The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Continuity in Old and NT

The baptism of the true covenant is indefensible. Plrease stop claiming this. That passage does not say children are excluded. Try again, maybe?


God bless,

william

AF said:


And the Scripture replies clearly, again:


Note please the following:

Phillip, under the guidance of the HS doesn't say if you believe that Baptism is a sign of the objective reality of God's promise, etc or what ever. No, his response was that what would hinder him from being baptised, mark it, was if he didn't believe with his whole heart. The Ethopian Eunich then made a profession of faith in Christ as the Son of God, Whereupon the chariot was stopped and he was baptized. Now I submit that this teaching is rather clear.

Complicate it, obfuscate it or deny it in order to cling to your view of baptism, but the teaching of scripture remains clear and simple, so that a child may understand it.

In Him,

Gerry

I totally understand that passage is referring to an adult. Did I miss something referring to paedobaptism?


God bless,

william

Well Joe,
It has to be the story of an adult getting baptized, doesn't it. There are no stories of infants being baptized in the Bible, are there? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,
Steve

William,
What sort of reply is this? I have done you the courtesy of taking your posts seriously and doing my best to reply in some depth to each of your points.

If you want to continue the discussion, please do the same for me.

Blessings,
Steve

Well this is a very unusual set of verses (Acts 8) to be attempting to prove that God believes only in “baptizing true believers,” to the exclusion of ALL infants that are a part of the covenant. After all this is the conversion of an ADULT. And if that is not enough he was an EUNUCH (which is normally an emasculated official in a royal court), i.e. no children. In Scripture though not only are "single adults" baptized, but complete households are as well.

Gerry, if one begins with a wrong definition of “baptism” then he will inevitably end up with the wrong view of it. I struggled with this for years before God's grace intervened and changed my heart. I had preached the credo view with conviction for many years and from several pulpits and even here on this forum. I have baptized several (credo style) and dedicated many an infant. Truly, I could not understand the paedo view—nor did I try to for many years. I was so convinced I was right. Then I decided to retrace the circumcision/baptism debate back in history and through the Scripture as best I could. Now I was studying to know the truth and not simply to defend my view(s). In the process, I discovered that my hermeneutic was in error.

Praise God that I now understand that God’s covenant promises are far more reaching that I ever thought them to be. Jesus himself said, “suffer the little children to come to me.” Remember His words after that? “For of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 19:14; Mk 10:14; Lk 18:16). Luke 18:15 informs us that these “little children” were actually “infants” (Luke 1:44 (an unborn babe). They—or at least some of them—must have been carried to Jesus in the arms of their parents. Remember what Jesus did? Taking them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his hands upon them. There was no confession by these infants of Christ, but yet there was the very blessing of Christ upon them.

As the Baker NT Commentary says, Not only did Jesus rebuke the disciples for their attempt to prevent the little ones from being brought to him, but he has also actually called to himself these infants together with those who wanted to bring them to him (Luke 18:16). And now each mother or father, etc., carries his little child into the very presence of Jesus; that is, each does this in turn. The Master takes the first child in his arm and places the hand of his other arm upon its head. Then he tenderly—or fervently—blesses it, by means of uttering a brief but earnest prayer to the Father, that his blessing may be bestowed on it (probably implied in Matt. 19:13). While he does this, his heart, filled with love and compassion, goes out to this little one. Finished, he returns the child to the one who had brought it. He then treats the next little one in the same manner, and the next, until all have been blessed. It must have been a most impressive, comforting, and memorable scene.

Now we know (1) Jesus blessed "children" (which He did not do to the Pharisees, et. al.) (2) He prayed for them, and (3) that He knew the Scriptures containing the Covenant promises. Look at the glory of these verses:

The belief that since the little children of believers belong to God’s visible Church and to his covenant, baptism, the sign and seal of such belonging, should not be withheld from them, is well-founded.

Hi Joe,
Doubtless all analogies fail if they are pressed too hard. I am quite happy for both of mine to stand in answer to Pilgrim's and William's arguments.

Just to be quite clear for the umpteenth time; baptism is indeed the outward sign of an inward reality. If there is no inward reality, then the baptism is effectively void (Acts 8:21).

Blessings,
Steve

Steve got to disagree with you concerning the first verse there. It is clear that John's baptism was of the older economy and not of the New Covenant. If it had been then Paul wouldn't have baptized those disciples in Ephesus. For in the New Covenant we get the baptism of the Holy Spirit.


Again I believe the stronger arguement (although it has yet to convince William or the others <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />) is from Matthew 28:19 where we make disiciples and then baptize them. As the rest of those verses demonstrate.

Just my <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/my2cents.gif" alt="" /> you all go on now with your discussion its mighty interesting.

Then said baptism was actually not due to an inward change, and your first premise fails. The two statements are contradictory.

Does that passage refer to baptism specifically?


God bless,

william

How can something be is indeed and then effectively void, if the initial cause was that which you claim already is (an inward reality)? If it already is then in Calvinism it can never be effectively void, and if it isn't then you should not baptize. The definition is lacking?

Your definition is based upon man's word that he is not lying and not on the Covenant promise of God, who cannot lie. Baptism is a declaration of God's promise to save all who believe. As Pilgrim said, "the meaning of baptism is not dependent upon the recipient as it is grounded in the immutable promise of God to save all who believe. Just as the Gospel doesn't vary according to the one who hears, the meaning of baptism is always the same regardless of who is baptized." Baptism is an outward sign of God's covenant promise.

I really have to chuckle here, not AT you, but because your definition: "baptism is indeed the outward sign of an inward reality." immediately brought to mind how illogical it is when applied to virtually any other circumstance in life. For example, one of the situations I am thinking of is one of the "signs" posted down at the hydro plant; KEEP OUT - High voltage. Now, the placard seen is the "outward sign" (no pun intended) of an "inward reality" (the high voltage). But again, using but not pressing in any way whatsosever, your "logic", to the one who believes that there is serious danger involved with that equipment, the sign truly signifies the reality of that high voltage. But if one refuses to believe there is danger, then the sign is "effectively void", i.e., what the sign says is untrue. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" />

Or we could look at it in another way and see the same illogic of it. If the sign says there is High Voltage and there is indeed high voltage there, then the sign is true; i.e., it is an "outward sign" of the "inward reality". But if there is no high voltage, then the "outward sign" is no sign at all for there is no "inward reality".

The problem isn't with the sign and its inability to communicate a truth; a reality, but with your understanding of how a sign functions. Baptism IS a sign of a reality. But that reality is not to be found in the SUBJECT(IVE) realm, e.g., the recipient of the sign but in the OBJECTIVE truth; i.e., God saves believing sinners by the washing away of their sins in Christ's blood. The sign is ALWAYS and FOREVER true, regardless of who receives the sign, for the reality is the promise of God which can never change. The application of what the sign signifies does vary dependent upon whether or not the person being baptized has faith. But again, the "sign of the covenant" does not change since it does not find its meaning and/or significance in the subjectivity of the recipient, but rather in the immutable promise of God and the reality of Christ's accomplished substitutionary atonement in behalf of the elect. In short, Baptism IS "an outward sign" but of an "outward reality", which may demonstrate what belongs to the person being baptized should they have faith. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Why I do believe you are correct sir that horse is dead. However, there is the small matter of removing the sticks from the hands of the beaters. Of which I for one am more than interested in how it will be done. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" />

Everyone has sticks. Some beat with more melody than others do to the Scriptures. As Saul kicked against the pricks of his day so do all of us today kick against our denominational, historical, and biased understandings of certain things. Even after salvation only the Damascus road will change any of us (i.e. Jesus and the Scriptures). As usual, these discussions get somewhat emotional, but I think fruit still comes from them. Changes come: Iron sharpens iron. We all wrestle at Jabbok and hang on to all we think we know saying, "I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." Then when Truth is more fully revealed we limp out in victory with a fuller understanding (Eph 1:18).

Hi Steve:

Having grown weary of this "discussion", I was reading Goodwin on Hebrews 6 and false profession and found it to be the most penetrating and insightful I have read on this controversial passage. Stunning really, but in the process of analysis of the verse he states the following in passing, for this is not his primary emphasis here:


I note that Goodwin says that baptism signifies our ingraftature into Christ, which agrees with our postion that Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, not an "objective sign of a promise of God".

Back to reading Goodwin now, rather than "laying again a foundation of repentance... and doctrines of baptisms" per Paul's instruction at the beginning of Heb 6.

In Him,

Gerry

Hi Pilgrim,
I actually quite like your analogy of the high voltage cables; I think it fits quite well <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

One needs to remember than baptism, though ordained by Christ, is operated (if that's the word) by man, and like anything we do, is fallible. We must not therefore confuse the sign with the seal, which, being affixed by God Himself is not fallible. The seal is, of course, the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13. cf. 2Cor 1:22).

Just in case there is any confusion, my position is articulated in Art 29.1 of the 1689 Confession.

Blessings,
Steve