Tom,<br><br>You're not far from the kingdom of paedobaptists. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>Ron
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]First, it is almost impossible to build a case for paedobaptism on the Acts passeges. There's too much we don't know, too much Luke doesn't tell us. Were there infants in these households, or were they all adults? In Acts 16, after we are told the jailer's family was baptized (vs. 33) we are told they all believed (vs. 34). Did the events take place in this order? Could infants possibly be credited with "believing"? Or is it assumed they are "covered" by their parents in this matter?</font><hr></blockquote><p> A Case from Scripture:<br><br>As R. Scott Clark, from WTS, states, because the promise of the Covenant, God is a God not only to adult believers, but also to their children. That is why, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul said that children of believers are holy! Paul deliberately used Old Covenant, ceremonial, language to teach the Corinthians that their children shouldn't be considered outside of the visible people of God. To use Old Covenant language, children of believers are clean, and therefore have a right to share in the blessings of being a part of the visible people of God, including baptism.<br><br>Jesus made a similar argument in Mark 10:14. In Acts 2:39, Peter specifically includes children in the fulfillment of the promise. In Ephesians 6:1, Paul addresses children as if they were in the covenant people of God.<br><br>From this perspective, Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38,39 are direct commands to baptize infants. It is true that there is no explicit command baptize infants. There is no such command because there is no need for such a command. Neither is there an explicit verse which states God is One in three persons, but God's Word teaches the existence of the Trinity throughout.<br><br>Nowhere in Scripture, however, is there a declaration that children are no longer to receive a covenant sign! Where are all the mad Jews hiding, for they definitely would have had something to say about this issue? If one needs an explicit command to baptize children then we should stop admitting women to the Lord's table, since there is no direct command to allow women to come to the table. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>In Philippi, Paul and his co-workers met Lydia, a Gentile. After hearing the Gospel, the Lord opened her heart and [/i]she and the members of her household were baptized.[/i] It cannot be argued "reasonably" that there were no children in this household. DO you really believe EVERY Christian household mentioned in Scripture had no children, or ONLY those households that were baptized?<br><br>Paul was jailed for his ministry to a demon possessed girl. The Lord delivers them from jail by sending an earthquake. Their jailer hears the Gospel and professes his faith. Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized....he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God -he and his whole family (Acts 16: 33-34). As in the case of Lydia, Luke communicated the covenantal nature of baptism through the use of the oikos (household) formula.<br><br>After Paul had been rejected by the synagogue in Corinth he went next door to the house of Titius Justus, another God-fearing Gentile. There Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8).<br><br>These patterns were identical with what occurred in Israel for 2000 years: The adult Gentile converts were circumcised along with their male children in accordance with [color:red]Genesis 17:10-14</font color=red>:<br><br> <blockquote>Genesis 17: 10-14 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.</blockquote> As with most dispensationalists, you believe in two different churches: one for the Old Testament and one for the New Testament. Though there are differences in the way the Church may be viewed in both Testaments there is only ONE covenant that is unfolding and thus ONE church. Did Jesus say, upon this rock will I build my churches?”—NO, He said, ”My Church.” ONE!<br><br>The Lord Jesus has fulfilled the bloody signs and types of circumcision and has replaced them with bloodless signs. Christ's death was the reality to which the old signs and seals pointed. Now, Christ having died, there is no need for the old sacraments and feasts. The main difference between the Old and New Covenants is that what the Old Covenant promised through ceremonies and sacrifices, have been fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus (read Hebrews). The New Covenant Scriptures refer constantly to the Old Covenant. Romans 3:21, 9:27, 11:13-32; Luke 24:27; Hebrews 9:15, and the whole of chapter 11, all teach that the Covenant of Grace instituted by God through Abraham continues into the New Covenant. God's Word clearly teaches that New Covenant believers are the New Covenant Israel. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As is patent, there are too many questions to build a solid doctrine either way. </font><hr></blockquote><p> By not building a doctrine you in turn have built one!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Thus we come to Colossians 2:11-12. The whole issue falls on these two verses. Without them, every word about covanental continuity, or the replacement of circumcision with baptism, is all based upon dubious implication, conjecture, and/or logical deduction of questionable Scriptural value. The entire paedobaptist position rests upon these two verses and their interpretation.</font><hr></blockquote><p> As seen above the WHOLE of the paedo-baptist position clearly does not lie on these two verses.<br><br>In Colossians 2:11 Paul says in him you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ and in v.12 he says exactly how it is we were circumcised in and by Christ: [/i]having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith…[/i] For Paul, in the New covenant, our baptism is our circumcision. Baptism identified us with Christ's death and faith is the means by which we united to Christ for life.<br><br>One of the reasons that Paul so strongly opposed the imposition of circumcision by the Judaizers (see Galatians) is that, by faith, we have already been circumcised in Christ, of which baptism is the sign. We were already identified as belonging to God and we have undergone the curse in Christ. So actual physical circumcision is, in the New covenant, unnecessary. <br><br>Acts 2.38-39 equates circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2.38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ, and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 the reason he gives for this action is this: "the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off...." The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in [color:red]Genesis 17</font color=red>, which the Jews listening understood precisely. <br><br><blockquote>Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.</blockquote> For a better understanding of the Covenant, baptism, and the Church please read the Glorious Body of Christ by R.B. Kuiper.
Ron,<br><br>Forgive my apparent ignoration. My only reason is that I did not find much Scriptural backing in your posts. For example, in your first cited post, you make 5 concise points about covenental continuity, but none of this you backed up with Scripture. Perhaps it is just me, but in matters like this I strongly desire to be pointed to chapter and verse. Which is why I will be reading Joe's post over, carefully, a few times. Nothing personal; it's likely just the way I do things.
I know Lee Irons wrote a good article about the OIKOS FORMULA. I can't find it, but maybe I'm just searching wrong. It was monumental in helping me see the continuity of scripture and the familial covenant.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] My only reason is that I did not find much Scriptural backing in your posts. For example, in your first cited post, you make 5 concise points about covenental continuity, but none of this you backed up with Scripture. Perhaps it is just me, but in matters like this I strongly desire to be pointed to chapter and verse. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Precisley. That's why I have asked, repeatedly, for clear, concise scripture showing the discontinuity. I would also like to know how we got this wrong for 1500 years as well. Please, however, do not become SolO Scriptura on this. Reason and tradition should be looked at as well as hermeneutical methodologies, I suppose. But the SolO Scriptura methodology is fraught with problems.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Forgive my apparent ignoration. My only reason is that I did not find much Scriptural backing in your posts. For example, in your first cited post, you make 5 concise points about covenental continuity, but none of this you backed up with Scripture. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Henry,<br><br>If you go back to the top of thread you'll see that my original post was replete with Scripture references. (More than ten texts were referenced.) I have included it immediately below for your comments. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Henry,<br><br>Like my physical exercising, I've trimmed this discussion down the bare bones as well. In a nutshell, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any conditions (Genesis 17:7). Abraham responded to God's unconditional promise of salvation in faith, which was first issued in Genesis 12, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). In other words, God "administered" his covenant sign with the household of Abraham, even though God only "established" his covenant with the elect in Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, he tells us explicitly that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Accordingly, all those who believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the one seed, that we become the seed of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise." <br><br>We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Sure, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). So, contrary to what so many in the church today think, the sign of circumcision had primarily spiritual significance and not national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin. <br><br>In essence, God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Now, God has taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project in the church. The church is the international people of God. Which is to say, when one is converted to Christ they need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations. <br><br>Finally, God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded the principle concerning the subjects who were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>After my initial post, all you asked for was a proof that Baptism has replaced circumcision. Although it was somewhat disappointing that you ignored the entire point of the argument, I went along with your request and stated: <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Then, not only did I supply you with the proof you asked for, I neatly organized for you (this time without Scripture) the principles that were delineated in my original post. These you will find in points one and two below. You should already agree with points three through five below, since they are agreeable to Baptist theology, so I did not see the need of proof-texting a defense. Accordingly, after issuing the five points below, I drew as sound conclusion. I trust you should find that the form of the argument that is pasted below is cogent. Accordingly, unless you can refute one of the steps in the “proof,” you should find the conclusion reliable.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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>Conclusion: 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 baptized.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>
Ron<br><br>You might be surprised that I have always believed similar to that, even when I was an Arminian.<br>I say "similar" because as an Arminian I wouldn't have added that it was God's choice.<br><br>Tom<br>
Will,<br><br>Easy on tradition. This is a slam dunk from the Scriptures.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/yep.gif" alt="yep" title="yep[/img]<br><br>Ron
Well, I was making a case of continuity, continuing even after the Bible was written. I agree, the Holy Scriptures are clear enough to me. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img] <br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
Ron,<br><br>I must have forgotten that first post of yours. You're completely right in your injunction that I haven't been fair with this. A lot of major things have been coming down here (i.e. starting a new job, my pastor's in the hospital for 6 weeks, etc.) prohibiting me from spending the time a complex subject like this deserves, but that's really no excuse. As a friend of mine says, "my bad."<br><br>To be honest, I didn't start this thread to prove creedobaptism to anyone, or to have paedobaptism proven to me. I was simply inquisitive about the rationale behind the paedobaptist position. I have never, before now, known why paedobaptists believe what they do, and I am gratetful for the oppertunity to learn.<br><br>The truth is, I'm fairly certain by now I have read over every post here (including your very last one here), and I haven't found many of the arguments convinving at all (which can probably be guessed). The line of reasonging just doesn't seem logical to me. I would assume that others haven't found my arguments convincing either (aforementioned time constraints notwithstanding). This is all still quite new to me, and I imagine that any process- be it either changing one's position or formulating arguments to defend one's position- takes time.<br><br>So, while my convictions remain essentially unchanged, I am a firm believer in semper reformanda, and I trust that the tempering and refining process of the Holy Spirit upon all of us, including our beliefs, reasons and rationale, will bring about His work and His will for each of us, in his time. Someone quoted from the essay "The Means of Grace: Baptism" about what really connects us. I hope to remember that as I spend a lot of time mulling over everything here.<br><br>Again, I apologize for my academic indiscretions. I am quite thankful for the learning oppertunity, and trust that the process will be ongoing. Sola Deo Gloria!
Tom , I put this here because the unlock Malone thread was locked [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img]<br><br>I am a new believer in Infant Baptism .There are many ideas between paedobaptists about this topic and I am simply exploring baptism from every angle I can find .<br><br>Those that have been paedobaptists for a while should appreciate that I am English and American paedobaptists are so varied denominationally , that there is much I NEED to study.<br><br>There is no danger of me believing in Baptismal Regeneration btw. I am sorry if my zeal for knowledge has caused offence or stumbling [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/sorry.gif" alt="sorry" title="sorry[/img]<br><br><br>[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]
