Why I am now a Baptist

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Mat 13:38) The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
(Mat 13:41) The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

In the first place I have never read "that Jesus states explicitly that the kingdom of heaven counted among its citizens ones of infancy". That is a stretch. I have read...(Mat 19:14) But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.


I do not deny that the Kingdom is for adults and children. I am not so sure that that equates necessarily to citizenship though. I do believe it ends in citizenship if one becomes humble and has the faith of a child. That is what the text says. Plain and simple the text is about the disciples forbidding the mothers who want Jesus to pray for the children. That is something everyone should want. The text is also about how one comes into the Kingdom attitude wise and that children are just as important to Christ as adults. Jesus is concerned about children as he is men.

And yeah, you were correct. I was sloppy with Murray. I was speaking about his view of Christian baptism. Not necessarily his view of the disciples who departed. I was wrong for being sloppy. I was speaking about Murray's view of Christian baptism and that Christian baptism didn't happen until after Matthew 28:19 or the great commission.
Thanks for calling me on it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Is the phrase found in the confession to which I subscribe?

So what is your answer?

I'll answer in two parts.

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.

 

[Herald]

Question of interpretation. Is it really the faith of a child, or faith as a child? Is this passage in Matthew dealing with the subjective faith of children or the disposition towards faith that all recipients of the kingdom are to have? I have a definite opinion on this and it results in this passage having absolutely no positive implications regarding baptism.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So what is your answer?

I'll answer in two parts.

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.

Well now if that isn't an opinionated answer.

I am trying to lighten up the discussion.

But obviously it is opinionated and biased as all of our answers are.

As Scott Bushey noted once.....

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'll answer in two parts.

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.

Well now if that isn't an opinionated answer.

I am trying to lighten up the discussion.

But obviously it is opinionated and biased as all of our answers are.

As Scott Bushey noted once.....

 

[Pilgrim]

So what is your answer?

I'll answer in two parts.

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.

I want to do more study on point 1. A Baptist brother sent me a few links this afternoon, and apparently there is no known extant commentary or statement by those who produced the 1689 explaining this change of wording. Some leading scholars like Jim Renihan believe that "necessarily contained" was simply an attempt to state GNC more precisely and there was no substantial change in meaning. I know some others disagree. I know some Baptists who prefer the GNC language and wish it had been retained.

As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I'll answer in two parts.

1. I haven't done as much detailed study as I'd like on what the Baptists who adopted the 2nd London Baptist Confession thought the distinction was between "good and necessary consequence" and "necessarily contained." However, since they typically followed the wording of the WCF (or the Congregationalists' Savoy Declaration in some instances) unless they disagreed with it, it is clear that by not including GNC they were attempting to avoid the practice of creating authoritative doctrines from the Bible that are based on what fallen human logic thinks must represent the Biblical teaching but which are not clearly derived from the text itself. Examples of this in their mind would no doubt include infant baptism as well as Presbyterian church government with its system of courts, etc.

2. Even if one accepts the premise of authoritative doctrines from the Bible that can be derived via good and necessary consequence, infant baptism is neither a good nor necessary consequence from Holy Writ.

With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.

I want to do more study on point 1. A Baptist brother sent me a few links this afternoon, and apparently there is no known extant commentary or statement by those who produced the 1689 explaining this change of wording. Some leading scholars like Jim Renihan believe that "necessarily contained" was simply an attempt to state GNC more precisely and there was no substantial change in meaning. I know some others disagree. I know some Baptists who prefer the GNC language and wish it had been retained.

As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.

Point 2 cannot work from a Baptist standpoint, as we would have to read that individuals professed faith and were Baptized. Acts 2:41 does not militate against a paedo-view as requirements for partaking of the two sacraments are different. While I respect your view, I must confess I was somewhat surprised that you changed your position on the strength of one verse which is far from irreconciable with a paedo-baptist position.

 

[Pilgrim]

With point one you are going to have a hard job holding to the Trinity.

Point 2 is much to simplistic an assertion because if covenant of children are still in the covenant of grace and the visible church, then they should receive the sign of belonging to both. Indeed, even the practice of household baptisms constitutes GNC as these texts are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint.

I want to do more study on point 1. A Baptist brother sent me a few links this afternoon, and apparently there is no known extant commentary or statement by those who produced the 1689 explaining this change of wording. Some leading scholars like Jim Renihan believe that "necessarily contained" was simply an attempt to state GNC more precisely and there was no substantial change in meaning. I know some others disagree. I know some Baptists who prefer the GNC language and wish it had been retained.

As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.

Point 2 cannot work from a Baptist standpoint, as we would have to read that individuals professed faith and were Baptized. Acts 2:41 does not militate against a paedo-view as requirements for partaking of the two sacraments are different. While I respect your view, I must confess I was somewhat surprised that you changed your position on the strength of one verse which is far from irreconciable with a paedo-baptist position.

I'm not sure I understand your argument in your first sentence here about having to read the passage as teaching that individuals professed faith and were baptized. That of course is our position.

My change was not merely on the basis of one verse, although I can certainly understand how it appears that way if you read the OP in isolation. That passage is what got me thinking about the whole issue again, but it is not the sole basis for the change. I've laid out more comprehensive reasons in the thread however.

One's position should do justice to all of the Biblical data, not just some passages where it may appear to make more sense than other positions.

 

[MW]

As to point 2, I disagree that the household passages are meaningless from a Baptistic viewpoint. They are certainly no more meaningless than Acts 2:41 is from a paedo viewpoint. There have been instances of entire households professing Christ and being baptized at the same time.

Household baptisms on the basis of all professing Christ would be an accidental circumstance, not an intentional practice -- it may or may not happen. But the salvation and baptism of households in the NT clearly point to an intentional pattern. In the case of Zacchaeus, salvation came to his house without any mention of the presence of other individuals, Luke 19:9. This indicates an intentional inclusion of households in the covenant of grace unconditioned by individual response.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee" (John 4:1-3 ESV).

"After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (John 6:66 ESV).

These disciples were actively followers. They stopped being disciples. As Murray notes these were not under Christian baptism yet. The commission had not been instituted.

I am not emphasizing the baptism but how the text speaks of "disciple." You asked how the NT speaks of disciples. Can the gospel accounts be included? Are these not followers of Christ who recognized by the 12 disciples under Christ's headship as being repentant?

If this were post commission, would that change anything?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command not to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?

Curious,

-CH

There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?

I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.

Hey:

I think you missed the point. I believe in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.

We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.

Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Herald]

Robert, I really love this thread. On the main page of "Today's Posts" it reads, "Why I became a Baptist." The last post (before this one) was you. So it said, "Why I became a Baptist...Calvin and Hodges."

Beautiful!

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Robert, I really love this thread. On the main page of "Today's Posts" it reads, "Why I became a Baptist." The last post (before this one) was you. So it said, "Why I became a Baptist...Calvin and Hodges."

Beautiful!

Both Calvin and Hodge were true Baptists!

-CH

 

[Pilgrim]

Hi:

If you denigrate "good and necessary inference" so much, then where is your positive command not to Baptize infants? How would you defend the doctrine of the Trinity?

Curious,

-CH

There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?

I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.

Hey:

I think you missed the point. I believe in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.

We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.

Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?

Blessings,

-CH

Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.

The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?

 

[TheocraticMonarchist]

C&H

I have some Q's about the your following statments. I'm new to the P boards, and don't have much experience with reformed folk... so I'm not much up on this baptism debate .

Jesus says that the children of Godly parents are "members of the Kingdom of Heaven," Mt 19:13, Mk 10:13.

Could you please explain to me where you see this in the text?

Mathew 19

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Mark 10

13 Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14 But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

It takes humility for a rabi such as Jesus halt His buisy schedule and recieve children. Is it possible that Jesus is telling His desciples that they have to humbly recieve the kingdome of God as they would have to humbly recieve a child?

1 Cor 7:14 - The faith of a believer sanctifies his/her spouse for the sake of their children who are then considered "holy." The word can also be translated "saint."

If we baptisme unbelieving children, should we not also baptise unbelieving spouses too?

Thanks

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

There is no need for a positive command not to baptize infants but rather there is a need for a positive command to baptize them. Where is your positive command not to burn incense during worship or not to play musical instruments in worship?

I already answered the same question from Daniel about the Trinity a few posts ago. Defending the Trinity is off topic here. Besides, it is almost 2am, so I'm sure you won't mind if I don't get into it right now.

Hey:

I think you missed the point. I believe in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.

We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.

Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?

Blessings,

-CH

Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.

The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?

Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.

The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

 

[Archlute]

As a brief interjection:

I have recently had the pleasure of reading through Pierre Marcel's defense of a Reformed view of baptism, and would strongly recommend this book to those who may have any number of questions regarding the exegesis and theology undergirding the baptism of believer's children. I have not found many who have read through this work, though some have heard mention made of it, and I have wondered why it is not more widely known. From what I have read so far, it covers all of the standard objections and discussion related to this Christian practice, and he does so in a very comprehensive manner. There is not one reasonable objection, of which I have ever heard, that is not thoughtfully and convincingly addressed in this work.

Marcel was a French Reformed minister in the 20th century, and his approach is both scholarly as well as thoroughly pastoral. In fact, the preface opens the work with an acknowledgment that this subject has often been approached without the love of our brothers in mind, and that he aims to convince Baptists, as well as to strengthen the convictions of the Reformed church, by this theological treatise. I would say that if one were to read this work, there would not be reason for them to read another.

Another warm and pastorally minded work, but a little less substantial, is Geoffrey Bromiley's Children of Promise. A good read that I had not yet seen mentioned, although I haven't read every post of this thread.

Anyway, I would readily recommend Marcel's work to anyone who is struggling to understand Christian baptism, or who has recently found the position untenable.

Thank you Adam,

For clarification, I found Marcel at WTS but the book is listed with a different title, Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. Is this the book you are referring?

That's the one.

I am sorry for confusing you and causing you to look for it under a different title. I didn't have it on hand, so I just threw "a defense of a Reformed view of baptism" out there as a general description.

 

[KMK]

Hey:

I think you missed the point. I believe in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.

We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.

Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?

Blessings,

-CH

Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.

The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?

Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

By this logic couldn't we also condemn God for excluding female children of covenantal parents from the visible church in Abrahamic covenant?

 

[Pilgrim]

Hey:

I think you missed the point. I believe in "good and necessary inference" and thus I can make such arguments that show incense burning and musical instruments are no longer required. I was not asking you to defend the Trinity - it was a rhetorical question. The Trinity is proved by "good and necessary inference" and is a vital doctrine of Scripture.

We have a positive command to allow children in the New Everlasting Covenant, Genesis 17:14.

Since you do not believe in "good and necessary inference" then you must have a positive command that now forbids children in the New and Everlasting Covenant?

Blessings,

-CH

Sometimes it helps to read all of the posts in a thread, especially a long one like this one before responding. I've often been guilty of that myself. I do believe in the validity of GNC although I prefer the phrase "necessarily contained" in the LBCF. That confessional issue is really tangential, although it did help me to learn what Jim Renihan and others think about it.

The argument from Gen. 17 had me convinced for several years. It's the simplest and most logically compelling argument for covenant paedobaptism. If you accept that premise then the household baptism passages and many others seem to fall right into place. But I do not believe that it is a legitimate inference from the Scriptures. I don't accept your premise that the covenant of grace is administered in the same way in the New Covenant as it was in the old. Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?

Your last point is an argument from silence. Moreover, the Judaizers were teaching that circumcision was essential in order to be saved. Furthermore, Paul was writing during the period of transition between the Old and New Covenants when it was permissable for Jewish believers to have both signs, so such an explanation would not have been sufficient.

The Baptist view of the covenant of grace would have us believe that the new and better covenant excludes the children of believers and puts them out of the visible church. Such an idea would have been unthinkable to those brought up in the Hebraic mindset. It is not surprising however that such an idea is accepted widely by Christians living after the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

The paedo view is an argument from silence. If I had a dollar for every time that someone tried to dismiss an opposing argument by claiming it is an argument from silence....well you know the rest.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No, Ken. And here's why that logic breaks down:

The Bible itself instituted a multi-tier relationship to the covenant, including Male-Female, defined, described, and defended. In other words,, the former practice both left women out of inclusion in the fullest sense, while at the same time acknowledging them as covenant members. So there was temporary male minority (while under age) and permanent female minority. We see other relations as well, that fall below that of adult males: servants who were not circumcised were not full members, nor were Gentile proselytes who had not undergone circumcision.

That multi-tier system is explicitly repudiated in the NT, Gal. 3:28, where three specific distinctions are done away: Jew-Gentile, slave-free, and male-female.

 

[MW]

This is the heart of the matter, in my opinion. How much emphasis one places on the arguments from silence against the paedo view determines, to a great degree, which direction you take. For the credo, they are overwhelming. For the paedo they are inconsequential. (Perhaps I am overstating the case somewhat)

Where is the silence? We have clear examples of individuals being baptised on the basis of their parents being included in the covenant -- Old Testament (Noah's family and Israel in the Red Sea) and New Testament (household baptisms).

Further, the 1689 Confession maintains much of the moral teaching of the Westminster Confession, replete with proofs from the Old Testament. Hence the witness of the Old Testament ought not to be regarded as "silence."

 

[Herald]

Bruce, interesting that you choose Galatians 3:28 to support the repudiation of the multi-tier system. Is Paul actually writing about a multi-tier system? I believe the text is communicating a different point.

Galatians 3:22 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Galatians was written to a mixed bag of Jews and Gentiles. The cultural divide was systemic. Paul was communicating a spiritual truth. All were shut up under sin (Romans 3:23). Why all? So that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to all who believe (inferred) (Romans 10:13). National origin, gender or covenantal status could never take precedence over the inward spiritual condition. The fact that a male was circumcised and a woman wasn't did not convey saving faith. The only multi-tier system the scriptures bear out is: saved or unsaved.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just to lighten the load.....

I went to visit a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia when I was a young Christian in the Early 80's. A Senior Chief Petty Officer name Sandy Rogers I highly respected went there. He was a lay preacher I listened to on the U.S.S. Forrestal. He was a man above reproach. And he loved people and His Lord.

Anyways, there was a visiting Preacher that day. He was round as he was tall. He had a white head of hair that just magnified his faces contorting as he got louder as the sermon when on. At the highth of his excitement and running around the place loudly yelling at the crowd he started off on a tyraid about his Baptist heritage. As he proceeded he said as loudly as he could, "I am not an arminean. I am not a Calvinist. I am a BAAAABBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIIISSSSSSSST! I was BORN a BABTIST. I was RAISED a BABTIST. I WILL DIE A BAAAABBBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSST!

I just sat back in my chair in a bewildered, amazed, and stupified look and said, Wow. That little southern man just wore me out.

I was already a Calvinist and attended a Reformed Baptist Church so he had no effect on me. But I am sure his energy did something for my edification.

I did learn some good stuff from Sandy Rogers though. He was a good Christian Navy man. And he lived out his convictions. His kids were cute also.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Moreover, if baptism is exactly the same as circumcision, then why did not Paul silence the Judiazers by simply explaining that baptism had replaced circumcision?

This, it seems to me, misses Paul's point in Galatians. As I have noted carefully before, the tenor in Galatians on the idea of circumcision is on the notion of keeping the Law. From the standpoint of what Paul is talking about, he is railing against an apprehension of the Old Covenant that is completely faulty.

I often marvel that Baptists will port Paul's polemic into an argument over recipients of Baptism and, in the process, really miss the force of Paul's argument over the Judaizers main defect in thinking about the Law.

Why didn't Paul simply tell the Judaizers that baptism replaced circumcision? Because their problem was more fundamental than a sign. Their problem was understanding the substance of what the sign of circumcision pointed to so how is replacing an external going to fix their understanding? It would be like telling them to change the wall color on their tomb full of dead man's bones. To be anachronistic, it would be Paul saying: Don't be Judaizers, be Roman Catholics!

Galatians 3:1-3

1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Do you really suppose that, were Paul to simply tell the Judaizers that they just had to baptize men that this would solve the primary problem?

In fact, it can be argued that, in one sense, he does complete this thought to a Galatian that they have everything they need in Baptism as Baptism signifies what they have in Christ. Had the Judaizers apprehended that point, then they would not have thought for a moment that they had begun in the Spirit and were perfected in the deeds of the Law. Their problem was forgetting that Christ is the author and finisher of our salvation.

Bruce, interesting that you choose Galatians 3:28 to support the repudiation of the multi-tier system. Is Paul actually writing about a multi-tier system? I believe the text is communicating a different point.

Galatians 3:22 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Galatians was written to a mixed bag of Jews and Gentiles. The cultural divide was systemic. Paul was communicating a spiritual truth. All were shut up under sin (Romans 3:23). Why all? So that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ may be given to all who believe (inferred) (Romans 10:13). National origin, gender or covenantal status could never take precedence over the inward spiritual condition. The fact that a male was circumcised and a woman wasn't did not convey saving faith. The only multi-tier system the scriptures bear out is: saved or unsaved.

Bill,

Do you honestly believe this solves the issue of a visible separation within the Body of Christ? In other words, there are real, flesh and blood, Gentiles and Jews at odds in the congregation and the solution is to tell them that the real separation is to determine those members who are truly saved and those that are unsaved? All are baptized but, hey guys, the real people you're Brothers with are the truly saved and the others are not your Brothers. How do you suppose a Jew or a Gentile is supposed to know if another Jew is his brother on this basis, much less a Gentile?

 

[Herald]

Bill,

Do you honestly believe this solves the issue of a visible separation within the Body of Christ? In other words, there are real, flesh and blood, Gentiles and Jews at odds in the congregation and the solution is to tell them that the real separation is to determine those members who are truly saved and those that are unsaved. All are baptized but, hey guys, the real people you're Brothers with are the truly saved and the others are not your Brothers. How do you suppose a Jew or a Gentile is supposed to know if another Jew is his brother on this basis, much less a Gentile?

I could have used the exact same terminology to ask whether Bruce really believes Galatians 3 is the repudiation of the multi-tier system. But you're helping me with my point. I already said the Jew-Gentile problem in Galatians was systemic. Galatians was partly written for that reason. It is not a transition between the covenant sign being given to males only (OC), and now to all (NC). I wasn't even approaching this from a baptism viewpoint, except to disagree that is transitionary in essence.

 

[Herald]

His kids were cute also.

Randy, that's the answer! As long as our kids are cute it doesn't matter what we believe in regards to baptism. And to think I've missed that salient point all these years.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Bill,
A passage doesn't have to be "focused" in a larger way on an issue in order to speak to it. In a passage that is addressing church unity, what would be strange--in a context of correcting the error that "you have to become Jewish to become a Christian"--about the observation that all those "dividing walls" connected to the Law have been eliminated?

The fact that Paul mentions three very real Mosaic segregations, three barriers to unity and full inclusion, and he brushes them aside and announces they have no relevance to a new situation inaugurated in Christ...

Here's Ken original question:

By this logic couldn't we also condemn the paedos for excluding female children of the covenantal parents from the visible church?

It seemed obvious from the context of the question that he meant "paedo-circumcision". The problem with his thinking is that under Moses, females were, in fact, lower in status. They didn't bear the sign, and they weren't, in fact, permitted at a great many exhibitions of Israelite piety! Although nowhere are we led to believe they weren't Israelites, and members of the covenant community. Yet, their lack of the sign, while not totally excluding them, did exclude them partly, as did their lengthy and regular periods of ritual uncleaness.

So, even if I was way off base (?), all I said pointing to that Galatians passage is that Paul claims the reality of major differences NOW! Relative to the Law, Ken's question has been answered. The answer is "affirmative, except that there's no condemnation associated with the admission--the lesser status of females was part of divine revelation."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

Do you honestly believe this solves the issue of a visible separation within the Body of Christ? In other words, there are real, flesh and blood, Gentiles and Jews at odds in the congregation and the solution is to tell them that the real separation is to determine those members who are truly saved and those that are unsaved. All are baptized but, hey guys, the real people you're Brothers with are the truly saved and the others are not your Brothers. How do you suppose a Jew or a Gentile is supposed to know if another Jew is his brother on this basis, much less a Gentile?

I could have used the exact same terminology to ask whether Bruce really believes Galatians 3 is the repudiation of the multi-tier system. But you're helping me with my point. I already said the Jew-Gentile problem in Galatians was systemic. Galatians was partly written for that reason. It is not a transition between the covenant sign being given to males only (OC), and now to all (NC). I wasn't even approaching this from a baptism viewpoint, except to disagree that is transitionary in essence.

To "pile on" what Bruce noted, it is key to note that the division between "Israel" and "not-Israel" already existed (among the physically circumcised) as Paul regularly notes. Even during the period that circumcision existed there was already a distinction between "saved" and "unsaved" in the mind of God. Circumcision signified salvation but didn't confer union with Christ. Inheritance was always conditioned on faith so the insistence that a move from the OC to the NC is a move from participation on bare significance to participation based on union with Christ is unsustainable. The True Israel of God has always received inheritance by faith. It is to the Judaizer's discredit that they miss this even as God had constantly reproved Israel that His own need to be circumcised of the heart and not merely of the flesh.

My point is that you cannot solve a problem of visible unity by noting invisible union with Christ and leaving it to the hearer to simply understand that there is a theoretical Covenant community that they cannot identify. There is a need for the Church of God (both OC and NC) to be able to identify who it is that we are to strive together with toward the end that we have been saved for. What I fear is that too many don't really apprehend how the visible work of the Church, that has always included a mixed multitude, has always been used of God for the conversion and perfection of His Elect.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Just to lighten the load.....

I went to visit a Fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church in Virginia Beach, Virginia when I was a young Christian in the Early 80's. A Senior Chief Petty Officer name Sandy Rogers I highly respected went there. He was a lay preacher I listened to on the U.S.S. Forrestal. He was a man above reproach. And he loved people and His Lord.

Anyways, there was a visiting Preacher that day. He was round as he was tall. He had a white head of hair that just magnified his faces contorting as he got louder as the sermon when on. At the highth of his excitement and running around the place loudly yelling at the crowd he started off on a tyraid about his Baptist heritage. As he proceeded he said as loudly as he could, "I am not an arminean. I am not a Calvinist. I am a BAAAABBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIIISSSSSSSST! I was BORN a BABTIST. I was RAISED a BABTIST. I WILL DIE A BAAAABBBBBTTTTTTIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSST!

I just sat back in my chair in a bewildered, amazed, and stupified look and said, Wow. That little southern man just wore me out.

I was already a Calvinist and attended a Reformed Baptist Church so he had no effect on me. But I am sure his energy did something for my edification.

I did learn some good stuff from Sandy Rogers though. He was a good Christian Navy man. And he lived out his convictions. His kids were cute also.

That story reminds me of the Landmark Baptist I heard preach last year. He went on for about 45 minutes about his baptist heritage and pretty much condemned all Presbyterians and Reformed.

I should have gotten up and walked out, but I was with a friend and didn't want to leave him sitting there.

 

[MW]

It must be obvious why the apostle, in writing to the Galatians, would not say that baptism has come in the place of circumcision -- because the Galatians believed circumcision was pre-requisite to law obedience as a necessary part of salvation; obviously baptism serves no such purpose. And yet he clearly maintains a hermeneutic of continuity when he states that as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ, Gal. 3:27, and that if they are Christ's then are they Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise, v. 29. It could not be any plainer that baptism signified and sealed the same promise as was signified and sealed to Abraham by circumcision.