Two Reformed Baptist arguments against paedobaptism refuted

[Christian Liberty]

Psalms 22:9.

Now, why don't you repent of limiting God?

 

[wizardwatson]

Psalms 22:9.

Now, why don't you repent of limiting God?

So that verse to you means that babies can repent? Because David is being poetic about God's love for children?

David says "you gave me hope at my mother's breasts" therefore babies are conscious of sin?

And who's limiting God? Not me. TER is the one who claims he has no arms and legs which the scripture clearly shows. I am representing David's sentiment that God shelters babies and doesn't cast them into hell because some false scripture denying "church Father" didn't sprinkle some tap water on his forehead so they can increase their revenue stream.

But at least you tried to use some scripture. More than I can say for most of the people around here.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So that verse to you means that babies can repent? Because David is being poetic about God's love for children?

David says "you gave me hope at my mother's breasts" therefore babies are conscious of sin?

And who's limiting God? Not me. TER is the one who claims he has no arms and legs which the scripture clearly shows. I am representing David's sentiment that God shelters babies and doesn't cast them into hell because some false scripture denying "church Father" didn't sprinkle some tap water on his forehead so they can increase their revenue stream.

But at least you tried to use some scripture. More than I can say for most of the people around here.

I'm a bit disappointed that this conversation has devolved to a debate between EOs who defend paedobaptism based on tradition, and baptists who reject said tradition. No discussion of the BIBLICAL argument for paedobaptism.

 

[wizardwatson]

I'm a bit disappointed that this conversation has devolved to a debate between EOs who defend paedobaptism based on tradition, and baptists who reject said tradition. No discussion of the BIBLICAL argument for paedobaptism.

It seems I have to argue with myself.

The only relevant scripture you posted to the topic at hand is Luke 18:15-17. You didn't actually post it, just referenced, I will do it for you:

Luke 18:15-17 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Why did Jesus say this? You might say to me, "see David? Jesus wanted to forgive them too." But that's not what the likely reason is. The main reason for the scripture itself is so Jesus can point out how they represent the likeness of those in the Kingdom of God. The fact that everyone thought Jesus touching them meant something doesn't mean it did.

But the disciples trying to prevent the children from coming could be for a couple reasons. (Read commentaries on online bibles, there's various interpretations) One reason is because people were constantly bugging Jesus. But Jesus gave them special passes. Another reason is that Jesus just got done talking about how it's good if you don't marry and have no family ties, so surrounding him with kids maybe they were a little hesitant about. People's kids were assumed to "not be in the church" so what business do they have with Jesus? Another commentary says that people knew church was for grown ups (see my commentary about repentance being for adults) so what could Jesus give to them? They didn't need healed or forgiven so why bother him?

NONE of the commentaries say that Jesus was saying "suffer the little children" because they should be baptized and be members of church.

That's absurd.

So even if you attacked me with the most relevant scripture you posted, it still is nothing that supports infant baptism.

I posted scripture where baptism was qualified with repentance. The person whose words I used were the words of the man who baptized Jesus himself. And your most powerful scripture is just showing Jesus doesn't have a problem touching babies? Why don't you start with the verses about what baptism is meant for and work from there?

 

[RJB]

I'm a bit disappointed that this conversation has devolved to a debate between EOs who defend paedobaptism based on tradition, and baptists who reject said tradition. No discussion of the BIBLICAL argument for paedobaptism.

When there aren't any verses in the Bible that specifically forbid it or specifically allow it, this is the logical progression of the discussion. Especially when there are only 2 or 3 verses that either side can use to back up their argument.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

THis is a thread about Christian doctrine. There isn't any reason for someone who rejects the Bible to post in it.

I don't reject the bible. It's a legitimate question, especially in the context of the discussion on interpretation.

But, let's not derail with talking about why Christianity is true.

It's not derailing and it's not assuming Christianity is not true. People were discussing levels of interpretation. I simply discussed a different level in the context of that discussion. If you don't want to address, then don't address. Skipping over a post is akin to changing the channel.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The point is that even infants are considered a part of the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 7:14 gives us greater clarity on it. A child is considered holy because of the believing parent. Does this automatically mean they go to heaven? No, of course not. But it is clear that they are able to believe, and that Jesus was confident enough that that particular infant did that he said "as such are the kingdom of heaven."

Add in the fact that infants were ALWAYS covenentally included in the OT, and denial of infant baptism doesn't make much sense.

 

[Christian Liberty]

When there aren't any verses in the Bible that specifically forbid it or specifically allow it, this is the logical progression of the discussion. Especially when there are only 2 or 3 verses that either side can use to back up their argument.

I suppose I understand that. I'm not so much annoyed that you guys decided to start doing that as I am that anti-tradition baptists decided to try and refute you guys and totally ignore my argument. Oh well. I'm hoping Sola will address the OP eventually.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Bump for Sola_Fide.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Bump for Sola_Fide.

I probably wouldn't be able to help much. I have a baptistic leaning of course, but I'm not good with the counter arguments and things like that. Sorry!

 

[Christian Liberty]

I probably wouldn't be able to help much. I have a baptistic leaning of course, but I'm not good with the counter arguments and things like that. Sorry!

Could you share why you disagree with the Presbyterian position?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Could you share why you disagree with the Presbyterian position?

I think this is a great presentation of both sides:

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think this is a great presentation of both sides:

I watched that. Good debate.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I've read a number of tracts on this subject, and I've adopted the same position that Christian Liberty has come to in his opening post, partly for the reasons he has listed. Though I should note that although I came to the Reformed Presbyterian faith in my late twenties, I've generally held to the view that Infant Baptism is a legitimate and necessary practice for communicate members of the faith, whereas adult "credobaptisms" are only necessary for the purposes of those adults that remain unbaptized.

It is interesting that the Reformed position is coming into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox position, since both positions are not terribly different apart from the fact that the Eastern Church immerses. One of the best Covenanter/Steelite tracts dealing with this topic is "The Scripturalness of Infant Baptism and of Sprinkling in Baptism" by William "Ergatees" Maclean. This work gets into both the scriptural and historical arguments in favor of Infant Baptism, citing relevant biblical passages and also citing such relevant fathers as Iranaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, Cyprian, and Augustine. The tradition of the Reformers is tied in with the teaching of scripture and the aforementioned fathers of the early church. This tract is, sadly, a bit difficult to find lately, but I think a few copies are still on Amazon via secondary vendors.

 

[PierzStyx]

Yes they did. And what guided them?

It isn't so much a question of what guided them, but why them.

Why was it Peter who received heavenly visions and not Cornelius? Why the Twelve and not the Seventy missionaries called to preach the gospel? Authority. God's house is one of order. The Apostles led the primitive church by revelation from Heaven as delivered in vision and/or though the Holy Spirit. This was an authority that bishops, patriarchs, elders, deacons, teachers, etc. simply did not hold. The Apostolic authority, the keys of the kingdom, as received by one who had authority, namely Jesus Christ Himself, granted such position. What happened to it after their death is the question. That authority is what separated them form the other church bodies and what was lost when the Apostles were rejected by the church, as seen in 3 John, or died, or both. A claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit then is not the same as having Apostolic authority to lead the church of Christ.

 

[PierzStyx]

As for infant baptism, baptism is for the repentance of sins on the part of the one being baptized. Supposing a little child even has sins to repent of seems foolish to me. Sin is willful rebellion against God. Children have little to no comprehension of good or evil, sin or righteousness, and do not know how to sin until old enough to comprehend those concepts. There is no point in infant baptism. It provides no protection the Savior does not already extend through His Atonement to the little ones.

 

[hells_unicorn]

1. As for infant baptism, baptism is for the repentance of sins on the part of the one being baptized.

2. Supposing a little child even has sins to repent of seems foolish to me.

3. Sin is willful rebellion against God. Children have little to no comprehension of good or evil, sin or righteousness, and do not know how to sin until old enough to comprehend those concepts.

4. There is no point in infant baptism. It provides no protection the Savior does not already extend through His Atonement to the little ones.

1. Baptism is not repentance, nor is it exclusively for the purpose of repentance. It is the covenant sign and seal of discipleship (Matthew 28:19-20), and also the New Testament replacement for circumcision (Galatians 3:7-9, 14, 16, 18, 25-26; codified in Acts 8:12). It is also interesting to note that according to Cyprian's account of the Council of Carthage, that an issue was raised specifically regarding whether Baptism should be withheld until the 8th day of a child's life since that was the appointed day for circumcision, or to offer baptism to infants at any time following birth. The decision was unanimously in favor of the latter position.

2. All are fallen in Adam, for all are his seed (save Christ, incarnate of a virgin and the seed of The Father), hence indwelling/original sin. (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:12)

3. If children are sinless, there would be no stillbirths and all of them would survive abortive attempts by sinning parents. (Romans 6:23; Genesis 2:17)

4. If Baptism does not confer any real spiritual benefit, it has no purpose regardless of age. If there is no sign, there can be no seal, and likewise a sign with no seal is empty. Furthermore, if children are automatically saved from perdition because of one bible verse, the abortion industry is going to have a lot of business once the rest of the world gets wind of this novel revelation.

 

[RJB]

It is interesting that the Reformed position is coming into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox position, since both positions are not terribly different apart from the fact that the Eastern Church immerses.

If you can mediate this on RPFs, the Hatfields and the McCoys could have used your services about a century ago.

 

[hells_unicorn]

If you can mediate this on RPFs, the Hatfields and the McCoys could have used your services about a century ago.

I was only arguing in terms of the sacrament of Baptism, and again, I'm approaching this from a Reformed Presbyterian perspective, as I think most of the Reformed presence on RPF that I've seen is Reformed Baptist. As far as mediation in a general sense, you're thinking more like about a millennium ago, since the Protestant Reformation was not successfully able to bridge the gulf between the Western and Eastern Church (which I would argue that the Papacy created, and then further aggravated by forcing the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist upon Sicilian Eastern affiliate churches) on such issues as 2nd Nicaea, certain divergences in Trinitarian doctrine, and so on. We had high hopes that Patriarch Cyril Lucaris (Cyril I) would be successful in mending the divide, but he met with an untimely end, probably by Jesuit assassins.

I am far more of a Historicist than others of the Reformed position, but I think I will probably still be treated with skepticism by my Eastern brothers, if for no other reason than my staunch Augustinian stance on Grace and Predestination.

 

[RJB]

I was only arguing in terms of the sacrament of Baptism, and again, I'm approaching this from a Reformed Presbyterian perspective, as I think most of the Reformed presence on RPF that I've seen is Reformed Baptist. As far as mediation in a general sense, you're thinking more like about a millennium ago, since the Protestant Reformation was not successfully able to bridge the gulf between the Western and Eastern Church (which I would argue that Papacy created, and then further aggravated by forcing the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist upon Sicilian Eastern affiliate churches) on such issues as 2nd Nicaea, certain divergences in Trinitarian doctrine, and so on. We had high hopes that Patriarch Cyril Lucaris (Cyril I) would be successful in mending the divide, but he met with an untimely end, probably by Jesuit assassins.

I am far more of a Historicist than others of the Reformed position, but I think I will probably still be treated with skepticism by my Eastern brothers, if for no other reason than my staunch Augustinian stance on Grace and Predestination.

You're taking me way too seriously.

Welcome back BTW.