I have asked other times as well, but this quote from the url below shows the error in the baptist assertion that baptism is for disciples alone.......
Quote
Why did Malone title the book, “The Baptism of Disciples alone?” This is what he says – “I have chosen the designation "the baptism of disciples alone" to describe the only instituted and regulated baptism "expressly get down in Scripture." It is no more an unbiblical description of baptism in the Bible than are other principles of reformation theology: Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and God's glory alone. That which is "expressly set down in Scripture" concerning an instituted, regulated sacrament is sufficient to earn the designation "alone." This is humorous. I say that tongue in cheek. First, Malone claims that Credobaptism is “expressly…instituted” in the New Testament. Where? Why does he make this assertion when he knows that baptistic theology is grounded on gathering data from historical examples in the New Testament? We already covered the fallacy of that. He will harp on Matthew 28 as the Great Commission, but exegetical work on that area will discredit the only “inductive” aspect of his argument that he thinks is one of the strongest.
Look for days.......it simply isn't there. It's also a false hermeneutical method.
God bless,
william
*******go here for true learning on the subject.......
Thirdly, he deals fruitlessly with the Regulative Principle. Quoting the confession does not help because the confession on the Regulative Principle does not teach that you need a positive sanction in the New Testament to form a doctrine. This is true for both the 1689 Baptist Confession as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith says, “The light of nature shews that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is just, good and doth good unto all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart and all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.” Malone quotes this himself. The italicized words, though do not discount good and necessary inference. Not at all. Whether it is prescribed by picking at the mind of God, or by the clear attestation of “Thou shalt not…” then it is still the will of God. I am personally surprised that Malone overrides his own Confession in this regard. There is really no need to say any more than this, where Malone takes this to extreme. He cuts off his own foot with his own Confession. Where does Malone find a positive, clear, explicit statement of believer’s baptism that says, “when a profession of faith is made by the regenerate disciple of Christ, after proving himself, he may be baptized in water by immersion?” Malone needs to concede that Credobaptism is built by an inductive collection of texts.
Very interesting how Fred walks all over himself on this one.
I'm somewhat ignorant of the nature of the discussion and have not read Fred Malone's book, however I thought the Great commission was Christ's command -Matthew 28:18-20. The New King James says 'baptizing'. Does this mean other than water baptism? Please inform me.
There are many who hold that infant baptism is "unbiblical" because there is no explicit account of it in the New Testament. We could argue on the same principle that the people of the New Testament were very serious about "not defling the temple of the Holy Spirit." Therefore they were very healthy and in fact didn't relieve themselves. There is no record of them relieving themselves, so their bodies must have been running at 100% efficiency, and we need to get back to their practice. This is obviously ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than trying to say that no infants were baptized because the Bible doesn't say so directly. The truth is the Bible really gives no account of a Christian family giving birth, so there is no record of the practices of the early church in the New Testament. The first we really hear about infant baptism in church history is those refuting it. This would tell the literate person that it had been standard practice until it was refuted. So unless you are willing to accept that the Early Christians didn't have excrement, you cannot assert that infant baptism is "unbiblical."
It took me 10 seconds to find the appropriate text:-
Acts 2:38, 41. 'Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ........Then those who gladly received his word were baptized [along with their infant children].......'
I added the bit in brackets since Matt McMahon and others seem to believe it should be there. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
It took me 10 seconds to find the appropriate text:-
Acts 2:38, 41. 'Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ........Then those who gladly received his word were baptized [along with their infant children].......'
I added the bit in brackets since Matt McMahon and others seem to believe it should be there. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Blessings to all,
Steve
Have you ever eaten a sandwich. The bread is excellent, but what is in the middle is so good as well. Speaking about what is in the middle between Acts 2:38 and 41 is a fantastic verse, Acts 2:39 "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him." The middle is so rich with truth as well. No brackets needed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Amen Brother! The bit in the middle is most important, but it wasn't the question you asked. You asked for a command to baptize believers, I gave it to you and also gave the result of it.
But let's look at the middle: 'For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off.'
As I say, Amen! What is the promise? That if these Jews repent and are bapptized, their sins will be forgiven and they will receive the Holy Spirit.
Of course that promise applies to their children. Why wouldn't it? But infant children cannot repent or trust in Christ. When they are old enough, they can do these things for themselves.
However, if you take a different view, may I ask you, Is Peter's promise true for infants? Do baptized infants receive forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit?
Let's look at this text again, but in detail and see if your proposition is a viable one:
Acts 2:38 (ASV) "And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
If we take Peter's words "literally", i.e., at face value, bifurcating them from the rest of Scripture; for argument's sake setting aside the Analogy of Faith, we would have to conclude that remission of sins results from two things: 1) repentance, and 2) baptism. Is THAT what you hold to be true; that salvation results from repentance and baptism? Where does faith come in? Is salvation denied to those who are not first baptized? Do you see the problem here? If the text is taken the way you appear to be interpreting it, then remission of sins is only granted upon the act of repentance and physical baptism. Methinks that this proves too much, even for you, no?
Let's return to the original text:
Acts 2:39 (ASV) "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him."
First of all it must be determined what this "promise" is. Would you agree that it is salvation, summed up in Peter's exact phraseology, "remission of sins"?
Secondly, it must be determined who the "you" are. (a) Are they only those who were "pricked in their heart" and who asked, "what shall we do?"(vs 37)? (b) Or, are they those who "received the word and were baptized" (vs 41)? (c) Or, are the "who" everyone who was within Peter's voice? (vs. 5 & 6)? I do not think a case can be made for (a) since the "promise" spoken of was not to those who had a movement of conscience, but rather to those who would repent and be baptized. And further, he also mentions them "who are afar off", i.e., those who weren't even there. Even more so, (b) is actually untenable because the "promise" was mentioned BEFORE their actual receiving of the word and were baptized. So that leaves us with (c), i.e., everyone who was in the audience that day was told that the promise was to them and to their children, and it even extended to many who lived elsewhere and who were not even present that day. I'll expand on this more below.
Thirdly, Peter's words are actually OLD COVENANT phraseology and should not be construed as something totally "new". He was simply repeating what the Lord had told Abraham concerning his salvation and that of his "seed". (Gen 17:7ff) This "promise" was to be a God to him and to his seed after him throughout their generations. It was an infallible/immutable promise which God could not nor ever has broken. (cf. Rom 9:6-8; Rom 11:1ff) And to whom then was this promise made, both that which was spoken to Abraham (actually beginning with Adam in Gen 3:15) and through Peter to those who were present that day? It was spoken to:
Fourthly, The promise is given to "as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.". What we are actually told is that this "promise" (of salvation) is extended to everyone who is effectually called by God; i.e., those who the Spirit regenerates and bestows all the means by which one can apprehend the message of the Gospel and embrace Christ by a living faith, repenting of their sins. The "you" are therefore the spiritual "seed" of Adam, Abraham, David, etc.; the elect of God who are in God's wisdom "made willing in the day of His power"! Within God's purpose of election are included infants, or do you wish to deny this?
Pilgrim answered most of the exegetical issues. I will merely add,
Quote
Acts 2:38-41 Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.
41 They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls.
You have a good non-covenantal approach to the interpretation, unfortunately it is a covenantal set of verses. At least you understand the "congregation" addressed—the Jews, however, you failed to fully realize what the text means “from their perspective.”
The question is not if an infant can repent or trust in Christ (that is not in the text, nor should it be since it was common sense then, as it is today), but what a Jew in that day would have done about the sign and seal of his new found faith.
To be MORE correct this is not Peter's promise, but Peter was using a “biblical promise.”
Quote
Gen 17: 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Compare the two sets of verses—see their similarity? Acts 2:38-39 associates circumcision and baptism!
First, in vs 38, the Apostle Peter calls for (1) repentance, (2) faith in Christ, and (3) baptism by Jews (of course others were present). The clear link is seen in v. 39 where Peter gives the reason for this action: "the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off...." (compare with “and thy seed after thee in their generations,” etc.—read Gen 17). The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula (because it is an everlasting covenant) in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. The Jews listening understood this precisely. Thus, they understood as circumcision was for Abraham and his seed, thus was baptism for those that believe and their seed. Thus, the link is established with Peter, however not ONLY with him.
As Scott Clark states, the connection between baptism and circumcision is quite clear in Colossians 2:11-12. The connection is not direct, but indirect and the point of contact between them is Christ and baptism is the sign and seal of that circumcision. In v.11 Paul says "in him [i.e. in Christ] you were also circumcised with the circumcision done by Christ" and in v.12 he says exactly how it is that we were circumcised in and by Christ: "having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith...." For Paul, in the New covenant, our union with Christ is our circumcision. In baptism, we are identified with Christ's baptism/circumcision, as it were, on the cross.
The point not to be missed here is that, in Paul's mind, baptism and circumcision are both signs and seals of Christ's baptism/circumcision on the cross for us. By faith, we are united to Christ's circumcision and by union with Christ we become participants in his circumcision/baptism. Because circumcision pointed forward to Christ's death and baptism looks back to Christ's death, they are closely linked in Paul's mind and almost interchangeable. Paul's point here is to teach us about our union with Christ, but along the way we see how he thinks about baptism and circumcision and his thinking should inform ours.
Hello Pilgrim, Joe alerted me to the fact that I had not replied to your post, so blame him for what follows <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bif.gif" alt="" />
Quote
Pilgrim said: If we take Peter's words "literally", i.e., at face value, bifurcating them from the rest of Scripture; for argument's sake setting aside the Analogy of Faith
Hmmm.....Why would we want to do that? Surely we should not set aside the Analogy of Faith? By using it, we can see that repentance assumes faith (compare Matt 4:17 with Mark 1:15 ). It was because these Jews were convicted by the truth that they cried out, 'Men and brethren, what shall we do?'
You continued:- ------------------------------------------------------------
Let's return to the original text: Acts 2:39 (ASV) "For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him."<br>
First of all it must be determined what this "promise" is. Would you agree that it is salvation, summed up in Peter's exact phraseology, "remission of sins"? ------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I would. You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------ Secondly, it must be determined who the "you" are. (a) Are they only those who were "pricked in their heart" and who asked, "what shall we do?"(vs 37)? (b) Or, are they those who "received the word and were baptized" (vs 41)? (c) Or, are the "who" everyone who was within Peter's voice? (vs. 5 & 6)? I do not think a case can be made for (a) since the "promise" spoken of was not to those who had a movement of conscience, but rather to those who would repent and be baptized. And further, he also mentions them "who are afar off", i.e., those who weren't even there. Even more so, (b) is actually untenable because the "promise" was mentioned BEFORE their actual receiving of the word and were baptized. So that leaves us with (c), i.e., everyone who was in the audience that day was told that the promise was to them and to their children.....' ------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, (c) will do me nicely, thank you. Anyone in that crowd who trusted in Christ would be saved. And the same promise applied to their children. You went on:- ------------------------------------------------------------ Thirdly, Peter's words are actually OLD COVENANT phraseology and should not be construed as something totally "new". He was simply repeating what the Lord had told Abraham concerning his salvation and that of his "seed". (Gen 17:7ff) ------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm again! Peter did not mention either Abraham or Gen 17:7ff. You are reading them into the text (eisogesis! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> ). What he was doing was expounding Joel 2:28-32 (Acts 2:17ff) and saying, 'This is that!' <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bigglasses.gif" alt="" /> The promise of Joel had come to pass in their time, and the promise has reference to Joel 2:32; 'And it shall come to pass that whoever calls upon the Name of the LORD shall be saved.'
Now that promise was not just for those who were present; it was for their children (descendants) also. If they (the children) called upon the Name of the Lord (which they should do by repenting of their sins and being baptized), they would be saved. And the promise went still further; it is, 'to those who are afar off.'
Now who are they? Well, they could be those far off in time, but they are usually comprehended by 'children'. They could be those far off in distance, the Jews of the Diaspora, but if we compare Scripture with Scripture, we come to Eph 2:17. 'And [Christ] came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.' In the context of the preceeding verses this can only mean the Gentiles, and so it does in Acts 2.
But let us take into account your predilection for Gen 17:7. 'And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations.' Who are the descendants of Abraham? 'If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise' (Gal 3:29 ). You and I and all believers are the seed of Abraham and we should take upon ourselves the covenant sign.
You concluded:- ------------------------------------------------------------ Within God's purpose of election are included infants, or do you wish to deny this? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" /> [/quote] ------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed they are, and when they come to profess faith in Christ, they too should be baptized. But not until then. There are no children mentioned in Acrs 2:41.
I don't intend to post here again unless you particularly want me to, so you may have the last word.
Hmmm again! Peter did not mention either Abraham or Gen 17:7ff. You are reading them into the text (eisogesis! ). What he was doing was expounding Joel 2:28-32 (Acts 2:17ff) and saying, 'This is that!' The promise of Joel had come to pass in their time, and the promise has reference to Joel 2:32; 'And it shall come to pass that whoever calls upon the Name of the LORD shall be saved.'
Steve are you unable to trace the covenant promise from Gen 17:7—to Isa 44:3—to Joel 2:28-29—to Acts 2:28f? Do you not understand that when one calls upon the LORD that he enters into a covenant relationship with the Lord—the likes of which were laid down in the Abrahamic Covenant. A covenant relationship included not only the believer, but their children as well as demonstrated throughout the entire OT and the NT by the oikos formula and 1 Cor 7:12f. The only way one could accept your interpretation of Acts 2 is to accept that salvation is not a covenant relationship—which of course is against the Scripture (Jer 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 2:12, 3:7; Heb 8:1, 8; 9:15, 12:24).
Quote
Now who are they? Well, they could be those far off in time, but they are usually comprehended by 'children'. They could be those far off in distance, the Jews of the Diaspora, but if we compare Scripture with Scripture, we come to Eph 2:17. 'And [Christ] came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.' In the context of the preceeding verses this can only mean the Gentiles, and so it does in Acts 2.
Of course, those who were far off were Gentiles. And if adult Gentiles entered into a covenant relationship of salvation with the LORD, their children also were in the covenant. Just because someone is in the covenant does not mean they are saved as proved over and over again in the OT and as Paul demonstrates even in the NT:
Quote
Rom 9:6-13 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Apparently Paul believed in covenant continuity. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" /> Though both sons were in the covenant, only one was elect. However, please note that this is Paul’s NT theology! To deny this is to deny the full essence of the Gospel itself. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
