The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant baptism

Mike , I am glad you appear to be taking this subject with the seriousness required of it. There are some fine teachers here.<br><br>I have a book entitled : The Church is Israel Now: The transfer of Conditional Privilege by Charles D Provan , which you are more than welcome to have if you desire. Please let me know.<br><br>howard

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] I stand by my original statement, nowhere does it speak of the baptism of anyone but believers. The infant was inserted because I was showing the absurbity of an infant being able to exercise abstract thinking. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Wrong, and shown to be so at least twice. Believers AND their households. A good study on the original languages and covenantal relationships could help here. Also, the fallacy of knowing mens hearts shows itself here again. You don't uphold Believers Baptism.......you uphold Professors Baptism, Baptising those that profess, presuming them to be elect.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Presuming that scripture says something when it doesn't is not the same as presuming who the elect are. I don't understand your question. Where did I ever say I presume who is elect? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Where did I presume anything about scripture? I didn't. The term Believers Baptism would require that the Baptist position uphold that only the elect are baptised.......but honestly, we don't know mens hearts always (rarely) and Baptists uphold Professors Baptism. The Batist Confession agrees;<br><br>The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX<br>Of Baptism:<br>II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Baptism is a sign of the Christian's relationship to Christ, just as Circumcision was a sign of the descendents of Abraham's relationship to the living God </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So, what relationship do your children have then? Mine have a covenantal relationship, and were administered the sign and seal of such.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] What dilemma? It isn't the sign that saves but the profession. The sign of circumcision was given to show that the cutting away of sin was required to be included into the house of faith. Baptism, shows the washing away of sin by Christ is required for inclusion into the body of Christ. Just as not all that were circumsized were of the house of faith, so also not all that are baptized, I agree. Baptizing non-believers has no purpose and can be deceptive as I mentioned previously, some place all their hope in their baptism. Didn't the Israelites completely miss the point about circumcsion? The church is inadvertantly giving this same hope. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It isn't the profession that saves, but Grace. So, baptism is given to show inclusion? Think about what that means to children without it? The hope is given only through a false teaching of regeneration, not the truth upheld by scripture. The sign of circumcision was given to show inclusion into a visible covenant, as well.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] All of scripture speaks of the nation of Israel as the people of God and the Church as descendents of spiritual Abraham. They are not identical. All of scripture shows the discontinuity. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Then perhaps you could start a new thread and show this?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Where does scripture show that baptism preceeded a profession of faith? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No where. However, scripture does show signs and seals being given prior to faith being expressed in the familial/household relationship in both the OT and the NT. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] The church has lost much of the truth today. I would never divide over Baptism, but I would not have my children baptized unless they requested it on profession of faith out of obedience to the word of God. Does this make us any less brothers in Christ? </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I suppose you are ready to tackle that thread about Who Departed then? You may not divide, but you are following those that divided already. Any less brothers? No. Both correct? No.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>

Great post William . Keep it up sir !<br><br>howard

I think the big misconception here lies in not understanding the differences between the old and new covanents. The covenant with Abram was not a covanent of salvation (well, perhaps indirectly, becuase of Jesus' lineage). It was first and formost a covanent made with him and his offspring to bless them, etc. God was very explicit that the covanent lied with his offspring and dealt primarily with them.<br><br>No such explicit statements are made in reagards to the new covanent. It is a covanent of personal salvation- there's nothing about families (except indirectly, i.e. "train up a child in the way he should go...") Jesus said he came to set a family against each other (look up the verse!). i.e. a family member, even a father, becoming a believer will more often be a cause of divison than peace. "I have come to bring a sword." There's no "covanent" relationship, except in an indirect form, here at all!<br><br>I just read Acts 16 last night. And for all the paedobaptists here- I would be curious to hear your take on vs. 34. It seems to me Luke is telling us his whole household became believers!<br><br>Sorry for the garbled post- I'm in a rush to get to work right now!

Very good arguments William. I'm much closer to accepting baptizing as a sign of the covenant, moving away from profession only baptism. I cannot say I have moved there yet, but the wagon is pointed in that direction. Thanks for all the gracious responses. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>Mike

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I think the big misconception here lies in not understanding the differences between the old and new covanents. The covenant with Abram was not a covanent of salvation (well, perhaps indirectly, becuase of Jesus' lineage). It was first and formost a covanent made with him and his offspring to bless them, etc. God was very explicit that the covanent lied with his offspring and dealt primarily with them.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Henry,<br><br>On the contrary, in my opinion. God promised that he would bless Ishmael, but there was no salvation for him. In other words, Ishmael who was not a child of promise was granted blessing (which is what you say the covenant contemplated), but his father Abraham wanted him to "live before God." Moreover, when Abraham believed the promise of the covenant he was justified, not just "blessed." Finally, Romans nine argues strenuously that the covenant was one of promise for the elect and that it pertained to salvation.<br><br>Blessings,<br><br>Ron

<blockquote>Genesis 15:6 "Then [Abram] went on believing in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."</blockquote><br><br><blockquote>Galatians 3:6-9 "Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, 'All the nations will be blessed in you.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer."</blockquote><br><br><blockquote>Isaiah 41:8 "But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Decendant of Abraham My friend,"</blockquote><br>(see 2 Chr. 20:7, James 2:23)<br><br>Does this not seem like a covenant of personal salvation as well to you? Abraham was justified by faith, as are we. The gospel was even preached to him. Abraham was called the friend of God on three occasions. That seems rather personal to me. The problem, in my opinion, that you seem to be having with this issue is how the Old Testament and New are linked. All of history points to Christ, His perfect life, and His death on a cross, and resurrection. The Old Testament talks of a coming saviour directly and indirectly everywhere (use of metaphors and imagery). All of history pre-Christ looked foward expectantly to His coming, just as we look back now in rememberance of His coming. And now we all wait eagerly the consumation of all history in His second return.<br><br>So I still don't see the discontinuity. If God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8), had decided in His infinite wisdom to stop dealing with His people as He had in the past (Not including believing parents' chidren in the covenant), then where is the uproar? Where are the chapters devoted to calming the Jewish Christians who have had their children included in the covenant for thousands of years? It just isn't there.<br><br>Chris<br>

[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/stupidme.gif" alt="stupidme" title="stupidme[/img]<br><br><br>howard [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/weep.gif" alt="weep" title="weep[/img]

Howard,<br><br> I thank you for your generous offer. I checked on the web, and the book is out of print and the only available one I saw was used for 14.97. I think at this time I'll pass on the offer for the book, because I want you to be able to keep your copy. You have been very kind to offer it though. I will read the books I have with a more open mind concerning baptism and the covenant relationship. I believe I have enough of a start in this new direction to help guide my reading and if I get hung up somewhere, I'll be sure to post the question on the Highway. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mike

William said: <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]You don't uphold Believers Baptism.......you uphold Professors Baptism, Baptising those that profess, presuming them to be elect.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br>Actually both sides are doing this. You will not baptize a baby unless you are convinced (unless it is a liberal church) that the child is a "worthy recipient" to receive the sign of the Covenant, that the parents, or at least one parent is a Child of God and is presumed to be elect. If you admit a member to your church, you also are making this judgement. Our judgements are not infallable, but lets be honest and admit this does not just apply to the Baptist position!<br>Susan<br>

good point, susan.<br><br>chris

Mike , if I wanted to keep it I would not offer it . <br><br>I know the Church is Israel now [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] . <br><br>If you change your mind , let me know.<br><br>howard

Okay, I'll take you up on your offer. Could you give me a place where I can send my address? My email address is located under my profile, just remove the nospam. How are you making out with "Whatever Happened to the Reformation?" I think the book is very good. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]<br><br>Thanks,<br>Mike

Send me your address via the PM and I will post it.<br><br>I read one chapter of "What ever happened...." and I lent it to a friend to read . <br><br>howard

You can send a PM by clicking on Howard's name or anyone else's.<br>At the bottom left of his profile is "Send a PM". You know you have received a PM if you see a flashing letter on the top left of your screen right next to "Main Index" when you have logged in. Also it says "You have 1 new message(s)" on the top right.<br>Susan