Featured Baptism: Credo- vs Paedo-

I do see the parallels of circumcison and baptism. The OT covenant applied to those in side the covenant that God made with the Jewish people. Even the slaves they bought. This was a Covent was made with a physical/ethnic community. So, you were circumsised upon entering that community. Either by birth or purchase. We are now in a spiritual community/invisible church. Inside a covenant made with all who accept Jesus. Upon accepting Jesus, you enter the spiritual/invisible church/community. At that time we are baptized. After entering into the covenant. Born-again(spiritually) into the new covenant. In the OT, they were physically born into the old covenant. One would be circumsised or baptized, depend on what covenant you were under, when you entered into that covenant.

 

And what about women? They can be baptized, but....

 

God order the males to be circumsized as a sign of the covenant made with Abraham. He received this after his faith was proven. Today we are baptized after we have faith. Just as when The Apostles shared the word, and they believed, they were baptized. Lucky for the women in the OT, nothing had to be cut off

 

They got off easy

 

In the NT, I don't see one example of Jesus or an Apostles saying believe and baptize all your family(or males). Baptism was only for the believer. It is still the symbolic sign of our cleansing of sin. Our enter into the community of Christ. As the cirmcumsision was the sign of the community in the OT

 

​

Acts 16:14-15 NAS77

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
15 And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, "If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay." And she prevailed upon us.​

Acts 16:31-34 NAS77

31 And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household."
32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.
33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.​

 

http://founders.org/library/malone1/a-string-of-pearls-unstrung/

 

Nothing about infants mentioned. All I see is Paul spoke the word to "all who were in the house". Then they were baptized. Sounds like believers baptism to me.

 

....and regarding Lydia, she was at the river and was baptized with her family, before she returned home. Implying her family was with her already. So they too, would have heard the word. Again, example of believers baptism.

 

Nothing exclusionary either. It doesn't say "all who were in the house above the age of accountability" or 4 or 8 or 12 or any age.

 

I think Paige Patterson was 9 years old when he got saved.

 

Being "reformed" is really hot today. The term was kind of hijacked, since any saved Protestant is "reformed," and as many Reformers were NOT "reformed," it's basically now a stupid and meaningless term.

 

Sounds like your boys need to be circumsised on the 8th day. That was the law.

Not one time did Jesus or an apostle order the baptism of a none believer. Circumsion was to mark God's people. Baptism is to symbolize how you we are buried with Christ, and raised, cleansed of our sins.
One was born into Abraham's bloodline(some bought). Therefore circumsision was automatic at 8 days. One is not born into the spiritual family until imputed by Christ's righteousness.

If we are applying the exact rules of circumsision to baptism....then I guess anyone who dies before they are baptized will be cut off from God's Kingdom???? No, that would contradict what Jesus said while on the cross(thief).

Baptizing an infant is basically saying by infant has been washes of his sins. Which isn't necessarily true....it isn't unless name is written in the book of life.

Circumsison says my son is from Abraham's line. Which was true at birth or purchase.

The baptize an infant is to risk making baptism a lie.

 

God wanted every Male circumsised, so he put it in the covenant. If Jesus wanted everyone to be baptized, he would have said that. At point, after an Apostle shared the word and baptized someone, they would have said. "No God orders all of your blood line baptized", but that didn't happen. Every provable instance of baptism was on a proclaimed believer. One must speculate otherwise. Paul also refers to those baptized as "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put Christ on". So if baptism is putting Christ on, then infants to have Christ's imputed righteousness..... And we are back to the catholic church and no need for Faith Alone, Christ Alone...etc.

This of course is not the case. The righteousness was imputed in the believer during conversion. Baptism is the symbol of that.

 

Padredurand,

I do enjoy our debate and thank you for your kindness and respect. Most get upset and hateful during these discussions.

 

Verse 16:34 indicates belief prior to Baptism.

 

I don't read Mr. Calvin. He was wrong about infant Baptism and was wrong about the Lord's supper.

My best friend and Christian brother was an elder in the Presbyterian Church. He and I used to discuss the issue of infant Baptism, actually infant sprinkling, but finally agreed to disagree. There was so much more!

In our early discussions he always quoted the following Scripture:

Acts 2:38, 39
38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
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.Acts

I always notices that he and all who quote this passage stop with: For the promise is unto you, and to your children,

Even though a great believer in Sovereign Grace he would omit in our discussion: and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

But a wonderful Brother in Jesus Christ. If he had not steered me to a Thompson Chain Reference Bible I might have wound up with a Scofield. God is Good!

 

To which Calvin replies

"Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants why should we deny them the signs which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask? "

 

To which OldRegular replies:

Calvin was wrong. Infant Baptism is a practice held over from Roman Catholicism. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for it regardless of how often they stop short in Acts 2:39.

Of course, since Roman Catholics believed in Baptismal Regeneration, infant baptism made sense. But because that regeneration was conditional, not permanent the first pope, Constantine, waited until he was near death before being baptized! Gotta time it just right though!

 

Calvin's belief system could be described as "Old Testament Christianity". However, the New Covenant is not a continuation of the Old.

I wish everyone would read that article I referenced a few posts back. It was written by a former Presbyterian pastor turned Baptist.