Arguments against Presbyterian CT & Infant Baptism

[Mikey]

Whenever the argument comes up about infant baptism, it will always come down to their CT, for they rely on the OT for their support of infant baptism. There is relatively little in the NT that supports their position. It seems to me that the Presbyterian position is only possible with their CT.

A friend of mine said something along the lines of that he can't see how God can change from having a strong inclusion for children within the OT covenant, to not in the NT.

How would you answer above and how would you reason against a Presbyterian on the subject of infant Baptism against common arguments you have heard?

 

[Covenanter]

This was the great weakness of the Reformation - not Covenant theology but the state-church which needs infant baptism to count everyone as "Christian."

 

[Yeshua1]

Whenever the argument comes up about infant baptism, it will always come down to their CT, for they rely on the OT for their support of infant baptism. There is relatively little in the NT that supports their position. It seems to me that the Presbyterian position is only possible with their CT.

A friend of mine said something along the lines of that he can't see how God can change from having a strong inclusion for children within the OT covenant, to not in the NT.

How would you answer above and how would you reason against a Presbyterian on the subject of infant Baptism against common arguments you have heard?

I would say that their version of CT would be the problem, as I hold to it, but from the perspective of a Reformed Baptist, hence, still hold to believers baptism!

 

[Rob_BW]

This was the great weakness of the Reformation - not Covenant theology but the state-church which needs infant baptism to count everyone as "Christian."

Yeah, I've been reading some books from the Reformed crowd, and when I get to baptism it just blows my mind. Books full of sound, logical positions, and then Bam!!!: Baptism = Circumcision!

And it seems like they are unable to write on the subject without taking a pot shot at Baptists. It's disheartening.

 

[Brooksntea]

…..

How would you answer above and how would you reason against a Presbyterian on the subject of infant Baptism against common arguments you have heard?

1 Peter 3:21 "...The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:..."

So baptism doesn't remove sin, the blood of Christ does. I can't connect the necessity of infant baptism

 

[Mikey]

1 Peter 3:21 "...The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:..."

So baptism doesn't remove sin, the blood of Christ does. I can't connect the necessity of infant baptism

from my understanding is that Presbyterians separate being in the covenant and salvation. that a person can be in the covenant and not be saved. They take how the covenant was in the OT, and in the OT they were the covenantal people but not all were saved, and see the NC having the same system.

 

[Mikey]

I would say that their version of CT would be the problem, as I hold to it, but from the perspective of a Reformed Baptist, hence, still hold to believers baptism!

Sorry not sure what your saying here.

 

[Covenanter]

from my understanding is that Presbyterians separate being in the covenant and salvation. that a person can be in the covenant and not be saved. They take how the covenant was in the OT, and in the OT they were the covenantal people but not all were saved, and see the NC having the same system.

It's a dangerous doctrine is it means in practice that most baptised "Christians" are unsaved, & that the new covenant sign is worthless.

Westminster -
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

Point seems OK but point IV destroys its meaning & significance. THe Scripture "proofs" are rather oblique.

VI The efficacy of baptism ??? It's a sign & doesn't have an effect, even when administered to newly saved believers!

Covenant theology is a separate issue.

THe CofE Article XXVII reads -

BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

Comment not needed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sorry not sure what your saying here.

Just that Reformed baptists hold also with CT, but that we do see the sign of one being now included under the NC would be believers baptism, not babies!

 

[Mikey]

Just that Reformed baptists hold also with CT, but that we do see the sign of one being now included under the NC would be believers baptism, not babies!

we hold to a different CT which enables us not having this problem. Infant baptism is a consequence of their CT.( I also believe that Infant baptism was a presupposition of biblical teaching - also they had a vision in creating a new covenant nation as seen in Scotland under Knox, Geneva under Calvin. they believed in Christendom and this required Infants being part of this.) and built a CT that supported this view.

since they see both OT and NT are under the same covenant of Grace so they have to see the same 'substance' in as in the OT as in the NT which creates the view that Baptism is Circumcision in substance, and therefore given to Children.

 

[Yeshua1]

we hold to a different CT which enables us not having this problem. Infant baptism is a consequence of their CT.( I also believe that Infant baptism was a presupposition of biblical teaching - also they had a vision in creating a new covenant nation as seen in Scotland under Knox, Geneva under Calvin. they believed in Christendom and this required Infants being part of this.) and built a CT that supported this view.

since they see both OT and NT are under the same covenant of Grace so they have to see the same 'substance' in as in the OT as in the NT which creates the view that Baptism is Circumcision in substance, and therefore given to Children.

The basix crux of the disagreement between us and our reformed presby friends would be in just how new the New Covenant really was?

 

[Mikey]

The basix crux of the disagreement between us and our reformed presby friends would be in just how new the New Covenant really was?

Short answer Yes.

Long answer; 1689 federalism CT views the New Covenant(NC) AS the Covenant of Grace(CoG), with the OT believers saved by the promise of establishment of CoG through Christ's sacrifice( his death established CoG). The NC is indeed a NEW Covenant. Whilst the Presbyterian's see the OT being Under the CoG, for CoG was established soon after the Fall. so to them the NC is only a New ADMINISTRATION of the CoG.

So the Presbyterians need to show continuity between OT and NT as they see OT and NT as being under the same CoG and thereby cannot have major change in substance as it would mean that the CoG was inconsistent ins application. Eg - How can children be apart of the CoG in the OT and given the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) but are excluded from the CoG in the NT(and now) and prevented from taking the sign and seal (Baptism) of the same covenant of Grace. For them it is one covenant.

 

[Yeshua1]

Short answer Yes.

Long answer; 1689 federalism CT views the New Covenant(NC) AS the Covenant of Grace(CoG), with the OT believers saved by the promise of establishment of CoG through Christ's sacrifice( his death established CoG). The NC is indeed a NEW Covenant. Whilst the Presbyterian's see the OT being Under the CoG, for CoG was established soon after the Fall. so to them the NC is only a New ADMINISTRATION of the CoG.

So the Presbyterians need to show continuity between OT and NT as they see OT and NT as being under the same CoG and thereby cannot have major change in substance as it would mean that the CoG was inconsistent ins application. Eg - How can children be apart of the CoG in the OT and given the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) but are excluded from the CoG in the NT(and now) and prevented from taking the sign and seal (Baptism) of the same covenant of Grace. For them it is one covenant.

The sign and seal to Paul especially of just who was to be now seen as beiung included was the person who nowed was sealed and indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit!

 

[Mikey]

The sign and seal to Paul especially of just who was to be now seen as beiung included was the person who nowed was sealed and indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit!

Yes, exactly. We(Baptists) do not see a separation between those in the new covenant and those who are saved, one and the same. Presbys separate the two wrongly

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, exactly. We(Baptists) do not see a separation between those in the new covenant and those who are saved, one and the same. Presbys separate the two wrongly

There seems to be a confusion on if the infant baptism is a sign to being seen now under the NC< or if it actuallys gives grace to now really being in it! As believe Anglicans see it in that fashion...

 

[Mikey]

There seems to be a confusion on wether the infant baptism is a sign to being seen now under the NC< or if it actuallys gives grace to now really being in it! As belive Anglicans see it in that fashion...

different denominations have different reasoning for Infant Baptism and what it does. I've only really looked at the presby one, so don't know much about Anglicanism.

though there could be something about how these different denominations all believe infant baptism but they all have different reason for believing it. which might suggest that Infant baptism is assumed and evidence found to support the conclusion , rather than look at the evidence to come to the conclusion.

 

[Covenanter]

My late friend Tom Watson was UK agent for the Sovereign Grace Publishers of the Puritan & Reformed theologians. He was puzzled as to why they held to infant baptism.
In his book "Baptism not for Infants" republished as "Should babies be Baptised?" he examines the case for infant baptism by showing that they all refute each other.

He quotes ONLY from paedobaptists to make the case against!

 

[Yeshua1]

different denominations have different reasoning for Infant Baptism and what it does. I've only really looked at the presby one, so don't know much about Anglicanism.

though there could be something about how these different denominations all believe infant baptism but they all have different reason for believing it. which might suggest that Infant baptism is assumed and evidence found to support the conclusion , rather than look at the evidence to come to the conclusion.

Those who hold to it must find it in the scriptures, as that being altered would mean they would have to become Baptist in their Reformed Theology.!

 

[Mikey]

Those who hold to it must find it in the scriptures, as that being altered would mean they would have to become Baptist in their Reformed Theology.!

a few of the common NT verses they use are;

Acts 2:39
"For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 16:14-15
"The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us"

Acts 16:31-33
31 So they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

1 Corinthans 7:12-14
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Colossians 2:11-12
" In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead"

 

[Yeshua1]

a few of the common NT verses they use are;

Acts 2:39
"For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 16:14-15
"The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” So she persuaded us"

Acts 16:31-33
31 So they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized.

1 Corinthans 7:12-14
But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Colossians 2:11-12
" In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead"

The problem is that the NC onply applies towards those who have received Jesus, and now hav ethe Holy Spirit!