you to the Great Commission:

Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen, Mt 28:19-20.

I would then point out that disciples are not converts. Judas Iscariot, for example, was a disciple, but not a convert. Also, when we consider John 6:65-68 we see in verse 66, "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." Indicates that one can be considered a "disciple" but not a convert to Jesus Christ.

A disciple, or "learner," is one who is brought under the teaching authority of another, or, of the church. We are commanded everywhere in the Bible to disciple our children, Dt 4:10, 6:7, 11:19, Ps 34:11, Prb 22:6, Gal 4:1,2, Eph 6:4, 1 Th 2:11.

The logical conclusion is a necessary one:

1) Since we are to baptize disciples, and,
2) Since the children of believers are disciples, then,
3) We should baptize the children of believers.

I look forward to an interesting discussion.

Blessings,

Rob

Hello Rob,
If I follow the "logic" of your post, You say:

I would then point out that disciples are not converts.Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them .

So Rob, are you saying that the Great Commision advocates baptizing all the unbelievers in the nations,[bringing them under the church teaching] as you seem to be putting the cart before the horse?
If you do not accept that the commision is to make disciples {true disciples}
we do not want to "make Judas,or those in Jn.6:66"
In your zeal to put forth your padeo position,you are twisting the great commision, playing with the definition of the word disciple.

It seems as if it is a false premise.

 

[Robert Truelove]

John Doe visits the church and tells me he wants to learn more about Christianity but he is not yet ready to receive Christ. I ask him if he would be interested in coming in once per week for a study through the Gospel of John and he agrees. During the first session would I baptize him because he is now a "disciple"? If not, I see no case for The Great Commission to be a positive proof for Infant Baptism.