The paedo-baptist believes that the New Covenant is made up of a mix of elect and un-elect just like Israel of the Old Covenant. Pointing to Hebrews 10:30 they argue that there are covenant-breakers in the New Covenant. Therefore, they argue, we can baptize children and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.
We baptist believe this is a misunderstanding of both the nature of the New Covenant and the definition of who Jesus and the Apostles expected should be proper recipients of New Covenant baptism.
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
“Therefore, they argue, we can baptize children and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.”
no paedo-baptist would argue that way. that’s just how a credo-baptist would see it. but this polemic doesn’ help anyone.
Jason, doing some damage control after the debate I see.
Correct Matthias. This is some strawy, straw manning going on.
“Therefore, they argue, we can baptize children and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.”
God doesn’t sort out who should “really” have been baptized. They all should have.
Anyway, is your view like this:
“Therefore, they argue, we can baptize professors and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.”
Ok, I was finally able to listen to the debate. The first thing that got my ears to stand up and listen was when Gene said that he didn’t know for certain who was regenerated except for himself. Therefore, Jason, you are alone in your doctrine of knowing for sure (usually)who is and is not regenerated. But I would like to draw your attention to your inconsistencies of the English language which I don’t think you mean to make but are indeed doing. Your comment, “I think the Bible is clear that we can know who is regenerate. Then there are exceptions because we are not omniscient.
But since we usually know who are regenerate, Paul Manata’s point was… pointless and unbiblical.” is stating two different things which cannot be reconciled. First you state that the Bible says we can know who is regenerated. This is an absolute, positive statement without room for deviation. However, right after stating this absolute, positive statement you insert a statement that deviates from what you insists the Bible states we can know by stating, “Then there are exceptions because we are not omniscient.” and by stating “But since we usually know who are regenerate” You make the first statement in order to give credence to credo-baptism but then make the second two statements to let everyone know that you don’t feel you are as God knowing all things. By stating these two irreconcilable statements, you are attempting to have your cake and eat it too. You either have to believe that you do know for certain who is regenerated and thus you only baptize regenerated people or you have to admit like the paedo-baptise that you don’t know who is regenerated for sure and that there are some adults who are not regenerated who are being baptized. Your conflicting statements do not render Paul M’s point pointless or unbiblical for your statements are irreconcilable and have to be thrown out as a whole…you must hold to one or the other but cannot hold to both.
As I stated in the previous post, fruit takes some time to bear out. However, you are willing to baptize a person when he states that he has received Christ as Lord and Savior instead of waiting for many years of fruit. You do this because Scripture doesn’t command that you wait. It doesn’t command that we know with 100% certainty who is of the elect before baptizing them. I think we all can agree that none of us would baptize someone who verbally rejects Christ possibly showing that they are not of the elect. Of course, this could change later on and the person does receive Christ and show that he was indeed of the elect. But we go on his verbal rejection at the time.
Paul, would you clarify whom you mean by “all”.
“God doesn’t sort out who should “really” have been baptized. They all should have.”
Paul,
“damage control”??? I see no damage that you are speaking of. But it is good to speak to you again over here on Fide-o where we can speak a little more freely.
Now concerning your assertion about credo:
No we do no have an attitude of baptize all professors and let God sort them out. Indeed, we investigate a persons profession according to Scripture, and upon the approval of an elder we baptize them. Then as members of the visible church they are under the accountability of the church and are subject to church discipline.
I am sure you are not church disciplining, as a paedo, all the young children that you discover aren’t believers — putting them out of th visible church and treating them as unbelievers — are you?
No, Credo’s are more apt to baptize only true New Covenant members and are more likely to practice “sorting” or church discipline.
And obviously both Credo’s and Paedo’s both suffer from churches that aren’t biblical in their church polity but that is a different issue.
Jesse,
By “all” I mean “professing Christians and their children.”
It is just truly amazing that anyone ever thought to pour water on a child’s head.
1. There is no command, example, or hint to do that.
2. The child is not a disciple of Christ.
3. Baptism is a profession of faith before God.
4. Baptism is a way to identify believers within the local assembly.
5. All in the NC know the Lord, without exception.
luvvom,
I think there’s a misunderstanding here. The credo-baptist position is NOT that we can have infallible knowledge of who is and is not regenerate. Rather, we distinguish, as do all Reformed believers, between a credible profession of faith and a saving profession of faith.
We all recognize this distinction. Believer’s baptism is not an infallible guarantee of a regenerate church membership. There are always those who slip through the cracks, and I would point out that we are ourselves rather divided over the timing of baptism in that regard. Some, like early Baptists, argued that baptism is a means of grace and as such should follow conversion very quickly.
Now, those who hold that position today accuse those of us who differ of being, essentially, “Zwinglians,” in our view of baptism. However, I would point out that, while that is somewhat true, that really isn’t the issue with waiting on baptism these days. Rather, the argument is practical. We argue as the subapostolic church did that there have been too many false professors baptized, so we need to spend some time weeding them out before baptizing them.
That said, we recognize that does not always work. We don’t require an infallibilist constraint on knowledge to administer believer’s baptism, and some Paedo’s (not Paul to his credit) recognize this. Rather, we are simply saying that baptism is properly administered not as a promise for the future, but as an outward confession of an inward reality that has taken place – the remission of sins. It is not prospective. It is descriptive. It therefore is rightly for those and only those who have given a credible profession of faith.
We also agree with Paedos that baptism answers to circumcision, but it answers to circumcision insofar as circumcision answers to regeneration.
The real conundrum, IMO, is over the way Paedo covenantalists are construing the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. In relation to the Mosaic, you, like we covenantal Baptists construe it as signs and shadows, often as both a republication of the Covenant of Works and an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Yet in relation to the Abrahamic, you’re construing continuity insofar as you’re shifting from signs and shadows to a continued promissory function for “circumcision,” now not circumcision but baptism. To us, that doesn’t make sense. You’re being inconsistent.
Hi Jason,
Jason sez: “Now concerning your assertion about credo:
No we do no have an attitude of baptize all professors and let God sort them out.”
The LBC sez: Ch. 29.2 “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.”
Anyway, since Jason denies that not *all* people who profess faith in Jesus Christ, then his position is that there are some who, even professing the true religion, we shouldn’t baptize.
Jason sez: “Indeed, we investigate a persons profession according to Scripture, and upon the approval of an elder we baptize them.”
My response: Hmm, never seen that done in Scripture. Anyway, let’s note your comments are in response to things I have said in the debate. Let’s note that I pointed out that Gene Cook has said, in public, that if he were at the beach and someone made a profession of faith, he would baptize that person immediately.
Anyway, not all those who you “grill” and “stick under the microscope” are regenerate. So, let me re-phrase my rejoinder:
“Therefore, they argue, we can baptize professors who we have grilled and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.”
Better?
Jason sez: I am sure you are not church disciplining, as a paedo, all the young children that you discover aren’t believers — putting them out of the visible church and treating them as unbelievers — are you?
My response: I think I can say that if our elders “discovered” that a child was an iunbeliever then we would take the appropriate actions. But, we don’t really have this problem. The people who I have noted to be “found out” to be “unbelivers” are usually adults who commit adultary on their wives and then refuse to repent and say that Christianity is hogwash. I don’t know about your children’s church, but our kids aren’t reading the Satanic Bible and publicly denouncing Christ. I’m sure yours aren’t either. Anyway, my point should be understood.
Jason sez: “No, Credo’s are more apt to baptize only true New Covenant members and are more likely to practice “sorting” or church discipline.”
I respond: Oh, well now that you put it that way…
Mere assertions aside, let’s see the probability calculus.
And,you view the NC as only one-sided, so your very statement already begs the question against the paedo, but we’ll let that alone for now.
You are saying that the probability that one is in the (internal/true) NC based on Profession is high. So, that would be something like, what
P( NC/P)= .8
Is that it, or is it .6, or .7, or .9?
Anyway, let’s look at the empirical evidence. How would you even begin to prove a claim like, “No, Credo’s are more apt to baptize only true New Covenant members?” Of all those in the world who have made what an elder at an evangelical church would call a “credible profession” how many are “true NC members?” You made the assertion about “likelyhood,” and so I expect you have the numbers?
After this, I’ll give my probability argument for the election or NC memebrship of believers children. At best both sides come out, with our knowledge, with a probability value of inscrutable.
Anyway, I fear we’re drifting away from your post. You said that:
“The paedo-baptist believes that the New Covenant is made up of a mix of elect and un-elect just like Israel of the Old Covenant. Pointing to Hebrews 10:30 they argue that there are covenant-breakers in the New Covenant. Therefore, they argue, we can baptize children and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.”
Now, is this properly representing your brothers? Let me quote what I have written *prior* to my debate with Gene as to prove whether I think the “mixed community” arguments are arguments for “paedobaptism” or “the inclusion of all our children.”
This is an except from what I’ve written on I Cor. 5:1-13, note the bolded words:
**********
A “mixed community” is, as Steven Wellum says
“[i]n a Baptist view of the church, what is unique about the nature of the new covenant community is that it comprises a regenerate, believing people, not a mixed people like Israel of old. Therefore, Baptists only view as true members of the new covenant community those who have actually entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith and as such are partakers of all the benefits and blessings of the new covenant age.” (Wellum in, Believers Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant, 2007, p.113
For our purposes we will not take our time to analyze Dr. Wellum’s claim, nor the rest of his paper critiquing infant baptism. The purpose of this argument is not to establish infant baptism, but simply to establish the existence of a “mixed community,” which, as you can see in the above quote, simply means a covenant community that includes both the regenerate, as well as the unregenerate, as its members. So, though we could quibble over claims like: “Baptists only view as true members of the new covenant community those who have actually entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith,” by inquiring into the meaning of the phrase, “true members of the new covenant,” as somehow inconsistent with what paedobaptist teach when, depending on how terms are defined and fleshed out, I should think the vast majority of reformed paedobaptist would agree that only the elect are “true” members of the new covenant; it would be beyond the scope of this paper to quibble over such claims.
Furthermore, it is not my contention that if one substantiates the idea of a New Covenant “mixed community,” one has automatically substantiated the claim that “the children of professing Christian parent(s) are in said covenantal community.” (To clear away any ambiguities, I will henceforth substitute “infant” for “child” of professing Christian parent(s). To the best of my knowledge, many Baptists do baptize their children when their children are able to make a credible profession of faith and so, technically, the Baptist can believe that (some) children of professing Christian parent(s) are proper subjects of Christian baptism.) I recognize full well that substantiating the one does not automatically substantiate the other; they are logically distinct. This concession of mine is also pointed out by many reformed Baptists, of whom Fred Malone is representative. Says Malone, “Even if it were true that [the apostates mentioned in the book of Hebrews] were considered in the New Covenant by their profession, they were not infants” (p. 102). But if this is granted, then the “mixed community” is granted, and Malone would be at odds with fellow reformed Baptists like Dr. Wellum.
Nevertheless, I have always understood the use of these passages to function as defeater-defeaters to the Baptist’s original defeater of the belief that the infants of professing Christian parent(s) are still considered to be in covenant with God. It has been the Baptist who has argues that since the new covenant consists of only the elect (or, regenerate, there is no universal agreement here), and since a sincere profession of faith is the best evidence-indicator that God has given us to discern the elect or regenerate (or, covenantal) status of a professing Christian, then baptism, the sign of the New Covenant, should only be given to those who profess faith. Therefore, the Baptist has used the idea of a completely elect or regenerate covenant community (pure, not mixed, that is) to undercut the paedobaptist position that the infants of professing Christian parent(s) ought to be assumed to still have covenantal status when there is no evidence-indicator of said infant’s elect or regenerate status; thus providing no warrant for the Church to assume that said child is in the covenant.
It is in the context of that positive argument the Baptist has used that the argument for New Covenant breakers arises. If successful, this argument defeats the original argument, and therefore the Baptist may not use it as an objection against infant baptism. I do not use it as a positive argument to establish the covenantal status of infants. (At best, the principle of a continued mixed covenant community is used to explain how there could be non-elect (or, non-regenerate) in the New Covenant community.) If the Baptist promises to never object to infant baptism on the grounds that we are epistemologically hindered from discerning the covenantal status of our infants (as best we can, using the evidence-indicators God has given us) because we have no idea as to whether they are elect or regenerate, then I promise not to bring up arguments for a continued mixed covenant community. I doubt this will happen, though, especially considering that it is the theological bread and butter of many Reformed Baptist polemics.
Thus, without overstating my case, I will attempt to show that the New Covenant is a ““mixed community” while agreeing that this does not prove that infants are members of the New Covenant. That argument is made elsewhere. However, if I can establish this point, I will have put a dent in one of, if not the, main argument(s) Reformed Baptists use in their case against infant baptism. Therefore, Baptists will not be able to use the “pure” nature of the New Covenant as a reason to reject infant baptism. They will need to look elsewhere for those arguments. I will make my main case from I Corinthians 5:1-13. I will then briefly look at some other passages which seem to imply a “mixed community.” I will then follow up with a response to some anticipated objections.
*******
And so Jason, given what I have stated before I ever debated Gene, or talked to you, are you not bound to say that you have misrepresented me and the arguments I use? Given my beliefs isn’t it wrong to say what you say above, that: “Pointing to Hebrews 10:30 they argue that there are covenant-breakers in the New Covenant. Therefore, they argue, we can baptize children and let God sort out who should really have been baptized.”
I hope to have pointed out the correct way to interpret my position and so I’ll assume the misrepresentations, of which I’ve corrected you over 10 times on now, will stop.
Blessings,
PM
GeneMBridges,
) Just trying to help.
you are missing my point to Jason who seems to either not have seen my comment to him or sees I’m right and can’t think of anything to say. I really don’t want to restate everything I said to him for you again but if you could do two things for me: read my comment again very slowly to see what my point is and then realize that I know that the Baptise don’t claim they know with 100% certainty that they know how is regenerated and who is not. What I’m doing in my comment to Jason is showing how in his thinking he is both saying that he can according to Scripture and that he can’t and that is how he and others come to their conclusions. Forget everything else right now and focus on the logic of his statement and you will see the flaw in his thinking. I hope that Jason will see it and correct it even though I know he will continue to hold to credo-baptism…it doesn’t look good for his side.
lovvom,
just kidding.
Yes, you are right. I read your statement and decided to fast and pray for several hours just to decipher your logic.
No, I thought about just letting you say your peace and not responding. I have noticed sometimes people try to correct people all the time on the internet only later to realize that they were completely off base. But since you continue to comment over and over making the same mistake I thought I may suspend my span of grace and just say one thing to you…
You are falling into Paul Manata’s “either-or” trap. Rather than spell it all out for you which would come across as condescending in this venue, I will just hope you take some time to think about this.
(Hints: Does God call upon us to discern who are true and who are false Christians? Does God expect us to make such judgments in marriage, in election of church officers, in teachers? Is God asking us to do something even though He knows that we will make mistakes? Since God knows we will make mistakes why does He give us any commands, like “be ye holy” for example? Should we take the “either-or” approach to other commands in the Bible, such as “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart”? Or maybe we should just ignore all the commands since we can’t keep any of them perfectly.) OK that is enough hints. Hope to hear from you after you think through this.
Sincerely, Pastor Jason
Paul,
My conclusions about the logic of your arguments in the debate are the majority report of those who actually listened to the debate.
Maybe you should have just past out your notes if they reflect your thoughts better.
But to charge me with misrepresenting your arguments is futile when the MP3′s speak for themselves.
You believe in New Covenant covenant-breakers. You therefore find no problem with baptizing infants who have not repented of their sins. You trust that at the last day God will judge “His people” and throw some of them in Hell.
(All of this is what you said. Anyone can listen for themselves.)
But we do appreciate it when you cut and paste your notes for us. Maybe we can use them to help certain Christian parents who are wondering if there is any benefit in baptizing their babies now or wait until they are actually born-again.
Hi Jason,
Jason sez: “My conclusions about the logic of your arguments in the debate are the majority report of those who actually listened to the debate.”
My response: Yes, I am sure they are. All Baptists, I am sure. Here are some other unbiased baptists:
******
On Sunday Evening August 19th, 2007 about 150 people gathered in Murrieta, California at Murrieta Valley Church to hear a debate between two of my best friends, Pastor Gene Cook, Jr. and Paul Manata regarding the question of
“Who are the proper recipients of Christian Baptism?”
Gene is a credobaptist (believer baptism) and Paul is a paedobaptist (infant baptism). Although I’m a baptist by conviction, I think brother Paul demonstrated superior debate saavy through using a superior strategy founded in a well-honed ability to critically and quickly analyze and deconstruct arguments. Enjoy listening to the linked .mp3 downloads of my two buds duking it out (Pro. 27:17)!
http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/…show-down.html
******
******
Pär said…
You both did a good job but I think Paul won this one. Now I don’t know what to believe… dang. I guess I need to become paedo now?
8:54 AM
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/08/coo…22075838080989
******
******
Josh Brisby said…
Even as a credo, and even as someone who was on Gene’s show critiquing infant baptism three years ago, I have to say that Paul did a phenomenal job. I would have to chalk this one up to Paul.
6:16 PM
http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/08/coo…75848522021151
******
Anyway, Jason, you wouldn’t be arguing ad populum, now would you?
And, I gave you explciit quotes of mine on the matter, laying out my thought in detail, yet you don’t take my own word for my position, you take the word of your baptist friends on the matter! This is akin to Richard Dawkins’ and his appealing to hostile and uninformed critics of Christianity rather than orthodox Christian theologians. When Dawkins does what you do, he’s called biased and a poor scholar. But when you do it it’s not that, why?
Jason sez: “Maybe you should have just past out your notes if they reflect your thoughts better.”
My response: Why? Here’s a challenge, why don’t you show by quoting my own words precisely, providing the appropriate context and analysis, and show the *logical connection* that you and your friends see. I mean, the implication isn’t *obvious,* right? Here’s a case of *obvious implication:*
(*) Ted is taller than Sam. Sam is taller than Pete. Therefor, Ted is taller than Pete.
Now, are you saying that my comments are like (*). That’s not obvious to me, so show me your work. I’m sure you don’t expect me or your readers to take your mere word, and the word of these anonymous baptist buddies, for it. Saying-so doesn’t make it so, Jason.
Jason sez: You believe in New Covenant covenant-breakers. You therefore find no problem with baptizing infants who have not repented of their sins.
My reply: Both of those are true statements. But, the “therefore” is illegit. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. Why are you saying that I’m knowingly offering an invalid argument? Is this fair and charitable? Esepcially when I have painstakingly doccumented my oposition to your characterization?
In fact, Jason, in the debate I gave my “therefore” for why I believe in baptizing infants. Guess what? The term “covenant breaker” wasn’t in either of my premises. So, I must continue to ask, why are you attributing arguments to me that I specifically deny and that I specifically did not use in the debate? I know “Fide-o” is your blog, but that doesn’t give you a right to butcher the public and observable and checkable facts of the matter, right? This only sullies your blog. it makes you look unfair and incompetant to objectively judge a debate where you’re calling your own side, and good friend, “the winner.”
Jason sez: “But we do appreciate it when you cut and paste your notes for us. Maybe we can use them to help certain Christian parents who are wondering if there is any benefit in baptizing their babies now or wait until they are actually born-again.”
My reply: If you wait until someone is *ACTAULLY* born again, then why baptize anyone?
Blessings!
~PM
I think brother Paul demonstrated superior debate saavy
Yes, you, Mr. Manata, are truly superior in saavy.
Paul, you statement, If you wait until someone is *ACTAULLY* born again, then why baptize anyone? says it all. You can see why my conclusions about your arguments are not so off base.
I baptize those who are born-again because the Bible commands me to do so.
Gene Bridges correctly noted that I am not an infallibilist in my epistemological convictions.
That being said, I still don’t think we can “know” another’s regenerate status.
But, let me do away with some unnecessary baggage. For arguments sake I’ll grant that we can know that, to use Jason’s examples, men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, etc., are regenerate. Why I’ll concede this for sake of discussion, these examples don’t bear on the debate at hand. This is because we form our beliefs about these particular fellows on the basis of watching their long term fruit.
But, the context of the debate is “baptism.” Specifically my responses to Gene in the context of our debate. His belief, which is determinative for our discussions, is that he would baptize a professor immediately, if water was near buy. At worst he’d wait a week. This is too soon to “know” that a professing subject S is “regenerate.”
Now, just because we do not hold to a infallibilist constraint, that doesn’t mean that we can say that we know any ole proposition. This gets into a whole host of epistemological questions and problems, though.
Suffice it to say, here’s an example:
Say you walked into a factory and saw a bunch of widgets coming down the assembly line and they were all colored red. So, you form the belief you are being appeared to redly. At this point, given this info, I’d say that you knew they were red. Now, say that a floor supervisor told you that there was a red light illuminating the widgets so as to detect otherwise unnoticeable hair line fractures. Actually, only about 15% are red. Thus you’d now have a defeater for your belief that the widgets were red. So, it wouldn’t be wise to say, “Oh there’s a red widget. I know it, and just because I could be wrong doesn’t mean that I know it!”
See, there’s other things to take into account. And this is the same kind of argument I’d make about your argument for “knowing” that so and so is elect/regenerate.
So, the information about the red light and the probability of a particular widget being a red widget served as a defeater for your belief that any one particular widget was a red widget.
Do we have these kinds of defeaters in the Bible? I think so:
Matt 13: 24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
So, say there was a field that had dogs to protect the sheep, but there were wolves too that looked almost exactly like the dogs from a distance of 100 meters (and this was as close as you could get to the field). So, when you met the owner of the field you tell him you saw one of his dogs. He informs you that there are almost just as many wolves as dogs, and they look almost similar. You now have a defeater for your belief that you actually saw a dog. At this point you say, “Let me shoot the wolves so that your sheep will be safe.” The owner of the field responds, “No, don’t shoot them because you may just as easily hit a wolf instead.” This should be an undisputed case of epistemic defeat, this applies to the claim that we “know who is regenerate.”
The second analogy really bears on the Baptism issue since Gene is for immediate baptisms (and he must since he relies so heavily on arguments from example as normative).
Matt. 13: 18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
Note that only one of the seeds “immediately” reject the word. These people are immediately unfit subjects for baptism.
Now, out of the other 3, only one of them “truly believes.” And, the text does not say how long they act as if they accept the word, but we know it is not “immediate.”
Therefore the probability that Gene (or anyone who agrees with him) is baptizing an “elect person” on the basis of the profession they see is low, roughly .3!
Now, if the probability that belief B is the case is low, then you have a defeater for B. This can be seen in another paradigm case of defeat. Say that you ingest a hallucinogenic drug called XX. Say that only .3% of those who ingest XX are immune to his hallucinogenic causing properties. Thus if you formed the belief that you took XX, and if you also came to believe that the probability that you are hallucinating is .7, then you have a defeater for most of your beliefs!
So I have established the argument that “only elect are in the covenant” has no bearing on “how we know who to baptize.” At least on Gene’s arguments and positions he held in the debate. And, at least if my above work is right, and it appears that it is, I have. Now, this is how I use the argument Jason attributes to me. I do not, and have not, and never did, use the above argumentation to establish that “children of believers are in the new Covenant.”
Blessings!
~PM
Is baptism a sign of one’s faith, or a sign of one’s mother’s faith?
Jason asks: “Paul, you statement, If you wait until someone is *ACTAULLY* born again, then why baptize anyone? says it all. You can see why my conclusions about your arguments are not so off base.
I baptize those who are born-again because the Bible commands me to do so.”
My response: Oh well, I asked for a demonstration of Jason’s comments, he’s opting again to make an assertion.
And, even if I agree that the Bible “commands you to baptize someone who is born again” that does not prove
(a) that you are “ACTUALLY” (your words) baptizing someone who is born again.
and
(b) That you are to *only* baptize those who are born again. Find a verse that says “only.”
I think that (a) is not the case is obvious, and so won’t bother to defend it.
Let’s look at (b) now.
You’re making an invalid inference.
(i) I am commanded to baptize all those who are born again.
does not logically imply:
(ii) I am commanded to only baptize those who are born again.
Thus your inference is logically invalid.
Such as if I said,
(i*) I (say, a police officer) am commanded to arrest those who drive drunk.
that would not mean
(ii*) I am commanded to arrest only those who drive drunk (what about murderes, rapists, burglerers &c.)
So, when I respond I take the time to actually show you where I think you’re off. You, on the other hand, seem content to simply assert that I am wrong and illogical.
Blessings!
~PM
Jason,
are you attempting to correct your incorrect statement by stating that I am falling into an either or trap and asking all those rhetorical questions? Frankly, you have been the most honest person I have ever heard when you described your reasoning for credo-baptism. You should not hide so quickly your two-fisted, reasoning until you have taken the time to dissect it. You can’t have a absolute truth which never fails on one hand and then on the other hand make that same truth less successful…you can’t say that the Bible tells you that you can know who is regenerated and thus you know who to baptize and then turn around and say but you can’t know for sure. You either know or you don’t know. If that is playing the either or game, then so be it. You MUST agree that you can’t know for sure who is regenerated (your last comment stated as much). Therefore, you must retract part of your statement which states that the Bible says you can know who is regenerated and thus ready for baptism. You cannot logically have it both ways. Since you have already seen the error of such thinking to which credo-baptists hold unconsciously, then you must agree that you do baptize people who are not regenerated, thus “erring” in the same manner as paedobaptists when we baptize infants who are not of the elect. Credo-baptists insist that baptism should only be done on those who can demonstrate and state that they have put their trust in Christ. You break your own rule when you baptize a person who states they have been saved and yet later it is revealed they were never saved at all. Then you cry aloud stating, “Does God call upon us to discern who are true and who are false Christians? Does God expect us to make such judgments in marriage, in election of church officers, in teachers? Is God asking us to do something even though He knows that we will make mistakes? Since God knows we will make mistakes why does He give us any commands, like “be ye holy” for example?” and we paedobaptist stand back with arms folded and a smile on our face saying, “We know, we know! That’s what we’ve been telling ya! You can’t have it both ways! You don’t know for sure, but God does and He knows that we are but dust who are not omniscient and yet His grace is sufficient for us” ;o)
sincerely,
church member sarah ;o)
Paul, your attempts to find fallacies in the credo position is not making sense, at least to me — making it is due to my lack of omniscience.
But at the end of the day, the issue is not if we can know for sure that all those who profess faith are saved, but is even possible at all to know if even one infant is saved or ever will be. I believe that God desires for us to be faithful with the ordinances of the church — just look at the effects of people taking Communion unworthily.
I have baptized many people in my twenty plus years of ministry. I know very few that have not shown themselves to be faithful to the faith. The Bible commands us to baptize those who repent and believe; I did; it was biblical (and on this point we all agree). But the WCF says not only baptize those who repent but also their children. This means that the WCF asserts that there are two grounds for baptism: one can either be baptized in obedience to one’s own faith or one can be baptized because of someone else’s faith.
Paedo’s have the dual definition because they believe that baptism is a continuation of circumcision for the most part.
Credo’s see baptism as something related to circumcision but it is also altogether different.
Such a difference was foreshadowed in John’s baptism as he required repentance first.
Baptism is also seen as something different than circumcision in the fact that circumcision is meaningless in the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant was mixed with believers and unbelievers.
The New Covenant is only made up of believers.
The OC sign of circumcision was given to all males born to Jews without exception.
But the NC sign of baptism is meant to be given to all who repent.
The goal of the writers of the epistles was to keep the NC faith pure and keep the church rolls pure, unlike the polluted population of the OC.
This we shall try to do by God’s power. Though we shall not be perfect, as luvvom loves to point out, we shall still strive to be righteous and thereby reveal God’s character.
Jason,
I addressed all of this in my post.
Gene Bridges even points out that I have not, am not, and do not, say that when you claim to know who is elect/regenerate, you are claiming infallible certainty.
To even say that suggests you didn’t even read my post. Note that I talk about *probabilities* and note that I start off denying *epistemic infallibilism.”
So, you simply have not read, or taken the time to chew on, what I’ve said.
I’d furthermore note that the fallacies I pointed out in *your* (not the “Baptists,” per se) position were given anological arguments of the same *form.* You shoudl easily be able to see how the “Police officer” argument is fallacious. (i*) does not logically imply (ii*). My counter is what’s called “testing for validity by logical counter example.” I used the exact same type of proposition as you, and drew the (logically) same type of conclusion. In my cvounter example, my conclusion was obviously false. This demonstrates that your argument is fallacious, or, at best, doesn’t get you to the conclusion you want.
For more on testing by counter example read this:
http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/logic/l03.html
Jason, now you’re just preaching to the choir. You don’t really seem to understand paedobaptist argumentation, or my own.
As for this:
“Credo’s see baptism as something related to circumcision but it is also altogether different.”
So do I.
Anyway, I’ll let you go on your way. It appears we’re at the end of the discussion. My points are not, and have not been, interacted with. Have a good up and coming Lord’s day.
Blessings!
~PM
lovvom,
You said, then you must agree that you do baptize people who are not regenerated, thus “erring” in the same manner as paedobaptists when we baptize infants who are not of the elect.
NO, friend, those we both make errors they are not in the same manner. The credo’s error while respecting the profession of someone’s faith. If the person makes a false profession of faith, they will actually be punished for this (see what Peter said to Simon).
But the Paedo is responsible for the infants baptism, not the infant. The infant said nothing. The infant was not baptized on the basis of his/her faith but the faith of someone else. Who will God hold responsible in that situation?
So, no this is not the same error in the same manner. That is the whole point.
And besides, if your argument is true, then you should not be practicing paedobaptism either — because you don’t really know if those parents are believers or not so you don’t really know if God’s covenantal promises are extended to those children or not.
Luvvom, please give me your definition of what baptism is, what it signifies, and why someone should be baptized.
“NO, friend, those we both make errors they are not in the same manner. The credo’s error while respecting the profession of someone’s faith. If the person makes a false profession of faith, they will actually be punished for this (see what Peter said to Simon).” and we go on the profession of at least one of the parents and claim the promise given to us in 1 Corinthians 7:14
“For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, THEY ARE HOLY.” As you know “holy” means separate. In this context it is meaning separate from those outside of the visible church.
“But the Paedo is responsible for the infants baptism, not the infant. The infant said nothing. The infant was not baptized on the basis of his/her faith but the faith of someone else. Who will God hold responsible in that situation?” Since the infant isn’t of the elect, God will hold the infant responsible by sending him/her to hell when they die. Since it isn’t a sin to baptize infants (even Gene during the debate said he didn’t think it was a sin) then the pastor is not held responsible for the infant’s baptism…but just in case I am wrong about paedobaptism…there is forgiveness of sins for that pastor.
“And besides, if your argument is true, then you should not be practicing paedobaptism either — because you don’t really know if those parents are believers or not so you don’t really know if God’s covenantal promises are extended to those children or not.” But, Jason, I wasn’t the one saying I know for sure who is regenerated…you did. I’m the one who stated that we are to depend on their profession of faith so I can believe in paedobaptism after all.
“Luvvom, please give me your definition of what baptism is, what it signifies, and why someone should be baptized.” Bravo! You finally got my name spelled right.
) Ok, here it is: first you must know that I believe in predestination which is only one and maybe the greatest reason I am a paedobaptist. With that aside I will state the WMC 94 and 28.6 since it is much better at stating things that I am. “Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (1) doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s (Matt. 28:19 Rom. 6:4; Gal 3:27). The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; (1) yet, not withstanding, 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (John 3:5,8 Gal 3:27; Tit. 3:5; Eph 5:25, 26; Acts 2:38, 41)” If you want more, I’ll have to pull out my book “Systematic Theology” by Louis Berkhof and give you the full treatment…it’s very long 
).
lovvom, notice in that 1 Cor. 7 passage that the unbelieving spouse is also being made holy. Why not baptize the unbelieving spouse since you are willing to baptize the unbelieving infant?
Then you said Since the infant isn’t of the elect, God will hold the infant responsible by sending him/her to hell when they die.
Thus the title of this post!!!
Then you said I’m the one who stated that we are to depend on their profession of faith so I can believe in paedobaptism after all. Didn’t you say something about cake and eating it too?
Luvvom, those infants aren’t making a profession so what are you depending on in paedo?????
And concerning your definition, I almost asked you not to quote confessions and theology books. I want to hear you explain it in your own words. This is very important.
Jason,
“lovvom, notice in that 1 Cor. 7 passage that the unbelieving spouse is also being made holy. Why not baptize the unbelieving spouse since you are willing to baptize the unbelieving infant?” because the unbelieving spouse can verbalize their rejection of Christ and thus we know that according to their confession it has been made clear that they are not of the elect (obviously they could be of the elect but we/they don’t know until they do become regenerated then at that time they will have a different profession of faith and can be baptized but not until then).
“Then you said Since the infant isn’t of the elect, God will hold the infant responsible by sending him/her to hell when they die.
Thus the title of this post!!!” and you are doing the same thing by baptizing unregenerate people who you thought were regenerated…thus the title of your post!
“Then you said I’m the one who stated that we are to depend on their profession of faith so I can believe in paedobaptism after all. Didn’t you say something about cake and eating it too?
Luvvom, those infants aren’t making a profession so what are you depending on in paedo?????” the statement I made about you trying to have your cake and eat it too was concerning your statement which said both that you thought the Bible stated you could know who is regenerated and then you said you couldn’t know for sure…kind of like covering all your bases in a bazaar way. Now I’m taking it that you think I’m trying to do the same thing when you state, “Luvvom, those infants aren’t making a profession so what are you depending on in paedo?????” but I am not depending on some magical ball to tell me that infants are of the elect and then if it turns out the magical ball is wrong, quickly state that I can’t always be right about infants’ election…that would be having my cake and eating it too. Instead, I go on the profession of at least one parent and claim the promise of 1 Cor 7:14…again the unbelieving spouse would not be baptized for reasons I stated above.
Water baptism, in my own words, is a sacrament which brings people into God’s visible church (not His invisible church…salvation does that) and seals them as God’s own with all the promises He has promised His children. It is a physical sign which demonstrates God’s selection of His people. If any, adult or infant who grows up, rejects Christ after baptism, then they were not of us and they indeed do not receive His promises.
luvvom, your explanation of 1 Cor. 7 betrays your allegiance to you position instead of the scripture.
The text of 1 Cor. 7 specifically takes into consideration that the spouse is unbelieving and still declares them sanctified, set apart, holy.
That all you can do is post the WCF when asked about baptism further betrays your inability to put together an actual argument for paedobaptism. That is the curse of the paedobaptism advocates though.
Luvmom, if you expect anyone to take the time to read and understand your comments I highly suggest better formatting. I posted this in another thread, but it needs to be said twice.
Try this website it may help.
http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com
James,
you really must read 1 Cor 7:14 again. Here I’ll post it for you: “14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” The word holy means separate. For example God is not just righteous He is holy. If God were only completely righteousness and without sin, He would be far, far, far, far better and bigger than we are. As it is He is holy which makes Him NOTHING like anything He created. There is nothing in this universe that you can point to which would sort of resemble Him. That is why He told Moses His name was I AM. Now, we have a holiness but obviously not like God’s holiness or we would be like God. 1 Cor states that the unbelieving spouse is made holy because of the believing spouse or in other words, separate from to pagan married couple. As God blessed (but didn’t save all of them) Abraham’s family (and other believing OT saints’ families) because they were under his covering, so God promises the same covering to NT saints. You are stretching the meaning of holy when you apply sanctification to the unbelieving spouse. If this were true…that we could consider them sanctified because of the believing spouse, then who would need Jesus really? When you look at this Scripture again, I think you will see your error. Also, I was mistaken that Jason wanted official definition of what Baptism was. When he asked again that I put it in my own words I did so…maybe you missed it?
Scott,
( Do you really read everyone’s comments? I would never get anything done if I did. 
)
I’ll tell you what. If you can start spelling my nickname right, then I’ll use paragraphs…deal? Or just call me sarah. Anyway, I don’t really care if other people besides the poster person read my comments since I don’t normally read theirs unless they address me and sometimes I miss those
Sarah, I believe you have missed my point. You attempted to make the argument that baptism was legitimate for infants based on 1 Cor 7. Jason correctly pointed out the inconsistency of such a position, as the very same verse deals with the unbelieving spouse also being called holy.
If you say that baptism is required for infants based on 1 Cor 7 and yet deny or do not teach that baptism is also required for the unbelieving spouse, then you are twisting the scripture and making a mockery of its words.
Let us all be clear about something, your paedo position demands that you believe Jason, Scott, myself and other credobaptists are IN SIN because we do not “baptize” infants. According to your theology, we are failing miserably in church order and are not obeying scripture.
James is right. I talked about this fact [that the paedo position requires that they believe the credo's are in sin by impoverishing the elect by withholding the sacrament of baptism] in the comment section of today’s post.
When I first read Jason’s, “baptize them all and let God sort them out” I thought, “Well he is just trying to start something.” However, after spending much of the day reading here at Fide-o and at the Puritan board, I must admit that the statement is accurate and shouldn’t even be taken as incisive, strawmanesque, smart alec-ie or anything of the sort.
If statements such as, “since we don’t know who the elect children are we should baptize them all”, “Adult proselytes who came into the OT faith were required to repent but their children were not because they couldn’t”, “children have done nothing to repent of”, “baptism is a means God has ordained to convert and confirm his elect are true, and the reason behind these statements are accurate to the general consensus of Presbyterian theology, then “Baptize them all and let God sort them out” should be on T-shirts sold in foyer of every Presbyterian church in America this Sunday.
On the title of this post:
Paedobaptists would say that all professing believers, together with their children, should be baptized. This is observable to the church; they should be baptized on this basis; and we may therefore leave it to God to judge of hearts, regenerate whom He will, and generally “sort ‘em out.”
Anti-paedobaptists (at least some of those here) seem to say that we can know who is and is not regenerate, judging of hearts, and baptizing all the regenerate, excepting infants (even though their own Confession says that God regenerates infants); because God has “sorted ‘em out.”
If the title is meant to be a charge brought against Presbyterians, the principle of regenerate church membership should probably be demonstrated, without reference to paedobaptism (as I’ve noted before, Baptists hold to anti-paedobaptism and regenerate church membership; Independents hold to paedobaptism and regenerate church membership; Presbyterians hold to paedobaptism and mixed membership). You’re clouding the issue by attempting to tie them together in this fashion.
James,
why would you want to baptize an unbelieving spouse just because it states he is holy if he has a believing spouse? Why? Wait, wait! I think I know the answer! Because he states that he doesn’t believe in Christ….bingo! Great answer, sarah! Yahoo! Clapping from the audience, and sarah bows. Thank you, thank you!
James,
)
why does sarah say this verse is used in conjunction with other Scripture to support the idea that we baptize infants? Wait, wait! I know! First, infants can’t VERBALLY reject or accept Christ so it isn’t at all like the unbelieving spouse…good answer, sarah! To be honest, I’m quite puzzled as to why James and the rest can’t understand this simple concept, but go on! Ok, I’ll continue. Isn’t there such a thing called predestination and there are infants who are predestined for salvation and they are required to be brought into the visible church (we know this when God tells us to bring up a child in the way he should go etc) so that they can learn of God and be brought up in His ways etc? And besides, we like to hear the Baptists whine when they say we are baptizing unregenerate people all the while they are too! We like to see people being hypocritical…it’s what makes us feel superior! Again the audience breaks out in applause!
James,
( Maybe if you take some time to think it all through you’ll be able to get what I’m saying.
I really don’t know how to break it down any further for you so that you can understand this concept…sorry!
Sarah,
1. Your answer again fail miserably. You state this as though Paul didn’t really call the unbelieving spouse holy and only called the child holy. You want it both ways. If you bring an unbeliever into the NC through baptism, why are you stopping at infants. Please note that 1 Cor 7 does not specify infant.
Before you hurt yourself clapping at your answers, maybe you could explain how it is you know that all children of at least one believing parent are truly saved? It is possible I missed that one verse.
2. You actually use no scripture to support the idea of baptizing infants. All you can do is cram various theological ideas together and hope no one is paying attention. You lack example, command and inference in the scripture.
Presbyterians intentionally bring unbelievers into the church. Baptists are not guilty of that. Since God did not give baptists the same lvl of omniscience as presbyterians (apparently), we will stick to baptizing disciples, those who claim to follow Christ. Incidentally, that is what Jesus commanded.
3. Sarah, you don’t have to break it down. You haven’t built anything up.
James,
)…I kill myself! Anyway, I DON’T KNOW WHO IS OF THE ELECT AND WHO ISN’T JUST LIKE YOU DON’T WHEN YOU BAPTIZE ADULTS! I’ve been over this fifty billion times. There are unregenerate people who you guys baptize. Of course you don’t know it at the time when you baptize them, but it does occur….just like us! Why are you being so “pointing fingers” at Presby’s when you guys do the same thing?
“Before you hurt yourself clapping at your answers, maybe you could explain how it is you know that all children of at least one believing parent are truly saved? It is possible I missed that one verse.” I wasn’t clapping the audience was
“Presbyterians intentionally bring unbelievers into the church. Baptists are not guilty of that.” Oh, man! Now you’ve got my sides hurting with laughter! Wait, wait let me get the tissue box so I can dry my eyes…who needs comedy when you can read this kind of stuff. Better leave your infants and small children at home when you go to church…wouldn’t want some heathen cluttering up the pews! I dare not bring in any other Scripture until you can understand this one…I might get you so confused you won’t know your way around your house! Just kidding! Really, James I don’t think we are going to agree so I’m done.
Chad, that was a joke. I thought for sure EVERYONE would get that part.
( BTW, you wouldn’t be Chad from Old Truth would you? If so, Did you know that paedobaptism was done by many of our spiritual forefathers?….just using the same reasoning that you guys did for the Sabbath thing. 
)
Sarah, I am sorry for talking over your head. I just assumed you were familiar with the issues at hand.
Presbyterians purposely bring unbelievers into the covenant community. It isn’t about entering the building, it is about being counted among God’s people.
Of course unbelievers are present at in the assembly. Presbyterians make a point of counting them among the faithful though.
Again, I am sorry for carrying on the debate thinking you knew more about it. Maybe you can explain how it is you baptize unbelievers and then deny them the Lord’s supper.