The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Subjects for Baptism

Who are the proper subjects for baptism? Please offer scripture?


God bless,

william

Ah, why not?

In a nutshell, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any conditions (Genesis 17:7). Abraham responded in faith to God's unconditional promise of salvation, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). In other words, God commanded that the sign of the covenant be "administered" with the household of Abraham, even though God only "established" his covenant with the elect in Christ. (The precedence is set!)

The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, the apostle tells us explicitly that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans nine, verse eight). Accordingly, all those who believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9 & Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the one seed, that we become the seed of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."

In essence, God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Now, God has taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project in the church. The church is the international people of God. Which is to say, when one is converted to Christ they need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations.

Finally, God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign of membership has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded the principle concerning the subjects who are to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God.

Entertaining Baptist Arguments:

The best Baptist arguments are based upon a foundational premise, that the old covenant unlike the new was not established with the elect alone. However, as I have argued, the old covenant was indeed established with the elect, as is the new. Accordingly, the reason that the new covenant will not be "broken" in the way that the old covenant was broken cannot be grounded in the premise that the new covenant is established with the elect alone whereas the old covenant was not. No matter how Baptists wish to interpret the promise of the new covenant, they must do justice to the fact that the old covenant like the new was established with the elect.

Note Abraham's request in Genesis 17: "...Oh that Ishmael might live before thee!"

Now note God's denial: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have bless him, and will make him fruitful..."But my covenant will I establish with Isaac.." as opposed to with Ishmael.

NOTE: Abraham wanted the covenant to be established with Ishmael, but God refused! Notwithstanding, Ishmael was to receive the sign of the covenant, though it was not established with him. The promise was established with the seed of Abraham, which are the elect in Christ.

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ...And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

As Galatians three teaches, the promise was made to the Second Adam, Christ, and to those who are in union with him, the elect. The old, like the new, is established with the elect, which undermines the heart of the Baptist position.

Some Baptists assert that circumcision was an ethnic sign:

We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Sure, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). So, contrary to what so many in the church think, the sign of circumcision primarily had spiritual significance and not national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin.

Some Baptists argue that baptism did not replace circumcision:

Though I think that baptism replaces circumcision, the Paedobaptist position does not require the premise. The reason being, Baptists and Paedobaptists agree that the visible people of God are to be baptized; so whether baptism replaces circumcision doesn't really matter. The only question is why are children no longer to be included among the visible people of God? I would think that such a drastic change in covenant administration would be accompanied by some sort of explicit instruction.

Now what? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Ron

All peolple, without exception

Matt 28:19












Not really, just seeing if you're paying attention <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rofl.gif" alt="" />

You know, I will really have to use that next time I am talking with an Arminian...

I don't think you understand the promise made to Abraham, especially in light of Galatians three and Romans nine.

Ron

Everyone in the New Covenant <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

What scriptural warrant do we have for baptizing any who don't beieve?

Best Regards,
Dan

None! even those who don't believe!; that is if you are a Babdist. But for those who are understanding the continuity of the covenant correctly, they baptize all who are to be deemed as members of the covenant, i.e., those who make a valid profession of faith, since we cannot infallibly know who has true saving faith and thus we abstain from saying we only baptize "believers", and their children. We distinguish between those who are covenant members externally and those who are members internally, i.e., those who have been genuinely converted and are united to Christ by faith.

Ddaann, let me be very frank with you. You are not going to convince any paedobaptist here to "switch" without presenting a protracted, detailed and convincing argument in regard to the continuity/discontinuity of covenant theology as seen from the Baptist point of view. Many of us here came from the Baptist camp so there isn't much probability that any are going to regress. Also, it isn't something most of us here really care to hear again, since we have been down this road sooooooooo many times and invariably and unfortunately, due to the zeal of a very few, not more than hard feelings, and even schism has resulted. If you are one who thinks that baptizing an infant is next to utter apostasy then perhaps you need to evaluate your own position and realize that you make far too much of baptism. And, fyi, I say the same to paedobaptists who think that it is a terrible sin not to baptize infants and even more so for those who think that baptized infants belong to Christ.

You don't think it is proper to baptize infants? Fine.... don't do it. But what you MUST do is realize that ALL children are born in sin and need to be impressed with their need of Christ. With the exception of the "hyper-covenantalists" who believe their children are "in Christ", "Christians", etc.... both Baptists and Paedobaptists rear their children in an identical manner. In this I rejoice and find unity.

In His Grace,

OK. I appreciate your frankness and what you are saying. (Really,:D, not petulantly). My aim, as I stated in my first post on this forum, was to try to understand the principle source of our differences. I started by attempting to initiate just the sort of protracted argument you suggest but was quickly met with the one-liner skirmishes I had hoped would be 'taken as read' through mutual familiarity with the standard positional arguments. Since the "standard positional arguments" fail to convince either way, I was looking for something deeper: The hermeneutic basis of our divergent view of covenant theology and the crucial point of departure.

I realise many who have been down this road have a great deal of personal investment in the conclusions they have reached. I can respect that while regretting that the ability or will to set out a winsome case and discuss the issue openly seems lacking. Perhaps I underestimate the task. I have read some admirable papers on the subject from both camps (Strawbridge, Welty) and do not see baptism per se as a primary isssue. I do see Covenant theology and resultant ecclesiology as much more important and have the "normal" Christian's concern for the truth in cases of controversy.

Seriously, and without rancour, condescension or "cheap feelings of superiority" I shall simply quit the field and hit the books.

God Speed!

Danny

The crucial differences between the two camps is rightly a hermeneutical issue. How much ecclesiology is effected, I'll leave that for you to judge for yourself. When I was at WTS, I wrote a major paper on baptism, trying as best as I could to remain neutral in my studies and ended up even more solidly grounded in the paedobaptist position, albeit one that is not which is typically held by many in our era, e.g., Mark Horne, Drs. McMahon, &co., who I think have gone far afield, no less so than many Baptists who do in their own respective positions.

Lastly, if by the above quoted comment you mean you are leaving the Board to pursue more important matters, then would this not go to show that for you, at least at this time in your life, you indeed see this matter of Baptism to be one of fundamental importance? What I'm trying to say is that we have had our fair/unfair share of "one-horse" individuals whose apparent "calling" in life is to set the brethren straight on whatever it is they are obsessed with. It is my hope that you will find far more to discuss, both pro and con here than just this one issue.

In His Grace,

Thanks again Pilgrim,

I don't think I'm a one trick pony but this was an "area of special interest". I'm aware how much time discussion boards can absorb and I endeavour to discipline my time in front of the pc.

Far be it from me to have delusions on "setting the brethren straight".

So really, it is just a case of bowing out gradefully.##

Best Rgards,

Danny

PS...you don't have a copy of your paper do you?

Unfortunately no. Would you believe that I loaned my original copy; my only copy to a Baptist friend of mine some years ago and it was never returned. When I asked him to return it, he denied ever receiving it.

Oh, what a pity! I would have loved to have read it, too. You have brought more clarity to me on this issue than any other; and for that, I thank you!

Kim,

Thanks for your kind words. I would love to have that paper back too. Doubtless I have forgotten too much from my study on this subject and it would be a great help to me also to be able to reference it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

Best answer I've seen all day. As a Babdist I agree nuff said.