Featured Padeo Baptist Covenant Children

How can an infant partake of the Lord's body at communion, and at the same time "examine themself" prior to taking it? Apostle Paul stated we were to examine ourself prior to taking it.

Paedo-baptism opens up a giant can of worms.

 

main point here is that while the Church fathers may or may not have allowed for it, the Apsotles DID NOT, and think their case is the one to stand by! last time i checked, they had HS inspiration, not any church father!

 

think that the main problem with infants being baptized is that it gives false hope/assurance to parents of children, for either thewy are already ALL have been placed under that by act of god, or else we must do believers baptism , as that is the only way seen in the NT, as the church is unsdder different duidelines than OT isreal!

 

Presbyterians & Lutherans dont take communion until they "graduate" if you will from Confirmation...usually at age 12.

 

Do they have to make a profession of faith, or is it enough to have been water baptized to assume salvation for them?

 

Luke, are you a Baptist, or not?

 

believe reformed baptist, maybe?

 

The profession of faith is made by Godparents and/or parents....essentially a promise to raise them up in the faith.

 

No SBC Pastor

 

Wrong. They stated that it was customary in their lifetimes. That is enough.

You're missing the point. That they were for it or against it is irrelevant. That they admitted to its common usage in their day is proof that it did NOT begin some time in the third century.

This is begging the question. NOBODY, not even the most rabid credobaptist claims to have conclusive evidence that it was NOT practiced from the beginning.

Begging the question.

The evidence points to it HAVING been used from the beginning. The fact is that it is not conclusive though- not for either side.

I think you do, but you don't need one- no more than you need a NT case for using musical instruments in worship.

Wrong.

.[11] Irenaeus (c. 130–202) speaks not only of children but even of infants being "born again to God"[12] and three passages of Origen (185–c. 254)[13] mention infant baptism as traditional and customary.[14] Tertullian (c. 155–230) too, while advising postponement of baptism until after marriage, mentions that it was customary to baptise infants, with sponsors speaking on their behalf.[15] The Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (died 235), describes how to perform the ceremony of baptism; it states that children were baptised first, and if any of them could not answer for themselves, their parents or someone else from their family was to answer for them.[16]

No scholar thinks it BEGAN in the third century. Not one.

Argument from silence is impotent.

 

Boy that's a leap!

Show where the Apostles forbade it.

 

I am baptist.

 

Sometimes one learns more from asking a question than making doctrinal statements. There are lots of facts being given on this thread about Presbyterians, and my guess is, not many were baptized as infants in the PCA. Well, I was. So the question is, should I have been immersed (which I was) when I joined a local Baptist church some 25 years later?

 

Most would say that you need to be baptized by immersion in order to be a member of a baptist church.

I like the Free Presbyterian's stance on the matter.

They accept either and they practice both. If you want to be baptized by immersion they will do that. If you want to be sprinkled, they will do that. If you want your children baptized, they will do that. If you don't, they are fine with that, too.

I am a baptist. But I think the Presby stand on baptism has merit.

 

No they didn't. They in no way stated it was customary.

There wasn't common usage. The common usage didn't arise until the early to mid 4th century following the influence of the Cappadocians and Augustine.

Fine, show me an archeological evidence of an infant's baptismal font from the first three centuries.

Guess what...you can't because they don't exist. The only archeological evidences we have are baptismal pools built for adults (or children about grade school age) that was done by immersion. They are in the floors of the churches we have been excavating.

The earliest infant baptismal fonts aren't from the first three centuries.

You've provided zero evidence. I've quote scholars and referred directly to archeological data. You just sit behind your keyboard and disagree. Put up real evidence and back up your case.

Why? Show some data, provide some evidence otherwise don't post in a serious thread.

I can quote from Wikipedia too...that isn't impressive.

Besides, I've already given refutation to your points above.

So, first of all, you're citing Origen which is troubling enough. One of the other issues is that, for instance, in his discussion of Exodus 21, Origen refers to a baptismal candidate who has fallen into sin as "an infant yet unformed" and that this "infant" needs to be baptized. This is often thought to be a reference to baptism. Other inaccuracies abound. Perhaps most dubious with citing Origen is his entire discussion of the nature of catechetical baptismal candidates in Against Celsus 3.49f who are adults or older children.

The Tertullian point is erroneous and I've made a recommendation for the entire quote to be included. The portion quoted there is wrong. Here's the whole (proper) quotation from Tertullian:

Notice that he is absolutely not advocating for infant baptism.
Notice he isn't saying it common.
Notice he isn't saying it is widespread.
Notice he is saying that children who can give an answer shouldn't be delayed.
Notice he is saying that they should learn to ask for their salvation.

Your points are moot. They are refuted.

Well that isn't your contention. By your own contention you're saying it was commonplace and widespread from early on. This simply isn't true.

There is zero textual data from NT to say that infant baptism was ever in the frame the writers of the NT. Everyone who is serious agrees with that.

If you doubt it check:
- Bromiley's article in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament on baptizo where it states "Infant baptism, however, represents a departure from apostolic Christianity." (1.543)
- Dau's article in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that states
"It is frankly admitted by paedo-baptist scholars that the NT gives no warrant for infant baptism" (417)

Then you have to deal with enormous data presented by both Ferguson and Beasley-Murray (none of which you've even attempted to interact with) along with other notable archeologists and experts in this era.

The reality is that even the Christian art from this period portrays baptism only for those who can speak and confess. There are no examples of infants being baptized in the art of the earliest Christian communities prior to the fourth century.

Well it isn't an argument from silence, but that's besides the point because anyone arguing for infant baptism has no evidence of its existence in the NT.

Seriously, go do your homework. Otherwise, your points are moot and your voice ridiculous.

You've offered nothing here (which is no surprise) other than dismissing reasonable and studied scholarship.

 

One reality of this whole conversation is that among baptists the singular test for baptist identity has always been support for believer's baptism following confession of Christ as Lord and Savior of one's life.

To deviate from this truth and support an erroneous doctrine like paedo-baptism removes one from being Baptist.

 

Boy, that's quite a leap ain't it? Where can they find their "biblical support" that the parent's/godparent's/grandparent's/legal guardian's, can make their profession of faith for the infant?

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


Unless, "glub, glurbbll, agoo, pssshshhsttt," means that in it's interpretation. LOL

 

Archeological evidence???

I've shown you that at least three church fathers of the SECOND CENTURY recognized that it was commonplace that is enough.

I don't have to DIG IT UP OUT OF THE EARTH.

No you haven't.

You have not provided a single scholar who contradicts what the three church fathers I provided said- that AT LEAST by the second century it was COMMONPLACE- common place enough for Tertullian to have to argue against it and for it to have BEEN the means by which ORIGEN was baptized!

I did.

Wikipedia is quoting itself form scholarly sources.

No you haven't.

You don't reject historical sources based on false doctrines that they espoused.

Eusebius probably went to hell but we use him constantly.

Jospephus did not even CLAIM to be a Christian but we use him constantly.

Good grief!!

I am saying the evidence seems to point to that. You can no more refute it than you can support your OWN contention.

To say it was NOT commonplace you would have to be able to point to a starting place where it began. You cannot. Do you know why?

Because it had no starting place. The sign of the covenant has always been applied to children.

One should accept this unless he can show WHERE and WHEN it started.

Your tertullian statement proves my point. Tertullian arguing AGAINST infant baptism proves that there were many people practicing it in his day.

That's not true.

That is his opinion. Many THOUSANDS of scholars disagree with his opinion.

And?

That is my whole point. It DOES NOT HAVE TO. In order for you to stop applying the sign of the covenant to children you need the NT to SAY NOT TO. It does not, so you keep doing it.

Arguments from silence.

There is no evidence in art that they used musical instruments either, or that they did a thousand other things. So what?

There is EVIDENCE. You seem to get evidence mixed up with proof.

how childish!

Schaeffer on Polycarp

Polycarp was eighty-six years a Christian, and must have been baptized in early youth. According to Irenaeus, his pupil and a faithful bearer of Johannean tradition, Christ passed through all the stages of life, to sanctify them all, and came to redeem, through himself, “all who through him are born again unto God, sucklings, children, boys, youths, and adults. ”This profound view seems to involve an acknowledgment not only of the idea of infant baptism, but also of the practice of it; for in the mind of Irenaeus and the ancient church baptism and regeneration were intimately connected and almost identified.

He goes on to say:

In the churches of Egypt infant baptism must have been practised from the first. For, aside from some not very clear expressions of Clement of Alexandria, Origen distinctly derives it from the tradition of the apostles; and through his journeys in the East and West he was well acquainted with the practice of the church in his time.

He says of Tertullian:

The only opponent of infant baptism among the fathers is the eccentric and schismatic Tertullian, of North Africa. He condemns the hastening of the innocent age to the forgiveness of sins, and intrusting it with divine gifts, while we would not commit to it earthly property.(459) Whoever considers the solemnity of baptism, will shrink more from the receiving, than from the postponement of it. But the very manner of Tertullian’s opposition proves as much in favor of infant baptism as against it.

He also says:

Among the fathers, Tertullian himself not excepted—for he combats only its expediency—there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism. No time can be fixed at which it was first introduced. Tertullian suggests, that it was usually based on the invitation of Christ: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” The usage of sponsors, to which Tertullian himself bears witness, although he disapproves of it, and still more, the almost equally ancient abuse of infant communion, imply the existence of infant baptism. Heretics also practised it, and were not censured for it.

 

We we could argue about those passages for a long time, I think I'll pass on that part of it...simply to say that they are question passages without easy answers.

Jeremiah's prophesies about the New Covenant are helpful here, in that he says in the new covenant...EVERYONE in the covenant will KNOW THE LORD...a reason that baptists apply the sign of the covenant only to those who believe.

I realize presby's don't teach infant salvation through baptism, but I DO
I think the Children of Abraham passage IS a PART of this discussion because it fits in with Jeremiah saying all New Covenant members will know the Lord...So if they don't know the Lord, how can we say they are members of the New covenant?

But It's not just an argument from silence...Paul repeatedly speaks of circumcision, and repeatedly says it is not necessary...and at the time circumcision becomes unnecessary, we have a DIFFERENT (not the same) sign introduced, one that we see performed ONLY when people believe.

Further, using the language in your last paragraph (underlined) blurs the issue because reading it leads one to believe we are arguing about THE SAME sign...which we aren't.