• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Open Baptists & Paedobaptism

A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
robycop3 said:
Most congregations will only baptize members of that congregation. There used to be two traveling evangelists in this area who, twice a year, would come around, hold a "revivaL", (They didn't work together, nor were associated), and a baptism, either in the Ohio River, or a local creek, depending upon the weather & water levels. Either of them would baptize anyone who wanted to be baptized. As one of them told me, he didn't question their salvations; that was between each person and Jesus, so he baptized without question.

As for children' being saved or not, the only example we have is David's son by Bathsheba, who died shortly after birth. David, who was a prophet, said he'd join him in heaven some day.
Click to expand...

Here you simply fall upon tradition as the function in Baptist congregations you observed.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AustinC said:
Were the only person's under the Mosaic Covenant only those with faith or was all Israel under that covenant? Are the only persons under the New Covenant only those with faith or does the faith of the believing parent set apart the children? You have to wrestle with Paul's comments in 1 Corinthians 7 to try answer this. This is where your understanding of covenant theology will help. John MacArthur is a dispensationalist so he will blow that passage off as unimportant, but if God is a covenant making God and he sets apart the children of the Israel of God as he did with those under the nation of Israel, then you have to wrestle with how that works.
Click to expand...
In the OT, those who were saved were under the New Covenant, while the rest were under the Old Covenant relationship, as all circumcised Jews were under national Israel, but just saved under spiritual Israel!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mikey said:
How can you be a Baptist yet believe infant baptism is legitimate? Your position seems to me inconsistant.



:( Don't jump from one frying pan into another.

This video may be useful. Describes the differences between 1689 federalism and the presbyterian form.


Also, I suggest that you have a watch (audit for free) of lectures 21 -25 of the creeds and confessions module from the Reformed Baptist Seminary, those cover covenant theology.


Another useful website: 1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists
Click to expand...
Book on Covenant theology from Baptist perspective by Phillip D. R. Griffiths a must read in this discussion!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AustinC said:
There is the rub. 1 Corinthians 7 is used to indicate that the children of spiritually reborn family member are made holy by that family member and therefore the unity of membership into that holiness is the baptism of that child. Just as the children of physical Israel are brought into the Mosaic Covenant via circumcision, so the children of spiritual Israel are brought into the New Covenant via baptism.

Back to the original topic.

If the child is baptized into the covenant as an infant and then is drawn by God into saving faith, are they needing to be re-baptized into a covenant in which they were already previously baptized? The answer comes in how you determine the process of covenant. Can one be set apart in the covenant before they have displayed saving faith? If God has predestined that person to be saved into the New Covenant, does it matter the order by which they are brought into covenant? Can water baptism come first before spiritual baptism? Here the Bible gives no explicit nor implicit answer. Therefore, speaking only for myself, I choose to extend grace.
Click to expand...
Scriptures say to us that the children are under the presense of the kingdom via saved parents, under be able to hear the good news, but not that they are actually automatically into the NC!
 
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
In the OT, those who were saved were under the New Covenant, while the rest were under the Old Covenant relationship, as all circumcised Jews were under national Israel, but just saved under spiritual Israel!
Click to expand...

I don't agree here.
All of us are under the Abrahamic Covenant which tells us about faith in the promised one as justification.
Israel (the descendants of Jacob) were given the law (the Sinai Covenant) that gave the law and directed that the Promised One would fulfill the law and thus establish the New Covenant which included all nations is writing the law upon our hearts through the Promised One, Jesus Messiah.

If circumcision established the Sinai Covenant to infants in Israel, does baptism establish the New Covenant to infants in spiritual Israel?

Listening to the debate between John MacArthur and RC Sproul on this subject helps understand both the regulative position as well as the normative position on infant baptism. I suggest listening as it is a very helpful debate.
 
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
Believers water baptism is the NT practice!
Click to expand...
All the explicit verses show believers baptism. There is an argument for implicit infant baptism. That requires implied assumptions and accepting the early church implementation of infant baptism.
 
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
37818 said:
David did not say any such thing. ". . . But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. . . ."
Click to expand...
I believe Dave knew he was going to heaven. same difference.
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AustinC said:
I don't agree here.
All of us are under the Abrahamic Covenant which tells us about faith in the promised one as justification.
Israel (the descendants of Jacob) were given the law (the Sinai Covenant) that gave the law and directed that the Promised One would fulfill the law and thus establish the New Covenant which included all nations is writing the law upon our hearts through the Promised One, Jesus Messiah.

If circumcision established the Sinai Covenant to infants in Israel, does baptism establish the New Covenant to infants in spiritual Israel?

Listening to the debate between John MacArthur and RC Sproul on this subject helps understand both the regulative position as well as the normative position on infant baptism. I suggest listening as it is a very helpful debate.
Click to expand...
The Mosaic law was works based, and those who obeyed God received physical blessings, but those saved in Israel under the Old Covenant were saved by the NC of promise!
 
Y

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AustinC said:
All the explicit verses show believers baptism. There is an argument for implicit infant baptism. That requires implied assumptions and accepting the early church implementation of infant baptism.
Click to expand...
It also requires one to hold to some kind of salvation was provided to Israel under the Old Covenant!
 
A

AustinC

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
It also requires one to hold to some kind of salvation was provided to Israel under the Old Covenant!
Click to expand...
How so?
Infants in Israel were not saved by their circumcision. Nor are infants in the Church saved by their baptism. In both cases salvation is by grace through faith. One was looking forward to the Promise in faith. The other is looking backward to the Promise in faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top