Padeo Baptist Covenant Children

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Iconoclast, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Do we have any right to object to the Padeobaptists who teach that their children are in covenant with God unless or until the break that covenant?

    On what biblical basis would you speak for or against this idea?

    I do not care how you "feel"..or what you"think".....unless you offer a scriptural basis for your opinion.

    All Christian parents want all their children to be saved.This is a given.
    In light of these two recent threads this area needs to be openly discussed without getting personal, or putting people on ignore who raise questions:wavey::thumbsup:
     
  2. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Are we under the old covenant or the new?

    For under the new one, its the examples in the text of believers baptism by immersion!

    And one is in covenant with God ONLY thru the Cross, NOT thru ANY ordiance!
     
  3. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    This is not quite getting at the issue,and you offered no verse of scripture for your ideas.Focus on one aspect and give a biblical basis for your comments.
    Take your time...no rush:wavey::love2:
     
  4. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

    tje NT references ALL have believers receiving Chrsit thry faith first, than water baptism afterwards!

    What gets them into covenant with god is thru faith in jesus, so any baby diped/immersed/sprinkled is in same way before God regardless, as water does NOTHING regarding a covenant with God!
     
  5. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Padeos do not believe the water saves either...they say ot signifies salvation that is through faith in the promise.
    39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

    The padeo parent teaches his child as the baptist parent does.
    The padeo believes the child to be in covenant with God and in the visible church. So he believes his teaching his child is in fact discipleship.
    When his child speaks of Jesus...they do not say the child got saved, they believe they were already in the covenant so they say the child is "improving" his baptism.

    The baptist says this is wrong baptizing the child first...but as soon as his child says Jesus they are all set to baptize them...if they have not already performed a "baby dedication"...so called , already. Does not seem to be much different.
     
  6. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,926
    Likes Received:
    95
    You know what, your right! With all this "Easy Believe -ism going on today going on, ya might as well infant baptisms.
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728







    I used to equate Presbyterians with baptismal regeneration years ago,but I did not understand their teaching accurately.All christians want all of their children saved.
    Family and friends also.We know mentally and scripturally that God must do the saving....but emotionally we might want to help things along more than is prudent.
     
  8. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0

    John 3:18
    Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

    John 3:36
    Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
     
  9. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Yes, we absolutely do.

    I would first point out that the onus for a Scriptural position is on them because the NT has zero evidence for paedo-baptism.

    Then I would point out that all the examples of individuals being baptized in the NT, all means all, are matured people who make this decision following conversion. (Cf. Acts 8:26-40; 9:17f; 10:44-48; 11:13-18.)

    Also, I would point out that the argument from the NT that baptism is the new circumcision (Col 2:11f) is not at all close to condoning any kind of baptism prior to that following faith. Also, that the text only includes males if it is read as a direct correlation (because of obvious reasons.) Thus Paul's point is somewhat symbolic but also applies to that practice following faith.

    Finally, the historical and archeological evidence we have from the first five hundred years of Christianity details how paedo-baptism wasn't practiced until about the early to mid 4th century at the earliest. Two major works have been unassialable in this position: Everett Ferguson's Baptism in the Early Church and Beasley-Murray's Baptism in the New Testament

    I'm happy to unpack this more, but I'll await some interaction. Thanks for the post! Its a good one. :thumbs:
     
  10. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    Sproul and MacArthur debated this issue a while back. You can purchase the debate at ligonier.

    Honestly, though MacArthur did a fine job, I thought Sproul trounced him rather thoroughly.

    The main point is this:

    NT baptism replaces OT circumcision as the sign of the covenant.

    Unless the NT tells you NOT to apply that sign to your children you should assume that you should continue to apply that sign as it has been applied for thousands of years.

    The argument that the NT doesn't show any infants being baptized is an argument from silence and is totally impotent. The NT does not show anyone using musical instruments to worship by either- but are we to embrace the silly reasoning of the Church of Christ? No.
     
    #10 Luke2427, Apr 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2013
  11. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I'm probably gonna regret this...but...

    You can't apply this argument to an ordinance.

    Don't we give communion to infants?

    Perhaps the strongest argument (outside the NT one) is that of history. Why would the earliest followers of Jesus not even think to follow infant baptism? Why did they actively campaign against it for the first 300 years?

    Overwhelming historical and archeological evidence backs up the clear NT case that baptism was saved for individuals who made a decision to become followers of Christ and were then saved. This precludes infants.
     
  12. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I think there's plenty of NT evidence that we are NOT to continue applying the circumcision sign of the covenant, or at the very least...that it doesn't matter whether you do it or not.

    2. While it is true that circumcision was and OT sign of the covenant, and that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant...the circumstances surrounding each are very different, and there is not NT evidence to warrant application to the same type of people, specifically: Male infants. The circumstances surrounding baptism are always personal belief.

    3. This fits very well with Pauls teaching that it is NOT children of the flesh who are the true children of Abraham, but children of the promise...those who share abraham's faith.

    4. What your bolded sentance is really arguing is a bit of stretch: "Unless the NT tells you not to do [act a], you should continue to do [act b]." Which could be applied ad nauseum..."unless the NT tells you not to observe passover, you should continue to eat tacos."
     
  13. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    :thumbs:Good imput....


    I have seen these verses offered:

    14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

    and this:
    10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

    2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

    3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;

    4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
     
  14. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    Is the new Covenant just a continuation of the old, albiet in a modified form, or is it another, brand new one, old one passed away and obsolated?

    being a dispy, I vote B!

    Also, that would be assuming God has a special election for JUST kids of saved parents geing to jesus, and cannot find support for that, as each person has to receive chrsit by faith themselves, none are born "inheriting it!"
     
  15. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don't understand your point about communion and infants.

    As far as history is concerned, I think you need to check your sources. We know that at least by the second century infant baptism was traditional and customary.

    Origen, Tertullian and Hyppolytus all attest to that fact.

    If it was ALREADY customary by the end of the second century, then it was practiced well before that- perhaps even to the days of the Apostles.
     
  16. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I don't think there is.

    If anything, the opposite is true. Keep in mind that the NT does not have to SAY to apply the sign of the covenant to your children. It should be assumed since the previous sign of the covenant was applied to children.

    But even though it is not necessary for the NT to SAY to apply the sign to the children, there still are passages that seem to indicate that you should- or at least can. (Acts 16:15, 31-33, I Corinthians 1:16)

    I disagree. The whole point of a NEW Testament is fulfillment and completion of the Old. What we find in the New Testament is a MORE inclusive program- not a less.

    You would expect the sign of the covenant to be expanded, not restricted in such a program. The sign of the covenant should become MORE inclusive, not less. That is what you find. Credobaptists have to deal with the fact that they restrict and narrow the sign rather than expand it. Paedobaptists on the other hand see the sign of the covenant expanding to include females.

    This does not apply because nobody (in the context of this discussion- we are not talking about Catholics and greek Orthodox; I assume we are talking basically about Presby's) believes baptism saves except for the Federal Vision folks.

    Paul's teaching is not new to the New Testament anyway. Paul is addressing a false notion that was prevalent in the perverted Judaism of his day. The fact is that nobody has EVER been saved simply by physical birth. The Jews of Paul's day, many of them, thought that they were saved because they were the physical seed of Abraham, but Paul argued that it has NEVER been that way- that salvation is by faith- it always has been.

    Paul's teaching here does not represent a shift in theology therefore it cannot be used to represent a shift in the application of the sign.


    You did not read what I wrote thoroughly. My argument is not that the New Testament has to tell you to stop everything.

    My argument is that we do not discard ANY OT teaching unless it is already fulfilled or does not apply to us.

    I cited ceremonial law which Christ fulfilled. We don't observe passover because Christ was the Passover.

    I cited civil law because there are numerous laws that obviously apply to the way the Israelites were to treat their own physical land and govern themselves while in it (like Deuteronomy 22 where it commands not to take eggs from a wild bird's nest).

    But we still use all types of musical instruments to worship by because we have an OT that says to do so. The New Testament doesn't SAY stop using musical instruments, so we ignore the directives of the Church of Christ and declare their argument to be one from silence.

    The same is true concerning the sign of the covenant. Paedobaptists say that we are doing the same thing that the Church of Christ is doing- saying the sign shouldn't apply to the children based fully upon an argument from the silence of the New Testament.

    It is not a sound or valid argument.
     
    #16 Luke2427, Apr 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2013
  17. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,379
    Likes Received:
    728
    Yeshua1
    If you vote "B"......can you see where this can be a problem?

    for example;
    1]How many ways of salvation are there?

    2] How were people saved before the Old Covenant was in place?

    3] Which Covenant was Noah under? what about Enoch? how about Melchesidek?

    4] While we are now Under the New Covenant.....what are we gentiles grafted into...in Romans 11?

    5] Why are OT. saints spoken of as ....OUR Fathers....
    10 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

    2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;


    6]gentiles in the NT church have been now made one with the same promises-
    12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

    13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

    15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
    Why do you think this has no support? there are many verses that indicate promises to households? Why could God not elect children of believers if that was His will?
     
  18. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Looks like autocorrect nailed me again...oy I thought I got this one. It should read:

    We don't give communion to infants do we?
     
  19. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    My autocorrect didn't help me when I edited it...nuts. See above. :)

    Well, we're not going to round and round on this. It is established fact that infant baptism wasn't practiced across Christianity and wasn't accepted across Christianity until well into the third century.

    My data are the two texts I cited above.

    Here's an extended quote concerning Tertullian from Ferguson's Baptism in the Early Church

    Okay, again, what have I said? Here are the life dates for the folks you are pointing out:
    Origen 184/185 – 253/254
    Tertullian c. 160– 225
    Hippolytus 170 – 235

    These writers referenced minor examples of the practice and did not emphasize its widespread use. Infant baptism didn't arise in widespread use until after the Cappadocian Fathers (specifically the Gregories) which puts it well within my framework mentioned above.

    The challenge with Hippolytus is that the only work in which he mentioned infant baptism are limited in scope and do not appeal to the range of early Christian communities across the Mediterranean region. Though Hippolytus is perhaps the earliest attributable writer who considers infant baptism he is far from condoning it or even ascribing it as a central practice.

    Clearly the practice took time to develop. So the big question remains: If Jesus had intended one of the two central ordinances in His Church to be for infants why aren't his first followers doing this? Why is the practice not accepted for three hundred years? Why is the practice barely mentioned for two hundred years?

    Besides, you still don't have a NT case for infant baptism.

    This is a dramatic overstatement. No legit patristic scholar traces infant baptism as widespread until the time frame I've mentioned (early to mid 4th century.) You might have several minor instances of its employment but it is clearly not customary by any stretch.

    There are zero records of any kind of infant baptism prior to Hippolytus and that is a limited reference.

    To quote Ferguson again (I've got the text before me) he points out that when considering archeological inscriptions dated to the end of the third century:
    This hasn't been refuted in scholarly circles.
     
  20. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,926
    Likes Received:
    95
    They have you acting like a Jewish fishwife..oye
     

Share This Page

Loading...