Donations for the month of September


We have received a total of "$25" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
Posts: 95
Joined: April 2013
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,271
Posts53,180
Members964
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,021
Tom 4,035
chestnutmare 3,083
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,818
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 21
Tom 14
Ruben 9
Robin 3
Recent Posts
All Glory to God
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:40 AM
Rage Against the Unvaccinated!
by tomatoetom - Sun Sep 19, 2021 9:24 AM
Strength via Weakness
by NetChaplain - Wed Sep 15, 2021 9:29 AM
Good News for a Change
by Pilgrim - Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:53 PM
Doxology
by chestnutmare - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:41 AM
John 3:16 – Kosmos refers to "Believers Only"?
by Pilgrim - Fri Sep 10, 2021 7:25 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11
Pilgrim #56548 Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:15 PM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
You are right. What I said is that the Pedo Baptists claim that infant baptism corresponds to and replaced circumcision. I endeavored to point out at least one inconsistency in that view.

042Dave #56553 Fri Jan 15, 2021 8:18 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by 042Dave
Pedo Baptists claim infant baptism replaces circumcision in the OT. If this is true, why can't we say if you are baptized as an infant, Christ will profit you nothing? Just as Paul, when he says says “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Galatians 5:2 (KJV 1900)
There is no inconsistency whatsoever. Circumcision has been replaced by baptism. Paul isn't denying this truth whatsoever. He is attacking those who believed/taught that their circumcision=salvation. Put another way, neither circumcision nor baptism was efficacious to save. Neither was a 'sign' that the recipient or either was saved. The immediate and far context of Gal 5:2 is Paul's strong argument and denunciation of a salvation by faith + works. The overwhelming number of Israelites in the OT died in unbelief albeit they were circumcised. If circumcision was an infallible 'sign & seal' of one's salvation, then why would Moses say to the people of Israel, Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV) "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."? Throughout the OT and then in the NT, salvation is not obtainable by ANY work whatsever, including faith. Yes, faith is NOT the proximate cause. Justification is THROUGH faith, not BY faith. Salvation is by GRACE through faith. Nothing can contribute to one's salvation. Thus, coming full circle, if anyone believes that circumcision or baptism is an infallible stamp of their being justified/saved/reconciled, etc., they are seriously mistaken and in jeopardy of being under the just wrath of God, no less than were the unbelieving Israelites as exemplified by the Pharisees.

Now, are their paedobaptists who believe that a baptized infant is saved? Yes, without any argument there are and perhaps far too many. I am not referring to only those who believe in "baptismal regeneration" but also those who believe in "presumptive regeneration". Dr. Joel Beeke makes this point in his short article here: Praying for Our Children. Many years ago, I publicly debated John Reisinger on the subject of baptism. He was more than surprised to hear me state that I didn't hold to the false notion that baptized infants were saved nor even presumed to be saved, nor that they would definitely be saved sometime in the future, having possessed a 'seed of faith' because if they were children of believing parent(s). The conclusion of our debate was my insistence that (Reformed) Baptists reared their children no differently than how I reared my children, i.e., they taught their children that they were hopeless and helpless sinners in dire need to salvation. They needed to pray to God for mercy and that He would bless them with saving grace, giving them a deep conviction of sin and a faith that embraced Christ Jesus and His shed blood and His righteousness imputed to them.

Methinks that many Baptists err in like manner by believing that baptism, their baptism is a sure 'sign' of their obedience and consequent salvation. I have attended myriad Baptist churches and witnessed their 'ordinance' of baptism whereby the pastor declared that the baptized individual was most assuredly now saved, having "followed the Lord in obedience and submitted to baptism by immersion".


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #56554 Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Where do you find a single example of infant baptism in the New Testament?

Last edited by 042Dave; Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:37 PM.
042Dave #56555 Fri Jan 15, 2021 3:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
I have already written to you that I will not get involved in any further 'debates' on baptism. There are myriad discussions/threads on this board that expand years of such discussions. And very few resulted in anything positive. This is not to be understood as a ban on such discussions on this board. nope What I am clearly saying is that "I" personally will not entertain any such discussions.

Now, to answer your question... I suspect due to your misunderstanding or lack of sufficient knowledge concerning the "covenant of grace" and/or covenant theology in general and more than likely a presupposition that the "NEW Covenant" is basically a different covenant you do not comprehend the continuity involved. shrug Since I firmly believe that baptism has superseded circumcision as the "sign of the covenant", it must be the case that every Jew that infant and children assumed that this "sign" would still include them. In fact, it would have been expected that such a radical change to exclude infants and children from receiving the covenant sign would are require a clear command and explanation of such a change. No such command is to be found anywhere in the NT. The emphasis in the NT is NOT the exclusion of covenant children but rather upon the inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant, focusing upon, as should be expected, upon the conversion of adults. The NT (covenant) is not one of EXclusion but of INclusion; Gentiles and females vs. Jews and males. The family structure is not abrogated but affirmed and strengthened as well and the universality and spirtuality of the New Covenant.

I am bowing out of this discussion but others, if there is any interest may continue. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #56556 Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
If you can prove your point, why not take on infant baptism?

042Dave #56557 Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:51 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,021
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by 042Dave
If you can prove your point, why not take on infant baptism?
Because I already stated more than once that over the 25 years The Highway has been online, there have been a plethora of discussions/debates over this issue of baptism. Very few have had positive results. This is a foundational doctrine for most Baptists and when it has been challenged, the 'heat' gets turned up and any objectivity disintegrated into the typical ad hominem slurs, etc. In my last response to you I thought I had made it more than clear that I have no interest whatsoever to be involved in yet another fruitless discussion over baptism; recipients, mode, etc., etc., etc.

Originally Posted by pilgrim
I am bowing out of this discussion but others, if there is any interest may continue.
Is that too hard to comprehend? You may continue to call out the non-credobaptists all you like, which actually are in the minority here. But I seriously doubt you will get any takers. IF you personally think that adult baptism only via immersion is salvific in nature, you have more important issues to be addressed. scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Anonymous #56558 Sat Jan 16, 2021 7:56 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
The problem is, New Testament scripture does not support your claims for infant baptism. You haven't any other option than to remain silent.

Anonymous #56559 Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:07 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,083
Annie Oakley
Offline
Annie Oakley
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,083
Dave (042),

Please note that when you see "Anonymous", it means that someone has unregistered from the Board so they will never respond to you.

Sorry.

Last edited by chestnutmare; Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:22 AM.

The Chestnut Mare
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"
chestnutmare #56560 Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
Plebeian
Offline
Plebeian
Joined: Jan 2021
Posts: 23
It is a sin to judge a person's motives. Which you seem to be engaged in.


Anonymous #56814 Fri Jun 25, 2021 3:34 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,012
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,012
Just a lighthearted comparison:
[Linked Image]

Anonymous #56815 Fri Jun 25, 2021 4:06 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,012
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,012
I grew up in a "Baptistic" tradition, so it has been very difficult to get past the presuppositions I didn't even realize I had. It's like a whole 'nother way of thinking, this Covenant Theology thing.

I kinda set up the differences in 3 categories: Different hermeneutic, different covenantal views, and different ways of interpreting the "Regulative Principle of Worship:"

On Hermeneutics:

The Presbyterian hermeneutic is described in the Westminster Confession of Faith this way:

Quote
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture… (WCF 1:6, emphasis mine).

The Reformed Baptist hermeneutic sounds similar but it is different because it does not include deduction or “good consequence:”

Quote
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture (London Baptist Confession 1:6, emphasis mine).

So what’s the difference? I have a silly, simplistic way of illustrating it: If one passage explicitly states that “all normal dogs have four legs,” and another explicitly states that “Spot is a normal dog,” then it is necessarily true that Spot has four legs even though that fact is not explicitly stated. The fact is contained in the book even though not explicitly. A Presbyterian might deduce that since there are other properties of normal dogs, such as two ears, a wet nose, and a wagging tail, then Spot must also have those qualities as well, even if the book doesn’t explicitly contain those things in its description of normal dogs. A Baptist could not reach that far, since two ears, a wet nose, and a wagging tail are not explicitly contained in the book’s description. Have I understood this correctly? I have no idea, really, since even the Apostle Paul uses "good and necessary consequence" from the Old Testament scriptures in his epistles to explain his doctrines.

On Covenant Theology:

Presbyterians view the Old and New Testaments as containing different administrations of the same covenant, which most refer to as the Covenant of Grace. They do this to preserve the continuity of Scripture between both Testaments. But to a Baptist, it isn’t necessary to preserve the continuity of the Testaments by describing the two as being “different administrations of one covenant.” The writer of Hebrews describes the Old Covenant as “type and shadow” of the New. The New fulfills the Old. To a Baptist, the two are separate covenants altogether and while one prefigures the other, they apply to different groups of people and different points along the continuum of unfolding eschatology and progressive revelation:

First, the Old covenant was limited, under it’s different administrations, to one family, one race, one nation; whereas the New removes all such distinctions.

Second, the Old was temporal rather than eternal as the New covenant is.

Thirdly the Old was physical, geographical, and political, where the New is spiritual, universal, and “not of this world.”

Yet under the Old Testament, prefiguring the New, all who were eternally saved were saved just as they are in the New: By faith in One who was to come, the Seed promised to Abraham in the Old covenant, the Second Adam, the Mediator of – as the writer of Hebrews describes it – “a better covenant based on better promises (Hebrews 8:6).”

I reject the second premise altogether, since all of the covenants (Abraham, Moses, David) were to be "everlasting, throughout your generations." Also since the plan of salvation is the same between them all, I tend towards the "one single covenant of grace" idea. How 'bout putting it this way: The New Covenant is new in relation to the Covenant of Moses which is the one Jews lived under in Jesus' day and still do in our time.

On the Regulative Principle of Worship:

Both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians subscribe to this principle, based on Sola Scriptura and described in the Westminster Confession of Faith in these terms:

Quote
…the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by Himself, and is so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshiped according to … any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture (WCF 21:1).

This principle has been reduced by many people to simply, “When it comes to the worship of God, whatever is not commanded is forbidden.” This is quite unlike the Lutheran and Anglican principle which is, to reduce it to it’s simplest form, “whatever is not forbidden is permitted in the worship of God.” This leads them to all sorts of human inventions that “help the people worship,” from drama and dance to more superstitious stuff like making the sign of the cross and assigning mystical properties to the elements in the Lord’s Supper. Superstition, by the way, I take to mean trying to please, appease, delight, or “reach” God by any means other than revealed in His written word.

Because the Old Testament is to be interpreted through the lens of the New Testament, and because of the difference in the two views of covenant theology, the Baptist does not see baptism as a New covenant “replacement” of Old covenant circumcision. And as there is no explicit command in the New Testament to baptize any but confessed believers, Baptists reject what Presbyterians call “covenant baptism” (or “infant baptism”). To a Presbyterian, the command to baptize the infant children of believers is “necessarily deduced ” by the examples of Old covenant circumcision and “household baptisms” in the New Testament.

Have I boiled this down properly to it's essentials? I do not wish to misrepresent either side in this debate, so please correct my mistakes and/or false assumptions.


Anonymous #56817 Sat Jun 26, 2021 8:02 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,012
The Boy Wonder
Offline
The Boy Wonder
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,012
I think that if we look at the New Covenant as [b]new relative to the Mosaic Covenant rather than as "spiritual and eternal instead of national/political and temporal," Jeremiah 31:31-34 means something much different. It fact, it changes Point Three above (on the RPW) by explicitly commanding that the sign of the Covenant be applied to children! drop

I've been back and forth on this myself over the months and years since we left a straying PCA church and ended up in a "Reformed Baptist" church where Mrs. Robin and I attend and participate. Asked whether I'm paedo or credo, I truly can't say anymore, but I definitely lean towards paedobaptist because of the Scriptures and Covenants taken as a whole.




Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 102 guests, and 29 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
atdcross, NetChaplain, winslowlady, Zach, Daverogk
964 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
September
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,283,510 Gospel truth
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.30 Page Time: 0.028s Queries: 39 (0.009s) Memory: 2.7107 MB (Peak: 3.0825 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2021-09-25 12:23:28 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS