The Polemics of Infant Baptism

Excuse me again,

But how WAS baptism practiced in the New Testament?

Excuse me again, but how WAS baptism practiced in the New Testament?

The Sign of Baptism was administered unto all who came into the Covenant community of the local churches.

Your URL is bad.

Please correct it, I'd like to read it.

Thanks

And you have a verse/verses to back this up?

I didn't think so....

The good news of the Bible and Salvation is the simple faith that the thief had on the cross, next to Jesus.

Grab your big words and theology...but JESUS said...suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the Kingdom of God.

NOW, praytell, how is a kid supposed to care about a particular theology? HMMM? He isn't, he cannot. The Kingdom of God is too simple for the 'wise' of this world...and to the babes he has entrusted His Word.

It's late, and I'm tired. Goodnight.

The Sign of Baptism was administered unto all who came into the Covenant community of the local churches. 62 Posted on 10/06/2001 21:28:43 PDT by Uriel1975

And you have a verse/verses to back this up? I didn't think so.... The good news of the Bible and Salvation is the simple faith that the thief had on the cross, next to Jesus. Grab your big words and theology...but JESUS said...suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the Kingdom of God. NOW, praytell, how is a kid supposed to care about a particular theology? HMMM? He isn't, he cannot. The Kingdom of God is too simple for the 'wise' of this world...and to the babes he has entrusted His Word. It's late, and I'm tired. Goodnight. 64 Posted on 10/06/2001 21:54:50 PDT by invoman

I'm afraid I don't follow your objection.

Surely you aren't objecting to the Biblical practice of Water Baptism... just because the thief on the cross was unable to come down off his cross and be baptized... are you?

Here is a preliminary response by Walter Chantry, SBC and Calvinist. This works well as a preliminary statement for the Baptist position. Chantry's position is restrained but firm in arguing from a Reformed and Covenantal position. I've no doubt you expected me to post this one, Uriel. No Baptist begins to seek an answer to the question "Who should be baptized?" by studying the Bible’s doctrine of the covenants. Rather, he begins with New Testament texts which deal directly with the term "baptize." In a later study of Covenant Theology, he finds confirmation and undergirding of his conclusions.

The trouble with this sentiment is that New Testament texts themselves which deal directly with the subject of Baptism, discuss the Sacrament in terms of its Covenantal grounding. Paul calls Baptism, “The Circumcision of Christ”.

Colossians 2: 11 - 12 -- In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

This in and of itself necessitates a consideration of Baptism within the context of Covenantal Continuity.

1. In the New Testament we discover the nature of baptism defined. In the definition, something must be said about the person baptized. Its central significance is that the one baptized is said to be savingly joined to Christ…

Yet as presbyter Steve Schlissel points out, it is incorrect to demand an absolute equivalence of Substance with Symbol. Were this equivalence to be granted, then on what grounds could the Baptists deny the baptismal regenerationism of the otherwise-anabaptistic Disciples of Christ, who maintain that only through the act of Baptism is one “savingly joined to Christ”?

It seems to me that the Reformed faith has been the most faithful of all traditions in fairly treating all of what the Scripture has to say on the subject of baptism. On one side stands the Roman Catholic church which believes that the sacrament is efficacious in itself, conferring the grace of salvation, the subjects being reborn by means of it. On the other side we find our Baptistic friends who believe that baptism is to be administered only after a credible profession of faith. Often unnoticed by people examining this question is the fact that Romanists and Baptists share an error in common: both assume the necessity of a one for one correspondence between the number of persons baptized and the number regenerated. The Baptists try to insure this correspondence by requiring regeneration prior to administration, Catholics by imagining that regeneration occurs during administration.

According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit 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. (ibid)

Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.

2. In every clear New Testament example, the person baptized made a credible confession of faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving the sacrament….

Chantry is not even addressing here the critical “silence” issue which the “Baptist argument from silence” must address: The fact that infant inclusion within the Sign of the Covenant had already existed as a Covenantal ordinance for two millenia. If Jewish believers, who had already included their children in the Sign of the Covenant for 2,000 years, were now expected to exclude their children from the Sign of the Covenant, one would expect a specific commandment indicating that this change in sacramental practice was being instituted.

And yet no such commandment is found in the New Testament. Schlissel again:

Down to cases. If a person who presupposes discontinuity goes to the New Testament for guidance on the subject of infant baptism, he will be looking for a specific commandment to baptize infants. Not finding any, he will conclude that it is contrary to God's will. When a Reformed person, that is, one who presupposes a basic continuity between the covenants, goes to the New Testament for guidance on this question, he knows that for two thousand years before Christ, covenant infants had been the recipients of the sign and seal of covenant entrance by Divine decree. Thus, the very silence which convinced Mr. Discontinuity that it is inappropriate to administer the covenant sign and seal to infants, that very silence proves that it remains God's will for covenant babies to receive that sign.

Furthermore, he will see in Peter's Pentecost sermon the confirmation of his presupposition of continuity: "Repent and be baptized...The promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)." The household baptisms hold no problem for him, whether there are infants or not. (See Acts 10:48 (cf.11:14); 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16) Mr. Continuity will understand that if, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church. So again, silence is what Mr. Continuous expects and finds.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Amazingly, Matthew 19:13: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," has been used frequently by serious theologians to support infant baptism….

As noted, the parallel passage in Luke includes infants in the blessing. And one of the critical points here, is the fact that Jesus said that these infants were already “of the Kingdom of God” – already Citizens of the Kingdom.

Jesus enjoyed the advantage of already knowing His Own, having perfect confidence in who was Elect, and who was not. We do not enjoy this advantage; but we certainly pray it to be true of our children, and do not hesitate to bring them to our King for His blessing.

B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. "For the promise is unto you and to your children” ,….The promises do not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being heirs of the spiritual promises.

True -- And irrelevant to the case.

The fact that many Israelites grew up to be Idolaters in adult life, did not change the sacramental ordinance of their inclusion as infants in the Sign of the Covenant.

C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas ([Corinthians 1). None of the references say that infants were in these houses….Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so….

More to the point, these passages do not affirm the presumption that Baptism must necessarily follow an individual profession of belief. The anabaptist has, after all, staked his claim upon he ground that this is the unanimous example of the New Testament – and represents a discontinuity of sacramental practice from the Old Testament.

But as Schlissel has demonstrated, no such commandment of discontinuity is found in the new Testament – whereas a common practice which is found (household baptisms) conforms easily to the Covenantal model, but only with the inclusion of certain implicit assumptions does it conform to the anabaptistic case.

D) I Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children are "holy". The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or baptism. it is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper, moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever. Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word "holy" suggests a covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the sacrament. The verb "sanctify" has precisely the same root and signification as the adjective "holy." And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage belabors.

Chantry protests too much. The fact of the matter is, Paul says that the unbelieving spouse is entitled to certain Covenantal advantages in regard to his marriage. While the unbelieving spouse might abandon or divorce the Christian for non-Covenantal reasons, the Christian must treat his/her unbelieving spouse with Covenantal respect, and must not abandon or divorce that spouse for non-Covenantal reasons.

However, this does not speak to the matter of Covenantal observance. In the case of an adult convert to Covenantal observance under the Law, the adult convert was required first to profess adherence to the Torah, and then would be granted the sacramental seal of the Covenant sign.

Once someone has converted to Judaism they have the full status of Jews. They are Jews in every way, and, just like any other Jew, they can never cease to be Jews.... There is a special mitzva to love and to be kind to converts even more than ordinary Jews, like it says in the Torah, Devarim [Deuteronomy] 10:19, "You shall love the convert, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (This is saying that, since we were once strangers in Egypt, we should understand how difficult it is for someone to adjust to a new world and we should be kind to him.) The Torah also has a special mitzva not to be unkind to a convert in Shemos [Exodus] 22:20, "Do not hurt the feelings of a convert or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." and also in Shemos 23:9, "Do not oppress a convert, you know how it feels to be a stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." And in VaYikra [Leviticus] 19:33-34, "When a convert comes to live in your land, do not hurt his feelings. The convert should be to you exactly like a born Jew and you shall love him like yourself, for you were strangers in Egypt - I am HaShem, your God." -- Eliezer C. Abrahamson

The specific requirements for conversion and their order need to be discussed with a rabbi. One requirement for males who wish to be converted by an Orthodox or Conservative rabbi is circumcision, or brit milah. -- Lawrence J. Epstein, Conversion to Judaism

However, once an adult convert professed adherence to the Torah and received the Covenant Sign, their children were to be raised as full members of the Covenant, and granted the Covenant Sign as infants.

No commandment specifying a change in the Covenantal order is found in the New Testament.

The argument has hung upon a syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New. Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New…. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its fullest — nay, its only foundation — in Old Testament Scripture?

Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover:

The bread and wine of which we partake at the Lord's table are in like manner, according to our Lord's precise declaration, the representations of his body and blood -- his body given, his blood poured out for us What is done in the two feasts is therefore precisely the same thing: Jesus Christ is symbolically fed upon in both. This close similarity between the two feasts again certainly cannot be looked upon as accidental. We must assuredly judge that our Lord, in instituting the Supper, meant to make it to the full extent to which these similarities point, a replica of the Passover. In this sense at least the Lord's Supper is the Christian Passover Meal. It takes, and was intended to take, in the Christian Church, the place which the Passover occupied in the Jewish Church. It is the Christian substitute for the Passover.

The Biblical model, then, is Covenantal continuity, not discontinuity.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Beyond this, there is a theological flaw. It is nothing new for Baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology…. But paedobaptists have been negligent in defining the diversity in the administrations of the Covenant of Grace…. In the Old Covenant, adult sons and servants were circumcised, and thus incorporated into the visible church. Now, only the infants of believers are baptized. In the Old, children came to the Passover at a very young age. Now small children are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Whence this change?

What change, Mr. Chantry?

Under the Ancient Covenant, the Covenant Sign was administered unto the infants, but the Covenant Supper was reserved unto the elder children.

Chantry is faulting presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. I hope he’ll understand if we regard “criticisms” like that as a compliment, and a badge of honor.

When the principle of diversity is formulated, it will exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is pivotal to expressing the diversity of covenant administrations. It is quoted in Hebrews S and again in 10 to prove that "Christ is mediator of a better covenant." There is an emphatic contrast made in verses 31 and 32. The differences are so striking and dramatic that one covenant is called "new" and it is implied that the other is old. The Jews under the Old Covenant were warned that revolutionary changes would be made. The covenant in force was inadequate except to prepare for the New. So surpassing is the glory of the New, that it should lead them to look for the demolition of the Old. The passage suggests two vital distinctions ushered in by the effusion of the Spirit. This effusion made a change in administration possible.

But Mr. Chantry… what if your entire exigesis of the passage above fails upon a misreading of one little word?

The Covenant is not a discontinuous matter of Old, and New.
It is a continuous Covenant of Ancient Covenant… and Renewed Covenant:

B'RIT CHADASHA
The Re-Newed Covenant

There are two words to say "new" in Greek: neos and kainen; neos is what we usually understand as "new"; kainen, however, means "renewed"; for instance, the "new" moon which appears every month is not actually a new moon, but the same, albeit a renewed moon. This is the meaning of the word which appears every time the Renewed Covenant has been translated as "New Testament," i.e., the Renewed Covenant; ditto with the Renewed Jerusalem/"the new Jerusalem," the renewed man/"the new man" of Eph. 2:15, etc. The Hebrew word from which this originally derives, Hadashah, with its feminine ending, also means "renewed," thus: Brit Ha Hadashah, the Renewed Covenant of which Jer. 31:31 speaks about. -- MessianicYisrael.Com

The Covenant is Visible and One.

This diversity is nowhere more evident than in the ceremonies of worship. New Testament worship presents us with a most striking contrast with Old Testament ordinances. This can be illustrated by looking at the Lord’s Supper, which finds a counterpart in the Old Testament Passover. The great spiritual truth of redemption by blood is figured in the Passover, but it is somewhat obscured beneath an outward and formal atmosphere. Then, too, the ceremony mixes the figures of personal redemption and national deliverance. Even those who had no acquaintance with spiritual redemption, observed it. This they should have done; for their national life arose from the historic event remembered. Very young children came to the Passover as participants that, by it, they might ask the significance and as they grew older, come to understand the redemption figures. (cf. Exodus 12:2427, etc.) In the New Testament, things are quite different. I Corinthians 11:23-30 gives instruction for the most formal ceremony of the New Covenant. Here very young children must not come.

Here Chantry’s contentions are not mistaken, but simply wrong.

A passover meal would include roast lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread (Ex 12:8)-- hardly Gerber's baby food. And the children would be taught the meaning of the sacrament from the earliest days. At each observance, the head of the family would explain to the children the significance of the meal, of Yahweh's deliverance of His covenant people (Ex. 12:26ff.). By the time a child would be old enough to take full part in the act, such children would have the knowledge to discern the meaning of the sacrament, even if at a still young age. Children of all ages participated in the passover by listening and learning, but full participation was only for older covenant children. Even in the old covenant, the sacrament of spiritual nourishment was not given for some time after the initiatory sacrament, and then only with teaching. -- Why Paedocommunion is a Bad Idea: Expanding a Blessing or Bringing down a Curse? Gregory Johnson

Under the Renewed Covenant, a child is raised as a Covenant child, and taught the meaning of Christian Passover before they partake thereof. Just as under the Ancient Covenant, the children were raised as Covenant children, and taught the meaning of Pesach before they partook thereof.

Again, Chantry is faulting Presbyterians for our Covenantal consistency. He ends up giving us an unintended compliment.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Then, there are a number of exegetical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Many have reasoned thus: "Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old Covenant. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New." Though in Abraham’s case faith preceded circumcision of his children, this cannot be said to be the rule of the Old Covenant rite. There were times when faith in the subjects of circumcision or in their parents was all but ignored. In the time of Joshua, an entire nation was circumcised in a day. There was no concern for personal election or personal faith.

Likewise, in the Visible Church, there has been many an age in which it could realistically be argued that there were more Tares, than Wheat. So what?

God will know His Own.

It is also said that just as baptism is a sign of heirship to the spiritual promises of grace in the New Covenant, circumcision was a sign of heirship to the same spiritual promises in the Old. This is only partially true. Baptism is a sign of spiritual blessing in Christ and only that…. Baptism has no merely earthly significance. There are no blessings figured in it that can be conceived of apart from an experience of grace…. Romans 9 discusses Abraham’s immediate, physical offspring. Some were of the flesh; some of the spirit. There was a personal election within the family election. Abraham could not look upon his own immediate seed as heirs of the promises. "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (v. 8). How can believers today lean upon the promise to Abraham which is clearly interpreted in the New Testament and find for themselves a greater expectation for their children than Abraham had a right to? The New Testament is not silent about this seed. It tells us they are believers alone!

And this is as true of adults, as of children. There are indubitably millions throughout history, baptized as adults, who enjoy no spiritual union with Christ.

But again…. So what? God will know His Own. Schlissel again:

It seems to me that the Reformed faith has been the most faithful of all traditions in fairly treating all of what the Scripture has to say on the subject of baptism. On one side stands the Roman Catholic church which believes that the sacrament is efficacious in itself, conferring the grace of salvation, the subjects being reborn by means of it. On the other side we find our Baptistic friends who believe that baptism is to be administered only after a credible profession of faith. Often unnoticed by people examining this question is the fact that Romanists and Baptists share an error in common: both assume the necessity of a one for one correspondence between the number of persons baptized and the number regenerated. The Baptists try to insure this correspondence by requiring regeneration prior to administration, Catholics by imagining that regeneration occurs during administration.

According to the Reformed view, however, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXIX, paragraph VI) Moreover (and this is vital), the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit 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. (ibid)

Thus, our concern in the administration of baptism is not to ascertain the regenerated status of the candidate, but simply to ascertain if, according to Scripture, he is lawfully to be regarded as a member of the covenant which baptism signifies and seals.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ’s body.

Here Chantry simply identifies in Presbyterian churches, a problem common to all churches – the problem of Tares and Wheat.

Is the fact that some, who participate in “believer’s baptism”, fall away from the Church and thereby prove their own lack of regeneration, an indictment of the propriety of baptizing new adult converts into the Church? No, it is not.

All churches teach “presumptive” regeneration to at least some extent, for while God looks on the heart, Man looks on the outward appearance. Chantry’s argument here really has no particular and unique applicability to paedobaptism at all.

I can sympathize with students who are wrestling with the problem of baptism. I can remember when I wished to be convinced of the paedobaptist position. There would be many practical advantages. Another forceful factor is the great history of godly men who were paedobaptists, especially the Reformers and Puritans. But as history gave me the problem, so it has suggested a solution…. Once the constitution and discipline of the New Testament church has been rightly conceived, the hangover of infant baptism must fall way.

Again, Chantry assumes his own conclusion.

At a fundamental level, Chantry is arguing a discontinuity of Covenant… for which he simply does not have the Scriptural support he requires. “If, after two thousand years of having their children included in the covenant, the fulfillment of that Covenant in Christ now meant the exclusion of their children from the covenant (for if they are in fact members of the covenant, to withhold baptism would be to exalt the sign above the reality signified), if they were now excluded, that would not only be regarded as covenant regression, it seems reasonable to assume that quite a ruckus would be raised over that very point and would have needed to be addressed in the early church…” (Schlissel). Yet there is no instruction of Covenantal exclusion whatsoever.

The Covenant is Visible and One.

These are issues over which we do not wish to lose fellowship with paedobaptist brethren. Yet they are principles which we will not jettison for the sake of fellowship.

I have no desire to break fellowship with Mr. Chantry over this matter.
Rather, I leave the ball in his court.

Having dispensed with Chantry, we move now to Piper. I suspect that Chemnitz will take an interest in this discussion.

Piper himself acknowledges the first two-thirds of his essay…

First I saw that every baptism recorded in the Bible was the baptism of an adult…
…the order of Peter's command was "Repent, and be baptized"…
Of course Romans 6:1-11 came to mind….
Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21 seemed to me….

To be uncompelling arguments.

But I gradually came to see that these observations were only suggestive, not compelling. That no infant baptism are recorded does not prove there weren't any. And that Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized," to an adult audience does not rule out the possibility of his saying something different about infants…. Since then I have been shown by a long succession of arguments in my membership classes that even these texts leave open the [remote!] possibility that an infant can be baptized on the strength of its parents' faith and in hope of its own eventual "confirmation." It is just as possible that these passages have relevance only for the missionary setting where adults are being converted and baptized. If Paul and Peter had addressed the issue of new infants in Christian homes, maybe they would have come off as good Presbyterians.

So there’s little need for me to address arguments upon which Piper himself is unwilling to stand. The arguments he raises (only to dismiss as uncompelling) are already countered by Warfield and Schlissel above, anyway.

Hence, we move on to his main argument... (to be continued)

Continuing...

There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have undervalued the discontinuity. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we honor both the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs.... John the Baptist inaugurated this change and introduced the new sign of baptism. By calling all Jews to repent and be baptized, John declared powerfully and offensively that physical descent does not make one part of God's family and that circumcision, which signifies a physical relationship, will now be replaced by baptism, which signifies a spiritual relationship... The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community. And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism.

Piper’s selection of John the Baptizer as his cardinal argument here is interesting.

Has he overlooked the fact that Martin Luther held that the Biblical example of John the Baptizer was the cardinal argument which established and proved the Reformed Doctrine of Covenantal continuity? For the Anabaptist argument has ever been that only those who have entered the community of believers should be Baptized – yet Luther answered and said, “Yes… but John the Baptizer was a Believer -- even from his mother’s womb.” (“and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb” – Luke 1:15 ). The God of Election is the Giver of Faith. The God of Baptism is the God of Covenant and of Predestination. “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” In Luther’s view, Faith is accounted to the children of Believers from the moment of their conception – for it is on account of their Faith that the Elect are accounted Righteous; and the same God who has Elected them unto Himself, has already given them the Faith which will be manifested by outward profession in due time. The Promise is to us and to our children. Some, it is true, will turn out to be Tares; but this is NOT how believers are to treat their Children – “for of such is the kingdom of God”. We account them, not as heathen, but as little John the Baptists, unless and until they demonstrate themselves to be Tares.

From Dr. Francis N. Lee, again --

According to Scripture, it is the Spirit-empowered Word which regenerates. James 1:18. According to the Anabaptists, the Spirit alone regenerates -- unmonitorable by the Word. Rome, however, said that regeneration is effected by baptism -- and that baptism then produces faith.

Rome thus held that infants could not believe savingly until after and because they had been baptized. The Anabaptists held that infants cannot believe (nor even profess belief), so that infants should not be baptized -- but that adults could receive baptism (yet only after professing their faith). The Protestant Reformation objected first to Rome and then to the Anabaptists. Instead, it pointed both of them -- back to the Bible.

Probably even before his formal break with Rome, Luther had realized -- through studying Holy Scripture -- that baptism presupposes faith within the baptizee himself. From the Bible alone, Luther was led to deny the Romish error (and the later Anabaptist heresy) that unbaptized infants cannot believe -- and to demonstrate the contrary. On this, see Francis Nigel Lee: Revealed to Babies (Confederate Series, Commonwealth Publishing, Rowlett, Texas, 1987).

To Luther, Genesis 17:7 teaches that the Triune God is the Lord not only of adult believers but also of their seed. Himself the seed of believing parents, John the baptizer believed while yet in his mother's womb. Luke 1:41.

Luther also saw that Matthew 18:6f refers to little ones who believe in Jesus. Indeed, in Matthew 19:14 -- Jesus even declares that only those adults are fit for the kingdom of heaven, who believe like such infants.

Thus Luther rightly realized that John the baptizer -- as when a baby born to believing parents -- was himself already a believer in Christ, even before John's own birth. Luke 1:36-44. That was prior to any possible circumcision and/or baptism John may have received either in infancy or thereafter.

Referring to Christ's blessing of the children in Mark 10:14f, Luther insisted that infant faith is present "before or certainly in the baptism.... If any baptism is certain of success, the baptism of children is most certain... In adults there may be deception, because of their mature reason. But in children there can be no deception, because of their slumbering reason." And if such infants indeed have a "slumbering reason" -- then why not also: a slumbering faith?

Now what exactly is this 'slumbering' reason? Luther explains: "Tell me, is the Christian deprived of his reason when he is asleep? Certainly, then, his faith and God's grace do not leave him! If faith remains with the sleeping Christian while his reason is not conscious of the faith -- why should there not be faith [with]in children, before reason is aware of it? A similar situation obtains, when a Christian is engaged in strenuous labour and is not [then] conscious of his faith and reason. Will you say that, on account of this, his faith has come to an end?" Of course not!

Luther later told the Anabaptists that Mark (16:16) does not say 'he who confesses he has faith and is baptized, shall be saved.' For Mark says instead that 'he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved.'

Explained Luther: "It is true that a man should believe, for baptism.... But his faith, you do not know.... Because all men are liars, and only God knows the heart.... I do not get baptized because I am sure of faith, but because God has commanded it.... Who then can exclude the little children? ... We have a command to offer every one the universal gospel and the universal baptism. The children must also be included. We plant and water; and leave God to give the increase."

The Covenant is Visible and One.

Copy the URL into the browser window and it will work fine. I just did and it worked. If you are still stumped I will go back and put in the code to link it. Too tired right now.

Here it is again:

http://thystrongword.0catch.com/chap08visibleword2.htm

Sorry, must've been a one time snafu.
It's working now. Thanks much.

Also see my #72 - #73, comment if you like, much obliged.

No commandment specifying a change in the Covenantal order is found in the New Testament.

Chantry merely presumes sacramental discontinuity here. But presumption is not argument. The fact is, Paul specifically called Baptism “the Circumcision of Christ”, and as Benjamin B. Warfield points out, in like manner the Lord’s Supper is rightly regarded as Christian Passover:

Is there a specfic command that changes the covenantal order from Passover to the Lord's Supper?

A small point but one that seems to impede Chantry's crediblity.

When discussing Matthew 19:13 Chantry says:

We share the indignation of B. B. Warfield who said, "What has this [verse] to do with infant baptism?"

Either he completely misread Warfield or he is being disingenous by portraying Warfield as indignant. Warfield acknowledges that this verse does not prove infant baptism but goes on to say that nowhere does it disallow infant baptism.

Is there a specfic command that changes the covenantal order from Passover to the Lord's Supper?

Well, Luke tells us to observe Christian Passover in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice:

Luke 18: 17-20 -- And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

And Scripture establishes for us that the Church is to partake of the Supper frequently:

Acts 2: 46 - 47 -- And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Acts 20: 6-7, 11 -- And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight....When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

And, in that vein, some Covenant Theologians have suggested that our modern observance of the Supper is lacking the inclusion of the Fellowship Meal which was certainly part of the Early's Church's observance of the Lord's Supper.

(Jewish Christian) Presbyter Steve Schlissel, again --

A big difference between the Seder and the Supper is that the Seder has an actual supper and our Supper doesn't! One prominent Jewish missionary tells the story of how, after his conversion, he was invited to have the Lord's Supper at a local church. When he was handed a tiny bit of bread and a thimble-sized cup, he was amazed. "This is a supper? And they call Jews cheap?" While you might have to be Jewish to appreciate his humor, you don't have to be Jewish to appreciate the point. We have not done well to so thoroughly abstract the bread and wine from an actual meal. In Jewish homes today, the elements which correspond to the Supper of the Lord, the bread and the cup which were sanctified by our Messiah, these same elements form the climax of the Seder meal. In fact, the bread, which had been specially set aside, is brought forth after the meal at the third cup of wine (the Seder calls for four) which is still known as "the cup of blessing." (See 1 Cor. 10:16.) As I watch my father break the matzoh and distribute it to all the celebrants, I silently cry out with the Apostle, "My heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved!"

While the Jews have the meal yet miss the full truth of the elements, we retain the elements but have done away with the meal. Yet, throughout Scripture, the entire drama of redemption climaxes again and again in redeemed man eating and drinking with God. In Exodus 24, the closing section of what is known as the "Book of the Covenant," we read of Moses and seventy-three other representatives of Israel: "They saw God, and they ate and drank." In the appointed offerings, the sin offering was followed by the burnt offering, but the goal was the "shalom" offering. This peace (or, fellowship) offering signified and sealed the full covenant restoration of the worshiper and was completed in a meal. Consider also the many meals Christ ate with His disciples in His post-resurrection appearances (Luke 24:30-43; John 21:1-14; Acts 1:4 and 10:41). Similarly, the fellowship meal preceding the breaking of bread and drinking of the cup formed a part of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament. Might we not do well to occasionally unite the elements of the Supper with a festive but orderly meal? How about each fourteenth of Nisan?

The next time we celebrate the Supper, let's not restrict our examination to self. Let us consider the contexts which help us to see this bread and wine as the richest possible fare. Take. Eat. Take. Drink. Christ has set us free.

Yours and His,
Steve Schlissel

You may count me among the adherents to Steve Schlissel's argument that the Fellowship Meal should be restored to its proper place preceding the breaking of the bread and the passing of the wine. As there is no specific command warranting the exclusion of the Fellowship Meal, it should be restored to its proper place within the celebration of Christian Passover, the Lord's Supper. This would be, IMHO, the Covenantal thing to do.

It seems to me that the infant baptism agrument rests heavily on the lack of a specific command to change an OT covenant. That being the case, should we not also put blood on our doors and eat unleaven bread? I'm no biblical scholar so I wonder what other OT covenants are there that Christians do not follow that are not specifically commanded not to follow in the NT?

Some general questions I hope you can answer for me;

What was the significance of Jesus being baptized?

Jesus was filled with the Holy Ghost after he was baptized. If he was fully God why did this happen?

I wasn't baptised until I was ten.
Catholics must be baptised soon after birth.

Does it really matter?