Two Reformed Baptist arguments against paedobaptism refuted

[Christian Liberty]

After doing a research paper for school on the subject, I came to the conclusion that infant baptism actually is legitimate. Before reading up on it, there were two potentially compelling baptist arguments that held me back. Here is why I ultimately rejected them, in case this helps anyone who may be thinking about this issue.

The first baptist argument that I have encountered is that circumcision is replaced with regeneration, and not with baptism. Thus, we shouldn't presume that we should baptize our babies based on covenantal continuity, as baptism isn't the covenant sign. Regeneration is otherwise known as "circumcision of the heart". The problem with this argument is that there is an OT command to circumcise the heart, Deut. 10:16. It doesn't make sense to say that the unique sign of the New Covenant existed in the Old Covenant.

The second baptist argument is that the promises to Abraham were really just of a land, and not really spiritual in nature. But Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was a sign of FAITH. The promises to Abraham were spiritual, not just physical.

And then, of course, there's Colossians 2:11-12, which in the light of the above, teaches that circumcision was replaced with baptism. We know from the NT account that both men and women are now included covenentally. But, there's no reason to assume that infants are no longer included covenantally. In fact, Luke 18:15-17 would logically lead us to the conclusion that they are still included covenentally. In addition, we don't need an NT verse to assert that they are included, rather, the burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that they are no longer included.

 

[Matt McGuire]

Sorry this is a little off-topic, but are you a student at Patrick Henry College?

 

[wizardwatson]

After doing a research paper for school on the subject, I came to the conclusion that infant baptism actually is legitimate. Before reading up on it, there were two potentially compelling baptist arguments that held me back. Here is why I ultimately rejected them, in case this helps anyone who may be thinking about this issue.

The first baptist argument that I have encountered is that circumcision is replaced with regeneration, and not with baptism. Thus, we shouldn't presume that we should baptize our babies based on covenantal continuity, as baptism isn't the covenant sign. Regeneration is otherwise known as "circumcision of the heart". The problem with this argument is that there is an OT command to circumcise the heart, Deut. 10:16. It doesn't make sense to say that the unique sign of the New Covenant existed in the Old Covenant.

The second baptist argument is that the promises to Abraham were really just of a land, and not really spiritual in nature. But Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was a sign of FAITH. The promises to Abraham were spiritual, not just physical.

And then, of course, there's Colossians 2:11-12, which in the light of the above, teaches that circumcision was replaced with baptism. We know from the NT account that both men and women are now included covenentally. But, there's no reason to assume that infants are no longer included covenantally. In fact, Luke 18:15-17 would logically lead us to the conclusion that they are still included covenentally. In addition, we don't need an NT verse to assert that they are included, rather, the burden of proof is on the baptist to prove that they are no longer included.

That there's a purdy darn fancy 'ole argument, friend.

Who was the most famous Baptist again? Who was that guy....hmmmm.....lost his head.....something about voice in the wilderness...OH YEAH! John the Baptist. The guy who baptized our Lord. I wonder what he would say about baptizing babies.


Matthew 3:7

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

I think it should be obvious from Christ's words and John's words that baptism is for the remission of sins. It's an acknowledgement of a sinner coming to repentance. How exactly is an infant or small child supposed to have repentance? Surely they have sin but like John the Baptist, you don't baptise people who show no outward signs of repentance. A baby, who can't speak, obviously can't communicate any "fruits" of repentance.

Case closed. If you have to weave complicated metaphysical arguments to justify something weird like baptizing a baby, might wanna consider it isn't valid. Christianity is literally the SIMPLEST religion I've ever studied. Origin story crazy for sure, but the principles and methods are simple.

But somehow, I'm just sure someone is going to say, "Well, PAUL SAID..." and then I'm going to get another brain bubble.

 

[fisharmor]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...vin-and-the-Fall-of-the-Church&highlight=BOBO

Ultimately the reason I rejected all reformation theology is because I reject BOBO theory (outlined in the first post in the above thread).

If Jesus was not the Christ, if his death and resurrection did not atone for anything, if he was not true man and true God, then the idea that fifteen centuries passed between when he did the things he did, and the revelation of the real truth, might have merit.

If Jesus IS the Christ, if his death and resurrection did and still does atone for everything, if he was, is, and always will be truly man and truly God, then the idea that mankind was left to believe incorrectly for 1500 years is quite simply ridiculous.

Infant baptism is just part of that.

 

[fisharmor]

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sorry this is a little off-topic, but are you a student at Patrick Henry College?

Yep. If you want to discuss that further, feel free to PM me.

That there's a purdy darn fancy 'ole argument, friend.

Who was the most famous Baptist again? Who was that guy....hmmmm.....lost his head.....something about voice in the wilderness...OH YEAH! John the Baptist. The guy who baptized our Lord. I wonder what he would say about baptizing babies.

lol.... its funny, in one of my first theology classes I jokingly said John the Baptist was proof that "baptist" was the right denomination. But of course, I was joking

John's baptism wasn't the same as Christ's baptism. In the book of acts, we see the disciples rebaptizing people in Jesus' name. John's baptism was of repentance, and it was important, but it wasn't the New Covenant sign.

Matthew 3:7



I think it should be obvious from Christ's words and John's words that baptism is for the remission of sins. It's an acknowledgement of a sinner coming to repentance. How exactly is an infant or small child supposed to have repentance? Surely they have sin but like John the Baptist, you don't baptise people who show no outward signs of repentance. A baby, who can't speak, obviously can't communicate any "fruits" of repentance.

Psalms 22:9 and Luke 18:15-17 . And its irrelevant because of Colossians 2:11-12

Case closed. If you have to weave complicated metaphysical arguments to justify something weird like baptizing a baby, might wanna consider it isn't valid. Christianity is literally the SIMPLEST religion I've ever studied. Origin story crazy for sure, but the principles and methods are simple.

But somehow, I'm just sure someone is going to say, "Well, PAUL SAID..." and then I'm going to get another brain bubble.

Unfortunately, too many people aren't willing to build propositions on inferences which are supposed to be made.

I am really curious how Sola_Fide will respond to this thread (if he decides to address it) because I know he is against infant baptism but also tends to read things in context and doesn't typically refuse to accept scriptural inferences as valid.

 

[wizardwatson]

John's baptism wasn't the same as Christ's baptism. In the book of acts, we see the disciples rebaptizing people in Jesus' name. John's baptism was of repentance, and it was important, but it wasn't the New Covenant sign.

Unfortunately, too many people aren't willing to build propositions on inferences which are supposed to be made.

Brain bubble! Like I said, I knew someone would mention Paul, and deny Christ's words.

So are you telling me the mighty apostle Paul has removed the requirement that men repent? Because Jesus talked an awful lot about that you know. You might want to look into it. I mean I would think he would want us to not sin.

"Propositions on inferences which are SUPPOSED TO BE MADE"! There are inferences that are supposed to be made regarding this? How about understanding grammar and definitions.

Here is your sentence:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: ("unto repentance" should be "inferred" here, the only valid 'inference' you should be making)

Yes, Jesus changed what he was going to baptize "WITH", not what he was baptizing you "UNTO". Baptism is still, and always was, directly related to a soul seeking or that has acknowledged repentance.

False preachers twist grammar, analagies, metaphors, and anything else they can get their lying little tongues around to fool the sheep.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. But if you want to baptise babies, how about baptizing the 4000 we're aborting every day before we do the deed? I'd hate to see all those children wind up in hell.

 

[erowe1]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...vin-and-the-Fall-of-the-Church&highlight=BOBO

Ultimately the reason I rejected all reformation theology is because I reject BOBO theory (outlined in the first post in the above thread).

If Jesus was not the Christ, if his death and resurrection did not atone for anything, if he was not true man and true God, then the idea that fifteen centuries passed between when he did the things he did, and the revelation of the real truth, might have merit.

If Jesus IS the Christ, if his death and resurrection did and still does atone for everything, if he was, is, and always will be truly man and truly God, then the idea that mankind was left to believe incorrectly for 1500 years is quite simply ridiculous.

Infant baptism is just part of that.

But that's a straw man. There is no BOBO theory that anyone actually holds. That thread quotes someone (who is himself an evangelical) using that language to caricature other evangelicals.

As for me, I commend you for not wanting to hold up novel ideas of 15 centuries after Christ as part and parcel of the Gospel. And the same needs to be said for novel ideas that arose 1, 2, or 6 centuries after Christ.

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[TER]

But that's a straw man. There is no BOBO theory that anyone actually holds. That thread quotes someone (who is himself an evangelical) using that language to caricature other evangelicals.

As for me, I commend you for not wanting to hold up novel ideas of 15 centuries after Christ as part and parcel of the Gospel. And the same needs to be said for novel ideas that arose 1, 2, or 6 centuries after Christ.

Would you call it a novel idea for the Apostles to get together in council and agree to make physical circumscision unnecessary to be a member of the Church?

 

[erowe1]

Would you call it a novel idea for the Apostles to get together in council and agree to make physical circumscision unnecessary to be a member of the Church?

No. The apostles themselves did that.

 

[TER]

No. The apostles themselves did that.

Yes they did. And what guided them?

 

[erowe1]

Yes they did. And what guided them?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[TER]

The Holy Spirit.

Did the Holy Spirit stop guiding the Church on the last page of the Book of Acts?

 

[erowe1]

Did the Holy Spirit stop guiding the Church on the last page of the Book of Acts?

No. The Holy Spirit still guides believers in Jesus today, who are the Church, and has continuously since Pentecost.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes they did. And what guided them?

The Spirit which was poured out on them in a special way in the fledgling early church.

 

[fisharmor]

The Spirit which was poured out on them in a special way in the fledgling early church.

Meaning that the Holy Spirit stopped guiding them after that, and further meaning that the Holy Spirit cannot have been guiding the reformers.

 

[TER]

No. The Holy Spirit still guides believers in Jesus today, who are the Church, and has continuously since Pentecost.

But not everyone who believed in Jesus were members of the Church. Were the Gnostics members of the Church?

 

[erowe1]

The Spirit which was poured out on them in a special way in the fledgling early church.

That is also true.

The apostles were commissioned with founding the Church. Christian dogma was not meant to be something that would be ever changing throughout the centuries with each generation repeating the apostles' work in making something new. Since their passing, our obligation has been to hold fast to the faith that was once for all delivered to us by them.

 

[erowe1]

But not everyone who believed in Jesus were members of the Church. Were the Gnostics members of the Church?

If they had saving faith in Jesus they were. If they didn't, then they weren't, and in that case they did not really believe in Jesus in the sense the scriptures talk about.

At any rate, having the label "gnostic" applied to them by some human being, and being excluded from the communion of any particular assembly by its bishop, has no bearing on the question. If God reckoned them righteous by faith then they were part of His Church, and if he didn't, then they weren't.