Baptizing Unbelievers
I was skimming along the blogosphere and came across this line in a Pulpit Magazine posting:
"Here at Grace Community Church, we are firmly committed to believers’ baptism — meaning that we do not see Scriptural precedent for the baptism of unbelievers, including infants."
What a clear description of paedobaptism, which really amounts to the baptism of unbelievers. You would never baptize an adult, even the adult child of a believer, who showed no signs of regeneration, but that is precisely what happens with untold numbers of infants every year. My argument still is that by the logic of paedobaptism you ought to sneak up on people on the streets, throw water on them from behind and hope they turn into believers.
9 comments:
Huh... Honestly, the Dispensational understanding of baptism has no warrant within Reformed theology. Their destruction of the covenantal work of the Gospel destroys the foundation of our understanding the entire Bible. For secondary issues like Baptism, they have even less theological influence b/c of their destruction of the unity of Scripture, God's people, and the work of God in Christ.
This statement displays a lack of knowledge of what occurs in the covenantal sign and seal of God as defended from a consistent Reformed view. This is the exact thing that Jordan and I were referring in relation to the modern and Anabaptistic tendency to turn Christianity into an inner, Gnostic religion. It is also deeply Pelagian depending on man's profession and "personal relationship."
The means of grace are dependent entirely upon God's outer work and not upon man's consent. The Scriptures and Sacrament are God's means of drawing us nigh to Him and relating to us within the Covenantal community.
The Christian's life is not individualistic as Hyper-Calvinistic beliefs make it out to be. The Lord's Supper is not simply a memorial nor is Christ's presence contained to heaven. The same individualism is seen in Baptistic ecclesiology. The democratization of American Christianity that pools individualism and ignorance can be seen here with the ever-growing Baptist denominations.
The covenantal work of Christ as objective and "outer" has profound implications that neither this statement nor MacArthur's church have come to realize.
Such a baptism that argues for a lack of distinction between the visible and invisible church as seen with men like John Gill is hyper-Calvinistic and destroys the Reformed understanding of what Christ's present work accomplishes as a Covenant Promise-keeper.
I see the problems within the Church directly related to its lack of being a religion of the historic, objective work of God in Christ as the Covenant faithful one.
A.S.,
Taylor, and Detroit are not the wilderness. Maybe re-name the blog something like,
"Motown anointing"
how about, "Yellow sombrero and camel costumes for Jesus" or maybe, you could start a whole new ministry, "Speeding to witness to cops about The LAW."
Or, are you just waiting for "a word" to tell you what to name it?
Joe, I did change the name of the blog. It was revealed to me to change it and mail a check to the camel from TBN. Just plantin' seeds brother.
Tim,
Let's look at all the infant baptism in the new covenant. OK, now that we looked at that, let's look at infant baptism in the Old Covenant. Ok, moving on.
You say, "The Scriptures and Sacrament are God's means of drawing us nigh to Him and relating to us within the Covenantal community." If you have a heart of stone, you are NOT IN the covenant community.
Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel
Timothy, I am without internet for the most part until Friday, so I will address some of your questions/statement when I can get more into them.
Joe,
Household baptisms - Philippian Jailer, Lydia's family. Your argument from silence in fact strengthens my position if you understood the covenants.
Where does the infant baptism in the Old Covenant come in? It seems that you are not familiar with the arguments, or what historic Reformed theology says infant Baptism represents, or the signs and seals of the covenant.
That verse you quoted perfectly summarizes how the situation in the Old Covenant is similar to that of the New. There is an outer Israel and an inner Israel. One that is apart of the people by flesh and then those of the Promise. The same is said of the Church in the epistle to the Hebrews.
The error most Credos make in discussing the New Covenant is that you think there is a Qualitative difference while there is a Quantitative difference. The epistle to the Hebrews perfectly shows this quantitative difference.
The Word of God does not go out effect when the Spirit opens the heart of His Elect. Paul argues later on in Romans 9 how although Esau should have been the Son of Promise according to the way of the Flesh it was Jacob who was the son of promise. Paul relates that to the Church in Rome. For him there is not radical disjunction like the Dispensationalist theologians, and New Covenant theologians make.
I have read Douglas Wilson and tried to labor through Sproul lectures on Baptism...
You guys take something so simple and make it so complex it baffles me. Covenant relationships in Hebrews, Reformed Gnostic Pelagianism purporting grace at a confessional knowledge of Blahooery.
The only problem Tim, is the Bible doesn't teach it. You make it sound like not only is the Bible crystal clear on it, but for us Baptists to miss it, makes us Gnostics, and pools of ignorance.
I had a "REFORMED" person very influential in "your faith" tell me she never wants her children to come to her and say, "Mom, I was converted." She wants them to grow up ALWAYS believing in God the Father through Jesus Christ. Would you take this same position? That produces Nicodemus' not Pauls.
This doctrine assaults the gospel because it changes the sign of Baptism which should point to death, burial and resurrection (immersion, not squirted) and says ok, somehow son, circumcision has become sprinkling your forhead ... Please don't explain it to me, I just don't have eyes to see or ears to hear it. All I hear is, "If you understood the Abrahamic covenant, applied under an A-mill predisposition of contexts, flaring out of the blarney stone, Hebrews re-nunciates any further abrogation of the expediency of covenant..."
Huh?
Not many wise, not many noble, (Reformed Baptists)- You have to keep it simple for clay pots.
Joe,
I apologize if the tone in my writing sounded harsh or demeaning... That was not my intent.
In light of that there really is no reason to continue this discussion for I fear you are not able to say the same. Thanks for the lively remarks
So you apologize for the insults with a parting insult?
You came out with Canons blazing, and being a good Polish Baptist I started lobbing rocks and arrows at your tanks.
I concede, but please can we stay within Reformed theology? Pretty please?
Post a Comment