The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Infant baptism

Precisely. I have no qualms with your statement. However, I am not the one claiming Believers Baptism.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

Howard,<br><br>Sorry about the confusion in my post. I meant specifically his books,sermons,etc. However, my previous post was misleading at best. <br>What I was tring to getting at was why don't you read his stuff anymore?<br><br><br>Carlos

I dont read baptist stuff in any great detail nowadays and that includes Bunyan , my 'favourite' at one time . Now its time for me to read some CT books.<br><br>howard

Okay, so what about animal sacrifice? Cerimonial purification? The Jews did those for thousands of years! To say that becuase you can't find an uproar in scripture about one point of the old covanent, therefore it must continue to be upheld, is one of the most ludicrous bits of logic I've heard in a long time.<br><br>I'll be back tonight with a "commentary" on Col. 2:11...

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Okay, so what about animal sacrifice? Cerimonial purification? The Jews did those for thousands of years! To say that becuase you can't find an uproar in scripture about one point of the old covanent, therefore it must continue to be upheld, is one of the most ludicrous bits of logic I've heard in a long time.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Henry,<br><br>I'm not quite sure if I'm following your reasoning here. But IF you are saying that the sacrificial system and ceremonial laws were all abrogated "without an uproar", then I think you are sadly mistaken. . . or perhaps it was an "off day" when you wrote that. I believe that the epistle to the Hebrews alone would be enough to show that there is MUCH written in this regard. And one other thing. Neither of those elements were "abrogated", in the sense that they were totally eradicated. For the truth is that they were "fulfilled", brought to their completion, exponentially exhibited in the life and death of Jesus Christ Who is the Great High Priest, Prophet and King, the Lamb Who was slain from the foundation of the world, etc., etc.. As Chris pointed out, all of that which Israel did in the way of sacrifice (to be sure even thousands upon thousands of years prior to Moses, beginning with the slaying of an animal to clothe Adam and Eve) pointed to the Lord Christ. It is Christ Who brings continuity to biblical history and all that is written, from Genesis to Revelation. It is the oneness of the covenant of grace that binds all of the redeemed of God together. It is Christ who gives meaning to everything that ever was, is and ever shall be. There are discontinuities to be sure, between the O.T. and N.T., but they are to be found in the Administration of God's grace, which in each successive age, they became fuller, more inclusive, deeper and glorious; not the reverse. God's grace increases as history moves toward the eschaton. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Maybe Pilgrim has an electronic copy of Samuel Miller's argument from church history that he would like to link us to. Though it's an argument from silence, it screams. <br><br>Ron<br>

Ron,<br><br>Would this be what you were referring to by Samuel Miller: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/baptism1.htm?<br><br>

what does it prove that his whole family believed? It does NOT say that they were all baptised BECAUSE they believed which is what creedos seem to read into this verse. The two are distinct. they were baptized. They believed. The text notes no cause and effect with respect to the rest of the household. It's interesting (but doesn't prove paedo) that it's noted that his family was baptized before it's noted that they believed.<br><br>Now since we're in Acts 16, lets look back on verses 14 and 15. There we are specifically told that the Lord opened Lydia's heart and yet her whole household was baptized. Granted one cannot prove that there were infants there, but one can with certainty say that they were all baptized because of the faith of Lydia.<br><br>As an aside i've always found it fascinating that creedos will teach and allow their unbaptized children to pray the Lord's Prayer which begins with Our Father. Why is that? How is it that those that are ouside the covenant (as creedos say) can call God "Father"? Do creedos not realize that this shows a covenental framework within the family?

Pilgrim,<br><br>I went back and checked the book that contains Samuel Miller’s paper as an appendix. What I thought was an article was actually just an excerpt from Miller's book "Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable.” Essentially the excerpt demonstrates the confirming evidence we would expect to see from church history. The following quote from Miller sums his historical argument up pretty well. "That the church should have passed from the practice of none but adult baptism, to that of the constant and universal baptism of infants, while such a change was utterly unknown, and never heard of, by the most active, pious, and learned men that lived during that period, cannot, I must believe, be imagined by any impartial mind." In other words, if the the universal practice of the early church was to baptize only adults, why then can't we find even a blip on the screen of church history for such a radical change to the universal practice of baptizing infants?<br><br>Thanks!<br><br>Ron<br>

Sorry, I was late for work- you fill in the rest. This board is addicting! I expect to be able to post soon in more detail.

Here is my "complete" take on the matter. I don't have much hope that this will change the minds of any paedobaptists here. I just wanted to state my position and show why I believe what I do about paedobaptism.<br><br>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?<br><br>As is patent, there are too many questions to build a solid doctrine either way. In Charismatic Chaos, John MacArthur cites Joseph Dillow as saying,<br><br>"We must not make the tragic mistake of teaching the experience of the apostles, but rather we must experience the teaching of the apostles. The experience of the apostles is found in the transitional book of Acts, while the teaching of the apostles is set forth clearly in the epistles, which are our guide for our Christian experience today."<br><br>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.<br><br>I will quote them here for everyone's conveniece.<br><br>"11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." KJV<br><br>"11 in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." WEB<br><br>We see Paul explaining that while the old circumcision put off actual flesh, as a symbol, the new circumcision, the circumcision of Christ, puts off the sins of the flesh- a spiritual, rather than a physical, process. How is this process effected? By two things: 1)Being buried with Christ in baptism, in which we are also 2)raised with him through faith in God.<br><br>We must be careful with these verses, for a customary and decontextualized reading could very easily justify the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. After all, Paul does say we were buried and then raised with Him, in baptism! Obviously what Paul is getting at is what is behind the symbols, the eternal truths they represent.<br><br>I see no link between circumcision and baptism in this passage. The context reveals that what Paul is speaking of is a spiritual putting off of the sinful nature, effected through salvation. That is what baptism symbolizes- being buried and raised with Christ. Paul is saying nothing about the physical symbol of baptism- i.e. the actual water, etc.- as relating to the physical symbol of circumcision. He is rather comparing physical circumcision- to be blunt, the removal of the foreskin- with Christ's circumcision, a spiritual process whereby our sinful nature is "cut off."<br><br>Of this, to be sure, baptism is the sign, but is is clear that nowhere does Paul, nor any other Biblical writer, indicate that baptism is to be administered under the same method as circumcision. We would never assert than something like even the Lord's Supper, which clearly comes from Passover, must follow the same rules as passover. Why, then, such a rigid continuity between these two other ordinances so much more dubiously linked?

Henry,<br><br><br>What is most unfortunate is that you have ignored many of the arguments. Two of my posts were ignored in their entirety.<br><br>On one occasion I stated:<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><br>Then there was this post:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]<br> <br>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> </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><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 <br>

I have to admit that although I am a Baptist, I do believe that circumcision had to do with salvation. This does not of course mean that all who were circumcised actually became saved, for not all who descended from Israel are true Israel. That of course had to do with God's choice alone.<br><br>Tom<br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] The entire paedobaptist position rests upon these two verses and their interpretation. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>This is incorrect. The paedo-batist argument has many scriptures hinting towards a continuance of the familial covenant. It has a continuity of both testaments in regards to the visible/invisible church. It has an argument for inclusion of all under the covenant sign. It has 1500 years of practice to help it out as well. <br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br>

William,<br><br>I'm afraid that Henry might not be willing (for whatever reason) to deal with the arguments that are before him, which is fine. I just don't think it was fair for him to bring the matter up and then dismiss in the way he did without cause.<br><br>Ron