The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant baptism

Using those exigetical principals, this passage could just as easily venerate baptismal regeneration. Really!<br><br>I need some more time to think this over, and do some more reading, but my interim conclusion is that the kind of covenantal continuity that forms the basis of paedobaptism clearly makes a distinction between the new covenant and salvation. This is a dualism not found in the pages of scripture, and is just as unwarrented as the slice-em' and dice-em' hermeneutics employed by your typical dispensationalist. <br><br>I think it stems from trying to explain two seemingly irreconcilable truths found in scripture; namely, the assurance of salvation, and the many warnings not to fall away. These twin truths cannot truly be called anything other than a mystery. Explaining them by way of the aforementioned covenant/salvation duality is like trying to reconcile divine election and human volition. You either end up an Arminian or a hyper-Calvinist. Let mysteries be mysteries!<br><br>More later...

Well, I know I'm [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/nuts.gif" alt="nuts" title="nuts[/img] for sticking my two cents in here again, because I know it is only going to get me [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bash.gif" alt="bash" title="bash[/img], I learned the consequences while on the issue of head coverings. I'm unable to convey my points as well as those more wordy, but I can say I disagree with infant baptism. I would like to know where there is any command, or for that matter an example of infant baptism in all the word of God? From my reading, repentence preceeded baptism. Just because whole households are spoken of, it still remains doubtful that included children. Acts 8:37, if thou believest in thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized). I don't know of any babies capable of abstract reasoning. Then using the issue of circumcision as a warrant for infant baptism, does that mean that we should only baptize male infants? and finally, doesn't the baptism of babies cause more harm than good? I hear so many adults who believe they have nothing to fear because they were baptized when they were children. I stand on the side of dedicating a baby, but as for baptism, that is a choice to be made by believers. I'm ready for the [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/argue.gif" alt="argue" title="argue[/img]. I may be simple, but then the gospel is simple too.<br><br>Mike

Please read:<br><br>The Sacraments: Baptism - A. A. Hodge<br><br>The Polemics of Infant Baptism - B. B. Warfield<br><br>The Sacramental Principle: Infant Baptism - William Cunningham<br><br>The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism - Pierre Ch. Marcel<br><br>then if you still have some question we will be glad to assist you.<br>

Henry,<br><br>I think the passage that Pilgrim referenced is perfect, but do we really need a passage to say that baptism replaced circumcision. Please consider the following:<br><br>1. In the O.T. the children of professing believers were included among the visible people of God. <br><br>2. In the O.T. all males who were included among the visible people of God were to receive the mark of circumcision. <br><br>3. Circumcision has been done away with. <br><br>4. The visible people of God under the new economy are to receive baptism. <br><br>5. God nowhere in his word tells us to no longer include the children of professing believers in the visible people of God. <br><br>Since the visible people of God are to receive baptism (pt. 4 above), and God has not told us to no longer count the children of professing believers as being among the visible people of God (pt. 5 above), the conclusion is: the children of professing believers are to be baptised. <br><br>Giving more consideration to the Colossians passage, it explicitly teaches that true circumcision is not made with hands but rather, it is made when someone is spiritually circumcised by Christ, which occurs when one is united to him in spiritual baptism. Now then, since spiritual baptism is truly spiritual circumcision, and physical circumcision has been done away, doesn’t it make sense that water baptism has replaced physical circumcision? If not, then water baptism would not represent spiritual baptism! <br><br>In His Service,<br><br>Ron<br>

Thanks for the links. You must have already guessed, I have a pretty biased opinion about the issue of infant baptism, but I want to try to keep an open mind. In fairness, I will read the listed links thoroughly before giving my convictions concerning it. It may take some time to work through[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img] all the links you provided, I want to try to be thorough and not just give a quick reply[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/compute.gif" alt="compute" title="compute[/img]. I'll be back though.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>Mike

At this time I would like to quote from an article called:<br> The Means of Grace: Baptism by Stephen J. Wellum<br><br>The reason for doing so is because I believe that those who believe in paedo –and believer’s baptism have a lot in common and sometimes because of our differences we loose sight of that. Hopefully this quote will show this.<br><br>“Second, in all of our disagreements over baptism, we must never forget what unites us. Most of us are quite content to acknowledge that Christians should be baptized in obedience to God; that baptism is the sign of the great gospel realities of union with Christ and all the glorious benefits of New Covenant blessings; that baptism is related to our incorporation into the church; and that baptism, in contrast to the ex opere operato view of Roman Catholicism, has no magical power, but it is by grace alone, through faith alone, and by Christ alone that we are made right with God. No doubt, there are profound differences among us. I admit that paedo- and believer's baptism views cannot simultaneously be right. I would even argue that due to the significance of our differences we have the right to establish local congregations that emphasize one of the views to the exclusion of the other.<br> However, with that said, we must never lose sight of what unites us. And what is that? The Gospel. Baptism, though it is important, is not the decisive issue of our day, or any day for that matter. And as such, even though we disagree on some very important points, we need to find our commonality in that to which baptism points—the glories of Jesus the Christ and the full realities of the Gospel of sovereign grace. That, more than anything, must captivate our thinking, our hearts, our churches, our very lives, or else all is for naught.”<br><br>If you would like to read the full article, you may do so at:<br>http://www.the-highway.com/articleJan99.html<br><br>Tom<br>

Please indeed take your time reading through all them. I was a Baptist for over 20 years until the proverbial light turned on for me. My change in belief came over a period of time, both with arguments here on The Highway and some other reading. Of course, my eschatology changed to A-Mil first and then a proper (should say, a more proper) understanding of Covenant Theology finally made its appearance, which then ministered a proper hermeneutic. John Murray's book Christian Baptism (Presbyterian & Reformed: 1980) is also a "short" excellent study on the topic (1) biblically grounded with word studies, et. al., and (2) very fair to both sides of the issue. Here are a few quotes:

(1) Baptizo and its cognates can but do not often mean "immerse." Rather, their are many instances where it cannot. Hebrews 9 uses "baptisms" for the ceremonial washings of the OT, which were either by pouring or sprinkling.

(2) The heart of the Baptist position, Rom. 6, does not show that immersion is the correct mode of baptism, since (a) Christ was not buried the way we commonly think (He was simply put in a tomb, not put 6 feet under), and (b) Rom. 6 also connects "baptism" to the crucifixion of Christ as well. "Baptism" in this passage is best understood the same way it should be in 1 Cor. 10 ("baptized into Moses"), as "identification with."[/LIST] Here also are some links to very short articles by Murray on the topic Is Infant Baptism Scriptural? and Why We Baptize Infants

I thought of another link after I posted yesterday that you may find helpful in your study. You may have already come across it, but it is still worth the posting.<br><br>credo and paedo articles<br><br>Fred<br><br>

His alone,<br>It is also helpful to remember there are three types of Paedos. (Someone please tell me if there are more.)<br>There are two Hyper-covenental views: <br>1. Children are already saved at the time of their birth (or conception?), before their baptisms i.e., Presumptive Regeneration.<br> 2. Children are saved at the time of Baptism i.e., Baptismal Regeneration. <br><br>The "normal" paedos (for the lack of a better term) believe that they are giving their child "the sign of the covenant" the way OT Israel did. The promise of Abraham is effectual only to those children who exercise faith. They look at their children the same way that we Baptists do. They pray for them and teach them diligently about the Lord. We both realize our children are sinners who need to repent and be saved. We also realize that God has not elected all believers' children to salvation. We have much in common with this view. <br><br>I still don't agree with baptizing babies, but I do try to respect their arguments. <br>Susan

Susan,<br><br>I'm not sure that I qualify for any of the three groups. I believe that our children are different from those born of unbelieving parents, if for no other reason a believer's infant may apostatize from the faith as it grow in years; whereas those born outside the covenant community are pagan from the outset. This means, of course, that the children of believing parents are more culpable from the outset when compared to those not separated unto God by a believing parent. Moreover, with respect to elect infants dying in infancy, I believe that the believer has much greater hope for his child than a pagan parent would. <br><br>I do not presume that God regenerates the infants of believing parents either in the womb or at the font. Nor do I presume that Christ did not die for them. I presume that God delights in converting the infants of believing parents in his time. Where we probably differ is that I treat my child from the outset as one whom Christ died for. An infant of a believing parent will need to repent of his sins and place his trust in Christ alone for his justification before God. In the like manner, I as one with a credible profession of faith must persevere until the end, lest I become a castaway. We might say that both the young offspring of believing parents and professing believers have their respective marching orders as baptized disciples of Christ. In a word, I suppose we differ in that I treat my little ones as Christians, who definitely stand in the need of prayer and nurturing in the Lord. They need to be converted to Christ, but I can say based upon the evidence that “Jesus died for your sins,” just as I say it to my wife. The evidence I have for my wife’s Christianity is based upon her faith and practice, whereas the only evidence I have that my two year old is a Christian is that she was born into my household, which is more than I can say for a child born of unbelieving parents. I'll leave you with this last thought; which is, I invite my little ones to pray, whereas I would never invite my neighbor across the street to pray. In other words, only those I may treat as Christians will I invite to pray on my behalf.<br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>

Susan,<br><br> I do not disrespect any posts, I just share my convictions concerning issues brought up in the discussion groups, its the main reason I'm here, to learn and grow. I have read through a good portion of what was posted, and it wearied me. I tried to keep an open mind, but there wasn't anything I read that persuaded me that infant baptism is acceptable. Besides the questions in my previous post, I have even come up with more. None of my reading satisfactorily answered 1) where in scripture does it speak of infant baptism? A.A.Hodge, who I respect highly even says we can presume. Presumption?? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/sad.gif" alt="sad" title="sad[/img] 2) Also, I do not believe linking circumcision with baptism washes [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] either. Circumcision was performed in a Theocracy. The circumcised males were born into the covenant people. We are not covenant people until we too are born (regeneration) into the spiritual family. It is then, upon profession of belief that we are baptized. Children of believers are not born into the covenant family until they too are regenerated. It is twisting scripture to say otherwise. I do not see anywhere where anything but believers baptism is taught. I respect the other views presented, but I still believe they are wrong. I'm not eloquent in words, like most people in this group, but I believe I have a good grasp of doctrine. I would not try to convince anyone otherwise, only the Holy Spirit is able to do that. I read the discussion groups and weigh what is said. I'm open for growth in my doctrinal understanding, and will continue to listen. It will have to be scripturally solid for me to change my views though.<br><br>Mike

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Circumcision was performed in a Theocracy.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Oh contraré!! Circumcision was given to Abraham, hundreds of years before the nation of Israel ever came into existence. The primary symbol of that rite was spiritual identity and not national identity, as Paul in many places teaches. I sincerely respect your right to reject paedobaptism. And given the several distortions of it that are being taught today by Baptists, old and new and likewise even by some paedobaptists themselves, I can easily understand how someone would find the doctrine objectionable. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>Without question, I can stand beside and find MUCH more unity with a Babdist like Susan than I do many paedobaptists in our day. And at the risk of being too redundant, as an example, in a conservative Reformed Church of which I was a member, we took into membership several Reformed Baptist families who left their church due to a "power struggle" and sought fellowship and worship with us. Not only did we accept them as members, but we even appointed several of the men to teaching positions in the Church. On the other hand, I have attended not a few Baptist Churches, which in so many ways were marvelous churches in that they had sound preaching, excellent educational programs, etc.. but I was always turned away when I sought membership because I would not submit to rebaptism by immersion. It was made VERY clear to me that unless I was rebaptized by immersion, I had no place in the church. Yes, without doubt, there are paedobaptists who would and do turn away godly men and women from their memberships because they hold to a Credobaptist doctrine. In my small opinion, this is a travesty and affront to the Lord Who shed His blood for those turned away no less than those who turn them away and Who calls them to join HIS CHURCH.<br><br>Granted, I may be a "rare bird" when it comes to this issue. But I can fly in the freedom of God's grace where the others only imagine they can! <br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] . The evidence I have for my wife’s Christianity is based upon her faith and practice, whereas the only evidence I have that my two year old is a Christian is that she was born into my household </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Greetings Ron,<br><br>I think it is worth clarifying that the "evidence" you have is rooted in the promise given to parents who faithfully nurture their children in the faith. That is, you are not presuming anything, rather you are believing the promise.<br><br>"17 But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting On those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children, 18 To such as keep His covenant, And to those who remember His commandments to do them." (Psalm 103:17 - 18)<br><br>"Therefore know that the LORD your God, He is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commandments." (Deuteronomy 7:9)<br><br>By the way, nice to see you in color! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>~Jason<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I think it is worth clarifying that the "evidence" you have is rooted in the promise given to parents who faithfully nurture their children in the faith. That is, you are not presuming anything, rather you are believing the promise.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Jason,<br><br>We might be getting into another area here. The evidence that my child is one of Christ's sheep is that she was born into a believing household. Now certainly if I were less faithful than I am, I would have less confidence in the hope that such evidence may provide, but I would still have the same type of evidence. I do believe that the more faithful one is, the greater confidence he may have for his children. But I would not want to say it's a slam dunk, lest we violate God's sovereign good pleasure. Obviously, I am not willing to pray for my children more than I do, or else I would. Concerning Psalm 103:17-18, don't all believers fear God and keep covenant, some more than others? Don't we all love God and keep his commandments to some degree? The most faithful man on earth is not faithful enough, but is he faithful enough to ensure the salvation of his children ipso facto? How much is enough in order that we might name it and claim it? I just don't know. Do you? Please be desperate with me for my household, so I will not have to be desperate later.<br><br>Finally, I have a greater confidence that I am to treat my children as Christians until they should show otherwise, than I do that they are actually elect. That probably was somewhat obvious I suppose.<br><br>Unworthy But His,<br><br>Ron

Greetings brother,<br><br>Yes, that is another area, and it's my fault for slipping in the point about faithful covenant nurture. The only point I really wanted to bring out is that your daughter's birth in your household is only significant due to the promise given to believing parents. Apart from that, her birth in your home would not indicate anything special, and I thought it was helpful to bring it up since the promise was not mentioned specifically.<br><br>~Jason<br>