Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
William

Best arguments for Covenant/Household Baptism

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

It also does not say that her children were infants, nor that they did not also believe.

 

 To assert that they were infants is simply an assertion without proof. A "could be" is the best argument I've seen for this practice but that it not a good foundation to base a doctrine on.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Becky said:

Edited it again 

That's fine, but you still assume that infants were there and you simply do not know that. Granted, we don't know that they weren't there either. But you should assume there were in order to fit a theoogical construct that you have to import from a different covenant because there happen to be certain parallels between the two.

2 minutes ago, Faber said:

 

 To assert that they were infants is simply an assertion without proof. A "could be" is the best argument I've seen for this practice but that it not a good foundation to base a doctrine on.

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

Different covenant same God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
4 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Yes, that is what the New Covenant teaches.

At the very least a very simple Baptist view on New Covenant doctrine. One which emphasizes the "act" of faith rather than the grace received through faith.

 

Let's address a very literalistic approach with a simplistic principle when approaching Scripture which is to only acknowledge what is explicitly said. All I ask for is consistency. 

 

4 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

That's fine, but you still assume that infants were there and you simply do not know that. Granted, we don't know that they weren't there either. But you should assume there were in order to fit a theoogical construct that you have to import from a different covenant because there happen to be certain parallels between the two.

 

With regard to what is only explicitly stated how does one reconcile allowing women to partake of communion? Please be consistent and not reason and refrain from inference, allusions, parallelism, and above all do not assume women partake of communion just because they are in the audience. Please do not try to fit a theological construct that you have imported from an "ordinance" (Baptism) into communion.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
5 hours ago, Faber said:

 

 To assert that they were infants is simply an assertion without proof. A "could be" is the best argument I've seen for this practice but that it not a good foundation to base a doctrine on.

And is that because infants need demonstrate faith like adults rather than adults receiving the kingdom like a child and having faith as small as a mustard seed?

 

Any child that causes an adult to stumble would be bettered drowned in the sea with a millstone tied around their neck.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
9 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

That's fine, but you still assume that infants were there and you simply do not know that. Granted, we don't know that they weren't there either. But you should assume there were in order to fit a theoogical construct that you have to import from a different covenant because there happen to be certain parallels between the two.

I read what is written . You assume what is not written . No more on this from me. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, William said:

At the very least a very simple Baptist view on New Covenant doctrine. One which emphasizes the "act" of faith rather than the grace received through faith.

You could say the same thing about the Lord's Supper. That is a focus on action as well. So this is a nonsense argument.

 

7 hours ago, William said:

With regard to what is only explicitly stated how does one reconcile allowing women to partake of communion? Please be consistent and not reason and refrain from inference, allusions, parallelism, and above all do not assume women partake of communion just because they are in the audience. Please do not try to fit a theological construct that you have imported from an "ordinance" (Baptism) into communion.

Because Paul writes about taking the Lord's Supper to the whole church in Corinth. Men and Women.

 

6 hours ago, William said:

And is that because infants need demonstrate faith like adults rather than adults receiving the kingdom like a child and having faith as small as a mustard seed?

You keep bringing up a childlike faith, continually taking a passage out of its context when referring to suffer not the children to come unto Me. Yes, there must be a profession of faith.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Becky said:

You assume what is not written

No, that is not true. I am also going by what is actually written, and not importing an Old Covenant practice into the New Covenant because of things that are not written in the New Covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
7 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

You could say the same thing about the Lord's Supper. That is a focus on action as well. So this is a nonsense argument. 

Oh, but the Covenant cannot be the focus on action from household heads.

7 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Because Paul writes about taking the Lord's Supper to the whole church in Corinth. Men and Women. 

Peter addresses the house of Israel. Men, Women, and Children.

7 hours ago, davidtaylorjr said:

You keep bringing up a childlike faith, continually taking a passage out of its context when referring to suffer not the children to come unto Me. Yes, there must be a profession of faith. 

Like the little children had to do before approaching Jesus? The same children which the kingdom of heaven belonged?

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, William said:

Peter addresses the house of Israel. Men, Women, and Children.

What references specifically are you referring to?

 

4 minutes ago, William said:

Like the little children had to do before approaching Jesus? The same children which the kingdom of heaven belonged?

You seem to be caught up on children, not sure why. Do you think I don't believe children can make a profession of faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
31 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

What references specifically are you referring to?

I am referring to the contextual audience in Acts chapter 2 surrounding verses 38-39.

 

31 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

You seem to be caught up on children, not sure why. Do you think I don't believe children can make a profession of faith?

I am caught up with respect to the audience. The house of Israel which were Covenant Jews. Men Women and Children.

 

I believe you think children need make a profession of faith before receiving the sign and seal of the New Covenant because there is no explicit mention of children receiving baptism. What you call a none sense argument is indeed one but one gains traction by selectively applying such a simplistic principle of interpretation. All I am asking for is consistency.

 

You're dragging the entire church of Corinth into the equation and suggest that Women belonged to the church. I am dragging the entire house of Israel that was in front of Peter and likewise suggesting that Males of any age received the Mark of circumcision and all of them (Women and Children) the sign and seal of the OT Covenant. 

 

I suspect that now that Children have lost their place in the NT Covenant, using the same simplistic principles an argument against my position could be made that only adult males are rightfully transferred as females had not the Mark of the Old Covenant. As you stated "we assume there were in order to fit a theoogical construct that you have to import from a different covenant because there happen to be certain parallels between the two." In order to not do so I asked that no parallel be made between Baptism and Communion. If you're going to suggest that the audience of Corinth were members of the Corinth church and were united by the Baptism sign and seal (Men and Women) I ask that you're consistent and recognize the house of Israel Peter is addressing, the Covenant language and allusion to the sign and seal of the Covenant whose membership includes Men Women and Children.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, William said:

I am referring to the contextual audience in Acts chapter 2 surrounding verses 38-39.

Ok let's look at this passage. You are reading things into it that are not there.  And, for the sake of argument, let's say that children were definitely present at this meeting since the text does not specify. The passage does not say to baptize your children. Not at all. What does it actually say? Repent and be baptized. This promise is for you, for your children, and to all the world.  In other words, the promise is for those there hearing, future generations of the Jews, and for all the world including gentiles. Nowhere does it say, and you will not find one verse that does say, that we should baptize someone who has not repented.  It doesn't say, or even imply, it in this verse or any other.

 

11 minutes ago, William said:

I believe you think children need make a profession of faith before receiving the sign and seal of the New Covenant because there is no explicit mention of children receiving baptism

Actually, I believe that because that is what Scripture, including the references you posted in this post, say. They say repent and be baptized.

 

12 minutes ago, William said:

What you call a none sense argument is indeed one but one gains traction by selectively applying such a simplistic principle of interpretation. All I am asking for is consistency.

I'm not sure how I have been inconsistent.

 

12 minutes ago, William said:

You're dragging the entire church of Corinth into the equation and suggest that Women belonged to the church. I am dragging the entire house of Israel that was in front of Peter and likewise suggesting that Males of any age were circumcised and received mark and all of them the sign and seal of the OT Covenant. 

Here is the problem. The addressing of Corinth does not single out a certain section of the audience with regard to the Lord's Supper. Peter actually does single out a certain section of the audience he had.  Those who repent, they are to be baptized. You are comparing apples and oranges by trying to make that out to me being inconsistent.

 

13 minutes ago, William said:

I suspect that now that Children have lost their place in the NT Covenant, using the same simplistic principles an argument against my position could be made that only adult males are rightfully transferred as females had not the mark of the Old Covenant.

Again, that only happens if you ignore the context of the immediate and try to force a transfer of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. The Old Covenant was complete. The New Covenant was now in place. Nowhere do we find any indication that it is transferring or morphing the Old into the New. They are two different covenants.

15 minutes ago, William said:

That's why I ask, as you stated "we assume there were in order to fit a theoogical construct that you have to import from a different covenant because there happen to be certain parallels between the two." In order to not do so I asked that no parallel be made between Baptism and Communion.

I'm not sure why you think I am making a parallel between baptism and communion other than that they are sacraments.

 

15 minutes ago, William said:

If you're going to suggest that the audience of Corinth were members of the Corinth church and were united by the Baptism sign and seal (Men and Women) I ask that you're consistent and recognize the house of Israel Peter is addressing, the Covenant language and allusion to the Seal of the Covenant whose membership includes Men Women and Children.

I've never said it does not include children. However, it only includes children who have professed faith in Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
22 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Ok let's look at this passage. You are reading things into it that are not there. 

And the only way you can come to that conclusion is by applying a literalistic simplistic principle which ignores inference, allusions, and parallelism. If I reject those principles and throw my hands up in the air and concur that Peter had no intention of using these methods then I'd hand the verses over to the Baptist. But then I'd need deal with others such as Colossians 2 where Paul is actually explicitly making inference with respect to an allusion in parallelism.

 

22 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I'm not sure how I have been inconsistent.

You're going into inconsistency now because you're reasoning rather than breaking from the principles you held elsewhere. That makes me believe you're being selective.

 

22 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Here is the problem. The addressing of Corinth does not single out a certain section of the audience with regard to the Lord's Supper. Peter actually does single out a certain section of the audience he had.  Those who repent, they are to be baptized. You are comparing apples and oranges by trying to make that out to me being inconsistent.

Peter is addressing Covenant Jews, household heads (Peter addresses the house of Israel), and further obvious from the allusion made to Genesis 17. The requirement of faith like the Covenant being alluded to was demonstrated by Abraham, yet Abraham's children received the mark, sign, and seal of the Old Covenant. Likewise the audience in which Peter is addressing were members of that very Covenant which included Men, Women, and Children.

 

You are comparing apples (Covenant and Household heads) to oranges (women and children) which ought to be all apples because they were included in the house of Israel. There's also the inconsistency. If Acts 2:38-39 were not directed to Covenant and household heads then none of this applies to children under such a literalistic simplistic approach because children have no children. How is that you're using Repentance as a qualification but not having children with regard to the intended recipient?

 

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

 

22 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I'm not sure why you think I am making a parallel between baptism and communion other than that they are sacraments.

That's not what I suggested. But you're pointing to the Corinth church. Either all there are the Corinth church or only those that received the sign and seal of Baptism are considered the Corinth church.

 

22 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

I've never said it does not include children. However, it only includes children who have professed faith in Christ.

I didn't realize the Corinth church were Baptist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Nowhere does it say, and you will not find one verse that does say, that we should baptize someone who has not repented.  It doesn't say, or even imply, it in this verse or any other.

 This is simply undeniable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
13 minutes ago, Faber said:

 This is simply undeniable.

Of course it would be absurd to baptize a Covenant or household head that does not repent and believe (unbeliever). The argument is whether children are now excluded from the Covenant or household sign and seal of baptism. Though only one believing spouse defines the household and such unions were considered Christian (children included) 1 Corinthians 7:14.

 

Consider Owen’s (slightly edited) principle and third point supporting infant baptism based on the argument of/from silence:

 

…A spiritual privilege once granted by God unto any cannot be changed, disannulled, or abrogated, without a special divine revocation of it, or the substitution of a greater privilege and mercy in the place of it; for:

 

1. Who shall disannul what God has granted? What he has put together who shall put asunder? To abolish or take away any grant of privilege made by him to the church, without his own express revocation of it, is to deny his sovereign authority.

2. To say a privilege so granted may be revoked, even by God himself, without the substitution of a greater privilege and mercy in the place of it, is contrary to the goodness of God, his love and care unto his church, [and] contrary to his constant course of proceeding with it from the foundation of the world, wherein he went on in the enlargement and increase of its privileges until the coming of Christ. And to suppose it under the gospel is contrary to all his promises, the honor of Christ, and a multitude of express testimonies of Scripture.

 

Thus was it with the privileges of the temple and the worship of it granted to the Jews; they were not, they could not be, taken away without an express revocation, and the substitution of a more glorious spiritual temple and worship in their place.

 

But now the spiritual privilege of a right unto and a participation of the initial seal of the covenant was granted by God unto the infant seed of Abraham, Gen. 17:10, 12. This grant, therefore, must stand firm for ever, unless men can prove or produce:

 

1. An express revocation of it by God himself; which none can do either directly or indirectly, in terms or any pretense of consequence.

2. An instance of a greater privilege or mercy granted unto them in the place of it; which they do not once pretend unto, but leave the seed of believers, while in their infant state, in the same condition with those of pagans and infidels; expressly contrary to God’s covenant.

 

All this contest, therefore, is to deprive the children of believers of a privilege once granted to them by God, never revoked, as to the substance of it, assigning nothing in its place; which is contrary to the goodness, love, and covenant of God, especially derogatory to the honor of Jesus Christ and the gospel.

 

John Owen. The Works of John Owen. Ed. William H. Goold. Vol. 16. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Print.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, William said:

Of course it would be absurd to baptize a Covenant or household head that does not repent and believe (unbeliever). The argument is whether children are now excluded from the Covenant or household sign and seal of baptism. Though only one believing spouse defines the household and such unions were considered Christian (children included) 1 Corinthians 7:14.

 Just because the head of te household is Christian doesn't necessitate the sons and daughters will be (Matthew 10:35-36).

 

 1 Corinthians 7:14

 A. T. Robertson: If the relations of the parents be holy, the child's birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). "He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not hagios till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism" (Robertson and Plummer).

http://www.godrules.net/library/robert/robert1cor7.htm

 

 In my reply to what John Owen wrote I would say that Hebrews 8:13 teaches that the entire Old Covenant laws have been abrogated. Christians do not have to obey any of their commands or practices. Christians are under a New Covenant. If a command from the Old Covenant (any part) is repeated in the New Covenant then Christians are to obey it/them.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
3 minutes ago, Faber said:

 Just because the head of te household is Christian doesn't necessitate the sons and daughters will be (Matthew 10:35-36).

Same applies to the OT Covenant. Covenant status isn't being equated to salvation by me. But it seems that it is both of your points. No doubt in my mind that the opposition in this thread has failed to entertain the other theological perspective. I can definitely see from and even emulate Baptist theology, but I wholeheartedly reject it.

 

At this point I'm going to leave this theology which was taught by both Peter and Paul to Peter's own words when he suggested that some things are hard to understand.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, William said:

At this point I'm going to leave this theology which was taught by both Peter and Paul to Peter's own words when he suggested that some things are hard to understand.

 I understand a false belief but that doesn't mean I will embrace it.

 

 I never once asserted that Covenant status equals salvation. This is simply a straw man to detract from the fact that one must repent first before they are water baptized.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
30 minutes ago, Faber said:

 I never once asserted that Covenant status equals salvation.

So you're not equating baptism as evidence of salvation (present reality)?

 

30 minutes ago, Faber said:

This is simply a straw man to detract from the fact that one must repent first before they are water baptized.

You stated that one must display fruits of the Holy Spirit (regeneration) before receiving the Holy Spirit (God) in the context of Covenant baptism in Acts 2.

 

I specifically pointed this out in the past by asking for clarification and you simply affirmed.

 

And after reinstating the same qualification you think my observation is a straw man?

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, William said:

Same applies to the OT Covenant.

Again, this is a different covenant. We are no longer in the Old Covenant.  

 

56 minutes ago, William said:

No doubt in my mind that the opposition in this thread has failed to entertain the other theological perspective. I can definitely see from and even emulate Baptist theology, but I wholeheartedly reject it.

We have entertained it, and find it to not be supported in Scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
36 minutes ago, davidtaylorjr said:

Again, this is a different covenant. We are no longer in the Old Covenant.  

 

We have entertained it, and find it to not be supported in Scripture.

Keyword search hermeneutic: different covenant. Therefore, covenants no longer have signs and seals? Or do they maintain covenant characteristics and only the sign and seal are changed with respect to recipients?

 

Seems to me that Paul went to great lengths "bridging" between Covenants so that OT Covenant recipients could transfer to the NT Covenant. Where you're seemingly emphasizing "different" I am leaning towards the NT Covenant while having in mind the OT recipients crossing that bridge. Men Women and Children, the house of Israel.

 

Unscriptural? What you should suggest is that Covenant Theology is rejected by your approaches (principles and methods of interpretation) to Scripture. We're taking this up in PM among staff.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, William said:

Therefore, covenants no longer have signs and seals?

Never said that. I'm just saying it doesn't work the same way as it did in the OT. 

 

1 hour ago, William said:

Or do they maintain covenant characteristics and only the sign and seal are changed with respect to recipients?

It's two totally different Covenants. If you were still alive at the time, you had to accept Christ. 

 

1 hour ago, William said:

Seems to me that Paul went to great lengths "bridging" between Covenants so that OT Covenant recipients could transfer to the NT Covenant. Where you're seemingly emphasizing "different" I am leaning towards the NT Covenant while having in mind the OT recipients crossing that bridge. Men Women and Children, the house of Israel.

They still had to meet the requirements of the New Covenant.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, William said:

So you're not equating baptism as evidence of salvation (present reality)?

 Baptism is evidence of salvation but it doesn't equal salvation. The same with partaking the Lord's Supper.

3 hours ago, William said:

You stated that one must display fruits of the Holy Spirit (regeneration) before receiving the Holy Spirit (God) in the context of Covenant baptism in Acts 2.

 I'm sorry, but I don't remember stating that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Baptism is a Sign and a Seal

      Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr.     The circumcision made without hands is symbolized by actual circumcision in the OC (Rom. 2:28-29) and actual physical baptism in the NC (Col. 2:11-12, etc. However, it is more than just a mere symbol. As Pratt maintains:   With specific regard to baptism, it is worth noting that the New Testament never describes baptism as something ordinary or natural; it never speaks of baptism as a mere symbol. The language of sacrament was sustained by Reformed churche

      in Covenant Theology

    • 10 Arguments For Christianity That Are Guaranteed Mic Drops

      We all find ourselves deeply embroiled in back-and-forth, point-for-point apologetics debates now and then. It’s easy to get so far into the weeds when responding to arguments against God’s existence that you forget that some of the greatest mic-drop comebacks are at your disposal if you are a child of God Almighty. The post 10 Arguments For Christianity That Are Guaranteed Mic Drops appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Modes of Baptism: Charles Hodge Systematic Theology

      § 7. Baptism.   “Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.”541   The Mode of Baptism.   According to the definition given above, baptism is a washing with water. By washing is meant any such application of water to the body as effects its purificat

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

    • Baptism - necessary for salvation ?

      What say all of you? 

      in Baptism

    • The Best Arguments for and against the Gospels

      All of history hangs on Jesus. It’s hard to argue with that view even if you don’t believe him. He and his message 2,000 years ago changed the world. But do we know the real Jesus? Do we know what he actually preached? Or are we chasing a shadow, an invention of later generations? Can we trust the Gospels? That’s the question posed in the title of a new book by Peter J. Williams [read TGC’s review], principal of Tyndale House, Cambridge, one of the world’s leading institutes for biblical resea

      in Christian Current Events

×
×
  • Create New...