The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Household Baptisms

That's because they had no faith of their own they could testify to. Faith is not part and parcel of being a member of the external covenant. They were not the covenant children to whom the promise was made. They were not the children of Abraham but of the Devil. (cf. Jh 8:44; Rom 4:16; 9:7, 8, 29; Gal 3:29) They, like EVERYONE, were born spiritually dead. They inherited the corruption of nature which is infallibly passed down through families. And as such, they like our own children, were born under the wrath and just condemnation of God. They, like our own children, needed to be called to repentance and FAITH. Neither Jesus, nor John the Baptist, nor any of the Apostles ever presumed that there was faith in any of the covenant children they met. The gospel was given to ALL without discrimination because ALL needed to be saved; not presumed to be Christians.

In His Grace,

Matthew 3:9,


This was spoken to "many" of the Pharisees and Saducees, right (v 7)? Why was it not spoken to "all" of the people, but only a "part" of those who were of the class that actively opposed the mission of Christ? This distinction is brought out quite forcefully in Mk 12:37-38, where the common people were hearing the words of Christ gladly even at the very time that Christ was warning them to beware of the zealots for self-righteousness. Does that mean that the Jews of that day were all converted? I would hardly say that -- but they were all circumcised and they all had the sign of regeneration in their flesh. Further, as Jesus himself pointed out to the woman at the well, "salvation is of the Jews" (Jn 4:24). But even at that it is important to view that "generation of vipers" in light of the Redemptive Historical scheme God decreed. It was this generation of which you speak that Isaiah the prophet spoke and the Psalmist spoke when referring to the hardness that would come upon Israel.

Of course Galatians 3 actually supports my position rather than yours, when we understand it in its context.

In Gal ch. 3, Paul was arguing against the self-righteousness of the Judaizers of that day. He was not contrasting those who had faith with Pagans, but rather he was contrasting those who depended entirely upon the righteousness of Christ with those who had some measure of trust in self-righteousness. Thus those who depend upon their own works cannot be the children of Abraham; only those who place their faith in Christ's doing and dying are the true children of Abraham. But Paul did not go on to say "and of course your children are trusting their own righteousness." In fact, it was a child's humble reliance upon others that Christ so clearly commended in Matt. 19:14 and parallel passages.

So, once again, I would simply point out that you may be confusing the terms "usually" and "normally" for "always." There is not a paedobaptist of whom I am aware -- and certainly no reformed paedobaptist -- who maintains that all the children of believers are elect head-for-head. It may be easier to argue against that position; but it is not the position I have espoused.

Now I have a question for you or any other antipaedobaptist who wishes to undertake it. Is there an example anywhere in the NT of a family coming to Christ and one or more members of that family being refused baptism for any reason, including personal unbelief? Or alternatively, is there an example in Scripture anywhere of a child who grew up in a home where papa and mama were baptized, but the child was overlooked only to be baptized later? This does not mean that the child grew up in a Jewish home and was or was not circumcised earlier. The example must be of one who grew up in a self-consciously Christian home and the child only later "came to faith in Christ" and was then subsequently to his coming to faith baptized. I am not aware of any such example, and yet in our American culture that is accepted as the norm among many evangelicals.

And where did Christ desire for our understanding of the covenant (one) to begin? Did God first say here is Christ? No, Christ the author, began with Adam, Noah, and then Abraham, didn’t He? God does everything for a reason! God chose to relate to us in one covenant dispersed in stages for our clarity. God is not a haphazard God. God desired for our understanding of the covenants to be in the order He has revealed them to us in His Word. Look at the hermeneutic Paul uses in Galatians: he argued from Abraham to Christ…..The Scripture demands proper interpretation not inflipatation to suit our theological luggage. God gave us His hermeneutic in Gen 1:1 In the beginning.....to lead us to the One of the beginning (Jn 1:1, 14).

Of course, Jesus and Paul speak about the "real" members of the covenant that are apart of the invisble Church (Rom 2:28-29). But, did you notice that your quote included the members of the visible church, that of course where lost? They were circumcised also!!! The covenant of the OT included both circumcised visible and invisible church members. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old, but it is not a totally new covenant. It is a better covenant, for it has its completion in Christ, et. al., but it still bares the marks of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, all of whom are mentioned to one degree or another in the New Testament…. The covenant is like a scroll that continues to be rolled out—and when our glorification appears it will be finished rolling….

Well, I am not sure you (1) are quoting MM in context (while MM and I have had or differences on Baptism, I know he was not taught that, nor held to it before) (2) or if is your lack of understanding Covenant theology.

In brief, Covenants were established by kings to others in the ANE (Ancient Near East). Kings of one kingdom established covenants with kings or vassals of other kingdoms. There were basically two types of covenants in the ANE: (1) Parity, where both sides speak about the conditions—bilateral (2) Suzeran-Vassal, where the relationship is between the Greater and the lesser. Covenants were carried out for the eternity of the king’s kingdom, unless otherwise stipulated. God chose to basically relate to man in the later form of covenant. God took an oath to honor this covenant with Abraham and others. (please read: Covenants, Christ of the Covenants by Robertson and He Gave Us Stories by Pratt, as I do not have the time or space here to write a fuller explanation).

Christ has a Kingdom. He is the King of that Kingdom. Christ the eternal King relates to His Kingdom in eternal covenants. Thus, a proper Covenant hermeneutic has Christ as its King. Consequentially, we do not abandon Christ, but we rather embrace Him with the fuller understanding of (1) who He is, and (2) how He relates to us as the King of His Kingdom. In the New Testament, we see that God merely rolled out the scroll of the covenant a little further for our understanding now in Christ …

You do realize, using Gal 3:7 as your proof text for whom to baptize mounts to very huge problems for you. It entails you knowing for sure who is and who is not a son of Abraham. Since, there is NO WAY you could ever fully know then you would never be able to baptize a single soul. So, if you baptize you do so against your own hermeneutic!

Its been real nice visiting again, but now the grind returns. See you in a few weeks…

Pilgrim, I agree with your "two seed" theology. There is a seed of Christ and a seed of the devil. I would also say that it sometimes the case that one finds tares even amongst the wheat and that a dragnet pulls in fish both good and bad. Having said that, I disagree with your characterization of my position as "presumptive." Jesus had some very important things to say about the children who were coming to him in Matth. 19:14. He did not say that they were head-for-head elect, nor do I believe that they were. I'm not sure if this is simply such a drastic difference from modern American Calvinism that it is difficult for a North American audience to distinguish, or if I am simply a very poor spokesman.

What I have been presenting is the position of the Westminster Assembly -- esp. its Directory for the Publick Worship of God -- and the Church Order of Dordt. Thus, too, the Heidelberg Catechism at Q74, "Are infants also to be baptized? Yes: for since they as well as the adult are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must, therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church, and be distinguished from the children of infidels, as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.

Ursinus, author of the Heidelberg Catechism, explained in part,


Article 34 of the Netherlands [Belgic] Confession states, "And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for the adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them."

So, the reformed creeds, confessions, and directories were not at all hesitant to make such statements. Can one disagree with them and still be a Calvinist? Of course. The 1689 London Confession is an essentially baptistic document that is quite Calvinistic. Further, I agree (one has to close the pages of the Bible not to agree) that the line of election and reprobation cuts through the visible manifestation of the covenant and makes a distinction between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the promise.

I am familiar with Dr. Nicole's famous dictum "grace, not race." But IMO that sets up a false dichotomy. God is not realizing his covenant in history apart from the organic unity of the covenant. There is an outworking of the covenant in history (always has been; always will be) that contains an organic element. Denial of that organic element is fundamental to the antipaedobaptistic position.

These two positions (doctrines) must be held together. One cannot choose election over the covenant and neither may one rightly choose the covenant over election. But that is the dichotomy that Nicole expresses -- and I think most antipaedobaptists do as well, though not so eloquently as he. Samuel Rutherford, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, referred to the covenant as "God's workship." It is primarily, though not exclusively, within the context of the visible covenant that God calls out his elect.

The reformed creeds and confessions can certainly "sound" like they teach presumptive regeneration -- what they actually teach is that we should expect our children to be Christian children. That expectation may be realized sooner or later; but it is a real expectation. We raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; we train them in the ways of God; we watch them grow in grace and in knowledge of Jesus Christ; we see that they speak and behave as those who assent to God's own truth. If an adult were trained in the ways of God, well grown in grace and knowledge, spoke and behaved as one who assents to God's own truth, what would we say about him? We would not "presume" he is a Christian. We would say that his profession of faith is a credible one. That is exactly what the reformed creeds spoke of with respect to children as well.


It is important to note that the reformed creeds do not say that regeneration is tied to baptism such that it takes place at the same time or prior to baptism. In fact, the WCF goes so far as to deny that idea. But, like Matthew 28:19-20, the reformed creeds join baptism and discipleship in a covenantal way. Who is saved? Those who believe and are baptized. How do we make disciples? By baptizing them and teaching them to observe all things that Christ has commanded (which commands include the command to repent and believe the gospel). So, does this sometimes sound like presumptive regeneration? It can to some -- and apparently did to Kuyper. But that is not what the creeds teach. And on a slightly less important note -- that is why we call creeds and confessions secondary or derivative standards, and do not make the same claim for individual theologians.

I have written this post, Pilgrim, in order to point out first of all that the language I use is simply and only the language of the reformed creeds and confessions. It was not incorrect or unbiblical of them to use the language, nor is it incorrect for us to use that language today. Second, I want to point out that we do not have to accept the dichotomy that is often times presented to us by such phrases as "grace, not race." Such a phrase siezes the ground away from biblical theology by setting at odds two things that God has not set at odds. Finally, I want to assure those who have read these posts (and unquestionably in the multitude of words there wanteth not sin - Prov 10:19) that I do not believe nor do the reformed creeds teach that baptism is a substitute for faith. The two have been joined together by God. We separate them at great peril.

First of all, read Luke 3:7-9. JTB's words were spoken to the Pharisees and also to the 'multitudes'.

Secondly, what are you saying about Paul's words in Gal 3:7 etc? Are they only true in a certain context? Under what circumstances might Paul in error? Only those who believe are sons of Abraham, which is why our Lord commends to us the simple, trusting faith of a child, which comes so hard to those who are older and (in their own eyes) wiser (Matt 19:14).

I am not, as you suggest, an 'antipaedobaptist'. I have much respect for the views outlined on this forum by Pilgrim and others, even where I do not agree with them. Nor do I confuse 'always' with 'usually' or 'normally'. What I oppose is the Doctrine of Presumptive Regeneration which says that because a child is born to Christian parents, he may be presumed to be regenerate. All that one can say of a child is that he is born in sin and shapen in iniquity and unless he is born again, of water and the Spirit, he will never so much as see, let alone enter, the Kingdom of God (Psalm 51:5; John 3:3,5).

If you can find me an example in the Bible of anyone of any age being baptized without professing faith, or if you can quote me that passage in 3Timothy about the procedure for baptizing infants, then I will find you the passage you request.

Every blessing,
Steve

Well since you're disappearing, there doesn't seem to be much point in replying in depth.
Two quick points. Firstly, Christ is everywhere in the OT. 'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me' (John 5:39). Christ's covenantal role is seen as early as Gen 3:15.

Secondly, Baptists are not by any means required to judge infallibly on anyone's salvation. We baptize as the Apostles did, on a person's profession of faith. Water baptism is not the seal of the New Covenant, Spirit baptism is (Eph 1:13-14). Water baptism brings no one into any covenant. Simon Magus was baptized in water, but his heart was unchanged. Therefore Peter told him, "You have neither part nor portion of this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God" (Acts 9:21).

Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47). If nothing has happened inwardly then baptism is irrelevant.

Have a nice break!
Every blessing,
Steve

Joe

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding something. But from my studies, DT didn't come along until 1833, the LBCF was written in 1689.

Tom

Richard,

I realize that to even "think" that the framers of the Westminster Confession went too far, had a wrong emphasis, or God forbid were actually in error on what they wrote is construed as next to blaspheme to some; especially if one is referring to the Scottish Covenanters! However, it just may be true on this matter.

As to Ursinus' comments on his Catechism:

IF by this he means in a general way, i.e., that salvation is not to be excluded from a child simply because they are children, then I can fully agree. IF, however, as Kuyper understood Ursinus, that the benefits of salvation are actually and infallibly promised to infants of believers, then he is in error. This is because the promise of God is infallible in the matter of salvation. And this promise includes both the benefits of Christ's atonement and the means by which those benefits are apprehended. Therefore, the promise of God unto salvation extends to ALL who are called efficaciously, repent and believe upon Christ; yes, even to children.

I obviously oppose ANY and ALL forms of salvific presumption, whether it be in regard to election, regeneration, faith, etc. Children of believers are surely blessed in that they are given the outward means of grace whereby God calls His elect to Christ. (cf. Rom 3:2; 9:4, 5). What I warranted to presume is that ALL children are born into this world guilty before God and possess a corrupt nature; being under the wrath and just condemnation of God and in dire need of regeneration and conversion.

You have made such statements several times in various places. It seems to me that to you think that the Calvinists of Scotland, during a limited time period in history are to be the standard by which biblical truth is to be measured? Is this true? It surely seems this way. So that any Calvinist born in America or who disagrees with any of the Scottish Covenanters is suspect?

In another reply you quoted from the The Directory for the Publick Worship of God, which I would also like to quote from the section, "Of the Administration of the Sacraments: and first, of baptism", wherein it is written of the children of believers who are to be baptized:

That children, by baptism, are solumnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and all who are baptized in the name of Christ . . .; That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized:

Granted, that as the form continues, in the prayer to be offered, it is said that there is hope that God would graciously "join the inward baptism of his Spirit with the outward baptism of water; etc." Yet, the language used in this quote, specifically, saying infants/children are "united to believers" and calling them "Christian" is specious at best. We have had the same disagreement, along with myriad other issues concerning children in the covenant, with Drs. McMahon when he was here in this regard, i.e. the definition of biblical terms. And this term "Christian", I contend is to be restricted to only those who have repented of their sins and profess faith in Christ. One has no biblical warrant to consider (presume) an infant of a believer to be a Christian without outward evidences observed. To be "united to believers" is to be one with them in that the one united is indwelt by the Spirit and first united with Christ. There are only two groups recognized in Scripture; those who are enemies of God and those who are adopted sons of God. Children may have an "interest" in the Church in an outward way but until they are united to Christ, that interest and relationship is strictly external in nature and this relationship should not be blurred by the misuse of terms, IMHO.

On this matter, I do not foresee us coming to any agreement.

In His Grace,

Tom,

Perhaps I can give some light to this confusion. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Joe is NOT speaking of "Dispensationalism" in regards to Eschatology. Rather he is using the term in regards to a Hermeneutical method, i.e., one that uses, to one degree or another, a "psycho-statistical-mean", aka: Plain reading of the text, literalism as a basis for understanding the Scriptures. Darby and Scofield used that same method and from it produced eschatological "Dispensationalism". So, all Joe is referring to is THAT method alone and not the eschatology that is derived from it. I hope this helps you to understand this better now.

In His Grace,

Thanks Pilgrim

Boy does this topic ever stretch a person. It takes all of my will power not to take the easy way out and say to myself; "what is the use, you might as well drop it, you will never completely understand the matter anyway."

Tom

Then why DID they baptize Simon Magus as he does not meet your definition above for baptism?

You can't PROVE anything has happened! Profession does not mean possession. Thus, baptism is against your hermeneutic!

PS: I thought today was Tuesday, my bad. The grind begins tomorrow.

It may be. Nor would I say that the framers of the Westminster Confession are the last word. But what I would say is that the reformed creeds and confessions teach the same precise doctrine that I do. No more and no less. It is therefore the historic and credal view of paedobaptism that I am setting forth. You may not like it and that is certainly your privilege as a student of the word of God. I would not deny that to you. But what I would point out is that my view is not some aberration from the historic credal paedobaptist view of the reformers -- it is, in fact, precisely their view, be it right or wrong. I do not quote the fathers to demonstrate something is biblical. I quote the fathers to demonstrate that it is not I who has departed from the historic reformed understanding.


That is not the question at hand, though. The question at hand is whether they are to be regarded as belonging to the world or the church. This is not speaking of children qua children, but baptized children qua baptized. And again, you are free to agree or disagree with Ursinus. I merely quoted him as an authority on the HC because he was its primary author -- not because he is himself infallible.


The very creeds that I quoted maintain the same thing. There is not a reformed creed that avers that children of believers are born sinless or without a corrupt nature. Whether they are "in need" of regeneration depends upon whether they have already been regenerated. But the WCF again clearly states at 28.6 that regeneration is not so tied to the time of baptism that it may not occur before or after such baptism takes place.


Look, the fact is that the reformation doctrine of infant baptism was precisely the same as mine in every regard. I have demonstrated that by numerous proofs from not only Scottish documents, but from the reformed continental creeds as well. You are entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is not the opinion of the Westminster divines or the Belgic divines or the churches that have adopted the Heidelberg Catechism. That is fine. You are not held to that as your ultimate standard. We believe sola Scriptura. But you cannot escape the fact that it is you who differs from the reformed standards on this subject and not I. Bringing up this old bugaboo about confessions not being infallible is simply beside the point of the discussion.


Let's put it in more precise terms. Anyone who has departed from the reformed creeds has ipso facto departed from them. One cannot rightly and fairly depart from those standards and then accuse one who continues to maintain them of some aberration from the reformed faith.


Fine, you disagree with the Westminster Directory. You are not the first and I doubt you will be the last. But it is not correct for you then to imply that those of us who continue to believe the very things that the reformers of both the first and second reformation maintained are somehow the ones who have departed from the reformed understanding of paedobaptism.


And I have repeatedly stated that you have every right to that opinion. But the language of the Westminster standards and of the continental reformed confessions do not teach what you are objecting against. You are importing ideas onto the language that are simply not there. Alternatively, you may simply disagree with the [historic] reformed view of paedobaptism. I cannot say with certainty that you are doing one or the other. But the language I use is not different from the language of the historic creeds, be it right or wrong.

God bless

Richard,

My standard of authority is first and foremost, as I will assume it is yours also, the infallible Word of God. Thus, my objections to the language used by the Westminster Standards, and the Dutch "Form for Infant Baptism", which to many teach presumptive regeneration. I also object to the view which believes that non-professing adults are to be baptized when the head of that household comes to faith. You have maintained that this has been the standard practice of the Reformers and Puritans, if I have understood you correctly. To my knowledge, which I admit is not infinite, i.e., I have not read EVERY single work written by every author during the period ranging between 1500-1800, yet I have not found any that have taught this. Again, this doesn't mean that NONE have held to this view, but rather of the MANY authors I have read, none of those have. So, that causes me to ask, how is it that you say this is the STANDARD view which was practiced, yet not one author I have read held to it? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

However, IF what you claim is true, then there are myriad men of God, some notable, e.g., Owen, Edwards, etc., who would fall under the odious charge of having "departed from the historic reformed understanding". Personally, I don't equate that as something negative. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> I simply don't follow the teachings of men when those teachings cannot stand up to the understanding of God's infallible Word which I believe the Spirit has given me.

Quoting from various historic documents is all well and good, and something which I do also. But my arguments are first and foremost based upon the biblical text. And should any of these historic documents affirm the same, then I find great value in them.

So again, I say, that I seriously doubt we shall ever agree upon this subject as I find no biblical basis for the view you are espousing here. My specific disagreements would be: 1) In a household where the "head" (man) is a believer, all non-professing adults should be baptized, and 2) Children of believers are to be considered "Christian" and are "united to believers (and/or Christ)" before they make a profession of faith.

Thanks for the exchange. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

It's exactly as I stated. Simon Magus was baptized on his profession of faith (Acts 8:13). However, this faith was not saving faith, being unaccompanied by repentance (v19). Therefore his baptism was an irrelevance and he was subject to the ban of the church (v21) until such time (if at all) as he should signs of repentance (v22).

Seems pretty straightforward to me. It would be nice if no one ever made a false profession of faith, but life's not like that.

Blessings,
Steve

I know WHY, but that was not the point....In your hermeneutic you claim you MUST know someone is saved prior to baptism (You said: Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly (Acts 10:47).). But as I already stated you can't prove this--Magus himself disproves your asserted hermeneutic.

Since baptism according to you is irrelevant let me ask you if the circumcision of the lost in the OT was irrelevant ? Let me make it clearer, are the commands of God irrelevant ? The answer is NO they are not. There was a purpose then and there is a purpose now. It is called obeying the covenant as laid down by its King....