The first one takes a huge assumption, that any children were 'universally recognized as holy'.
I have given the definition for
holy several times from several different angles, but you still seem to be running into road blocks in its usage? But, we do not have to take ANY leaps of faith on this one as Paul says the children
are holy (though you say,
With regard to children of believers, they are Not holy). This is the Scripture:
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.
You have to deal with the Apostle Paul and more importantly, the Scripture as a whole, not me.
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized...'
Acts 2:44. 'Now all who believed were together......'.
This continues to be the
fallacy in your argument. You argue against the baptism of children by quoting Scriptures
dealing with adults or you simply quote them out of context. Take for instance Acts 2:41. Let us look at it in context:
"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
These Scriptures are
addressing adults—for of course babies could not understand. But, in addressing those adults he does not merely say, as you did,
'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized...'. No, what was said
prior to this was,
“For the promise is for you and your children ....". Think of the Jewish mindset. Think of the uprising had Peter said something like, “Come you Jews come to Jesus. Now your children will not be included in this New Covenant, which is far better than the Old Covenant, but come to Jesus anyway. Don’t worry about your children.” Would the Jews have complained about this? No doubt the Corinthians, the Galatians, or someone would have, but yet we hear not one complaint in Scripture, do we? No, because as Peter preached it at Pentecost,
their children were included in the Covenant. Jesus came to fill up the eternal covenant and not totally abolish it.
A Christian
adult should be baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ, for baptism is the sign indicating that a person belongs to the company of God’s people. Repentance, baptism, and faith are theologically related. He has already accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior (to the best of our knowledge) and knows that through Christ’s blood his sins are forgiven. Indeed, Peter instructs the people that baptism must be “in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” But, before all this Peter said, “For the promise is for you
and your children…” Remember the church is in new growth period and theology is developing right in front of them (see Kistemaker’s commentary). Later we see
households being baptized (The household of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48, 11:13-18); The household of Lydia (Acts 16:13-15); The household of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:30-34); The household of Crispus (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14); The household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:16); The household of Gaius (1 Cor 1:14 - by implication; 1 Cor 1:16 ). Though one may try to argue that nowhere does it say that the
households have children (which is unbelievable in and of itself), the usage of the term
household bares different evidence.. The
OIKOS formula bares witness to this:
The phrase 'he and his (whole) house' denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. [color:"0000FF"]In no single case is the term 'house' restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant.[/color] ….. Indeed, the Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in. Since the primitive Church takes the phrase over as a firmly established biblical expression, the statement 'it includes small children as well as others' applies to its employment in the New Testament as well"….. [color:"0000FF"]I have not found in secular Greek usage any examples of 'house' referring to 'adults exclusively.' [/color]As regards the phrase of the type 'N.N. and his house' no literary examples are found in the dictionaries in general use.... In view of the dissimilarities of the New Testament phrase 'he and his house' to secular Greek ... and its agreement with the Old Testament and LXX usage there can be no doubt that it represents a heritage from biblical language (Jeremias).
You say that there is a two-fold administration of Gen 17:7. You are absolutely right, but not in the way you think! Gal 3:16. 'Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds" as of many, but as of One, "And to your Seed," which is Christ.'
Yes, the covenant is filled up in One Seed and that Seed is Christ. But, Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew clearly shows (as well as your referenced verse) that Jesus clearly descended from Abraham’s Seed. Now, if we are of the seed of Christ, and Christ is of the seed of Abraham, then we too are the seed of Abraham.
When Abraham circumcised Ishmael and his household, he knew for a fact that Ishmael was not part of the Covenant of Grace (Gen 17:20-21) so he could not possibly be bringing him into it. This act of circumcision by Abraham was a looking forward to Christ (John 8:56).
But, he was circumcised anyway wasn’t he? Your failure here is to understand that there is a
visible and
invisible covenant church.
The Covenant includes both saved church members and lost church members—even in Credo Churches.
Amazingly, you have just proved that circumcising (1) non-professors of faith, and (2) non-professors
who are known in advance that are not part of the
invisible church were to be circumcised as part of the
visible community! And yes indeed, your evidence looks forward to Christ for there is continuity in the Covenant of Grace. Thus, we can surmise that we may (1) baptize non-confessing babies (2) and yes,
if it were possible, even baptize a baby that we had advance knowledge was not among the elect. As you have proved it is all a matter of obeying the covenant (remember Moses’ trouble for not obeying it in this issue)! Your evidence is overwhelming. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />
Pilgrim is right that we both start with radically different hermeneutics, but I must continue to protest at mine being called dispensational. …Your using these terms is not helpful and shows (if I may say so) that you do not fully understand Reformed Baptist Theology. …
Steve you must not know much about my past history. I was a Reformed Baptist for years, preached in their churches, attended Baptist seminaries, et. al. I had a luncheon with Dr. Roger Nicole (a Baptist, a Visiting Professor of Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary and Contributing Editor to The Founders Journal) this past week to discuss the issue of
Baptism. I think I have a very good idea of what the credo hermeneutic(s) entails. But, in my language, and that of several seminaries, we use
short cut descriptions to keep from saying a complete paragraph when something may be summed up in a word or two. This in no way (as I have
explained before) is meant to be negative, but
only descriptive.
Enjoy
