Flog!

Just kidding, no issue is dead when new information can be brought to the table.

Thanks

So this is what you were doing! :^)

In Christ
Noah

Mike,

You wrote: "It is not Galatian to require something that is required by Scripture. It is Galatian to require something NOT required by Scripture. This therefore begs the question, "Is believers baptism required by Scripture?" If it is (as baptists believe) then baptist churches are not Galatian."

My response: This is the first time I've heard the charge of baptist churches behaving like the Galatian heresy. I'd like to ask you a follow up question. You ask if the believers' baptism is required? Required for what? I believe that believer's baptism is clearly taught in Scripture just as I believe election is clearly taught in Scripture. But I don't know what you mean when ask is believers' baptism required?

I understand your point of point 3. Christians do say that that one must give "credible evidence" of salvation, and maybe we should define what we mean by that and how would we determine that. Since only the Lord can see in heart, churches usually determine this by one's profession.

But the fact is we really don't know. One of the best things that could happen to the church in America is if we were persecuted like the early church and churches in other parts of the world today like the Middle East. It would really purify our churches (the mega churches would be gone) and we would really know who is a Christian.

I'm not sure I understand your point 4 with your reference of 1 Cor 12. I don't believe 1Cor12:13 is a reference to immersed water baptism and I imagine you don't believe that either. I believe you are absolutely correct that membership in the body of Christ must be precluded by the baptism of Spirit. But the baptism being referred here is baptism, washing, of the Spirit, not an actual immersed water baptism? Maybe you're trying to draw a correlation between the Spirit baptism of actual believers and the water baptism by immersion that believers are supposed to exercise. I don't know.

I don't think baptists are being asked to (nor should they be) recognize baptisms that are not biblical. Clearly, that's not what Bethlehem Baptist Church is doing. First, they are requiring that prospective members demonstrate from Scripture their pedobaptist view. And after discussion and prayer, only then is the prospective member allowed into membership with the caveat that they are informed their view is in error and the church will continue to teach credobaptism.

Now, some may be dealing with the tension that they think if they accept a person into local church membership, that they are "accepting" their baptism. But clearly, that does not necessarily have to be the case.

I also think baptist churches who hold this strict view of local church membership are missing a golden opportunity to reform our lay pedobaptists' view on baptism.
I think it would be a golden opportunity to ask prospective members who really want to join a baptist church to demonstrate their view of pedobaptism from Scripture and then for the baptists to demonstrate our view of baptism. The prayer and discussion gives you the opportunity to view how that person's conscience would handle actual baptisms being done in the church and you might also sway a few lay pedobaptists.

I just want to say that it is a joy to watch you men think this through Biblically and do your best to follow the Scriptures and your own consciences in this matter.

Obviously, as a presbyterian, I have my opinions, but perhaps the fact that this issue is not crystal clear as we would like gives us an opportunity to love one another despite our different consciences on the matter. Perhaps that was what God was about as the NT was being written.

It also helps make sure that we are putting our trust in the Gospel itself and the Word (Rom 10) rather than a precise sacramentology (or ordinanceology?), which if we go that route, likely leads ultimately either to Rome or Cambellitism, both of which make baptism salvific, so that you had *better* get it right.

So, thank you brothers, for your example of striving to be both biblical and charitable at once!

Blessings,
Chris Hutchinson
Blacksburg, VA

Good stuff. I agree.

I'm glad this discussion is continuing, because I think this is the crux of the whole baptism issue. I honestly am dumbfounded that people miss the answer to this whole mess - The children of believers are Christians. Baptists are close to realizing this - especially those like Piper who see the clear teaching on Christian fellowship - but they can't seem to get over the hump of "only mature professions are real professions." Presbyterians, on the other hand, are much worse, because they baptize their children - thereby making them members of the church, otherwise known as Christians, but then abruptly excommunicate them by withholding the Lord's Supper from them and treating them as unbelievers.

The truth is, this is very similar to the Galatian heresy - you are treating as non-Christians those that the Bible has deemed to be Christian.

To me, the battle line has been drawn at the wrong spot. Everything in this discussion - baptism, membership, discipline, etc. - boils down to a mature profession of faith. This is not biblical, though. We all agree that God is the One who saves, who gives faith, but your profession of faith - while important - is not the act that is correlated with saving faith... baptism is - clearly. Unfortunately, both sides of the discussion deem a mature profession of faith as the "moment of truth." If this were true, then I would say that Baptists are clearly right in this discussion, Presby's don't have a leg to stand on. But thankfully, this is not right. Yes, mature Christians must make mature professions of faith, but does that mean that only mature people can come to Christ? Certainly not. Mature does not equal exclusive. In fact, Jesus had some harsh words to say to his disciples about this very issue.

Do I affirm believer's baptism? YES. But I also affirm that God is the giver of faith, the One who baptizes, and the One who feeds us at His table, and He has promised to be the God of our children. That should be enough reason alone to believe that He is, but just to affirm this to our doubting minds, He gives us examples in the Bible of infant and child faith to prove it.

Listen, I really do understand the Baptist arguments for credo-baptism. I've been a Baptist my whole life until about two years ago. I was at SBTS training to be a Baptist preacher, but I couldn't shake this very issue being discussed here. Even if the credo-Baptist position is too big a hurdle - and, really, I understand how it can be - don't make the mature profession of faith mistake. Baptize your children as soon as they can say "I love Jesus." Don't require more of them than Jesus did. If we finally boot this ridiculous Western understanding of faith out the door, true unity on these issues will be much closer.

Brian,

You wrote: " I honestly am dumbfounded that people miss the answer to this whole mess - The children of believers are Christians. Baptists are close to realizing this - especially those like Piper who see the clear teaching on Christian fellowship - but they can't seem to get over the hump of "only mature professions are real professions."

My response: I don't believe that is the case. Children of believers don't necessarily become Christians (albeit the Lord is sovereign to bless those families who trust in Him for their kids salvation through utilizing the means of grace) and those like Piper, at least in my opinion, don't believe that only mature professions are real professions.

You might recall that passage of Acts 18:22-19:1-7. The time period of these events is about 20 years after the death of John the Baptist. You have Apollos, who only knew of the baptism of John, yet he was instructed in the way of the Lord preaching that Jesus was the Christ.

Then Paul encounters some disciples (of John not Jesus) asking them if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed and they responded they didn't even know of the Holy Spirit but they were baptized into John's baptism. Paul tells them to believe in Jesus and they were subsequently re-baptized.

So, Apollos and these other disciples both had the baptisms of John. Appollos was not re-baptized, yet, John's disciples were rebaptized. Why? I mean you had many who were baptized in water under the baptism of John, even Jesus' disciples, yet we hear these disciples, being re-baptized. Why? Because baptism in water is for those who have repented and have faith in Jesus Christ. Apollos had for sometime albeit only knew of the baptism of John, was preaching Jesus as the Christ who had come, but these other disciples who also had the baptism of John and believed in his message that a Messiah, would come, but did not know that He had, were rebaptized. Lest any pedobaptists get excited and say, "you see, you see" Apollos was not re-baptized, this fact remains: God gave baptism to John the Baptist, Jesus was also baptized by John, and commanded His disciples to baptize during his earthly ministry and to continue to practice it after His resurrection. This baptism that started with John, was a baptism where the baptized were cognizant of this need to repent for the Messiah was to come and kingdom of God was at hand.

You wrote: "Presbyterians, on the other hand, are much worse, because they baptize their children - thereby making them members of the church, otherwise known as Christians, but then abruptly excommunicate them by withholding the Lord's Supper from them and treating them as unbelievers."

My response: I don't believe that is accurate. Pedobaptists see signs of covenant as external signs of what is essentially spiritual. And Scripture supports that fact. The circumcision signs as explicitly laid out in Scripture were an external sign of what was essentially spiritual - mainly, God's covenant with Abraham and his descendants. Did the sign do some things like mark out the physical seed of Abraham for the coming of Jesus...yeah...sure, but it signified something far greater than what it actually did, it signified God's covenant with Abraham.

The same is true for the Sabbath sign. It signified a spiritual reality that the Lord made a covenant with Israel that He was the Lord who sanctified them (Ex 31). Did the Sabbath do some things...yeah...sure, Israel was to observe the Sabbath in remembrance of the Lord's creation and their exodus from Egypt.

We can look at the Lord's Supper and note that Jesus said the cup signified the blood He would shed and the bread signified His body which would break. Not all signs did something. The rainbow didn't do anything but it signified a beautiful reality that the Lord would not destroy the earth again (with water that is) and he made that covenant with Noah and his descendants (and with the animals by the way).

Baptists will have to couch their arguments in what the sign signifies in what the Lord did, not what we do or what it does for us, necessarily if they are to make any advancements in convincing lay pedobaptists. The New Covenant which the Lord made with Israel and which Gentiles would be grafted in was a covenant where He would write His law into His covenant people and that His covenant people would know Him and He would forgive their sins. So, start with the sign of what is essentially spiritual (mainly the Lord's New Covenant and what He would do rather than what it does for us) one of which was He would forgive sins. Make that transition to the baptism of John (which was a baptism of repentance ) and the baptism of Jesus (that is the baptisms performed by Jesus' disciples prior to His death) and then the transition is made easily to Christian baptism. That doesn't mean that Baptists can't teach the fact that water baptism conveys grace to the believer. Pedobaptists believe that water baptism is a sacrament...a sacrament is a theological term which means an external sign communicating some kind of spiritual reality which conveys grace to the covenant people. Most baptists, except Reformed Baptists, don't use the term, sacrament, for whatever reason, even though when they explain baptism they explain it using the terms of a sacrament. So, Baptists need to convey to our pedobaptist brethren the spiritual reality of the external sign from God's standpoint alone, first, then, explain how this external sign conveys grace to the believer.

Carlo,

You wrote: "Children of believers don't necessarily become Christians (albeit the Lord is sovereign to bless those families who trust in Him for their kids salvation through utilizing the means of grace)"

Again, this is the typical Western evangelical view of faith and I believe this is wrong. Calvin didn't believe this, Luther didn't believe this, and I believe the Bible doesn't teach this. The Bible teaches us that a Christian is a follower of Christ - someone who has been baptized into Christ. This is our identity, not our profession. Is baptism not a means of grace? Us evangelicals are so quick to trumpet the efficacy of the Word - which we should - but does the Bible not teach that the sacraments are to go hand in hand with the Word? If God saves through the spoken Word, why can't He save through the visible Word? Do the children of believers necessarily always become Christians? Yes. This is the promise of God. The better question is "Do the children of believers always stay faithful?" The Bible never teaches us to "evangelize" our children. It teaches us to train, love, and discipline our children. If we are worshippers of God, then our children are worshippers of God. Why do we treat them as reprobates? Why do we heartily give the benefit of the doubt to the adult who has an "experience" and walks an aisle, but (as a buddy of mine in seminary argued) refuse to teach them "I am a C, I am a C-H, I am a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N" because we would be teaching them to lie?"

In regards to your point on Acts 18 and 19, it only echoes my point in the previous post: a mature person must make a mature profession. Just because this story only includes mature people does not mean that this is the measuring rod of all Scripture. Should we all expect a conversion experience like Paul too?

You said: "This baptism that started with John, was a baptism where the baptized were cognizant of this need to repent for the Messiah was to come and kingdom of God was at hand."

Repentance should be a daily occurrence. We should repent of our sin every day and teach our children from their earliest days the need to repent as well. Too often the idea of repentance and belief is wrongly associated with the "conversion experience." Our baptism is what should be associated with the "conversion experience." Our belief/repentance is subjective - it can be fickle. Our baptism, on the other hand, is from God - it is objective. Baptism is not a sign of becoming a covenant member... it is our becoming a covenant member. We must teach our children "You are baptized! From you're earliest days God has made you one of His own. So believe! Repent! Do not turn to the left or to the right!" This is the language of Paul.

You said: "Pedobaptists see signs of covenant as external signs of what is essentially spiritual."

If this is true, why do many of them baptize their infants when they don't believe they are really Christians? This never made sense to me, and was a big reason why I remained a baptist for so long.

You said: "Not all signs did something. The rainbow didn't do anything but it signified a beautiful reality that the Lord would not destroy the earth again (with water that is) and he made that covenant with Noah and his descendants (and with the animals by the way)."

I disagree. The rainbow caused God to remember His promise - the sign is the reality, just like baptism, just like the Lord's Supper, and just like circumcision. Yes, circumcision pointed to many things - most importantly the need for a circumcised heart - but at its most basic root it was a promise from God: "I will be the One who will make you a great nation. I will provide the promised seed who will crush the serpent's head." Remember, Abraham did not believe the promise of God and conceived a son through Hagar... In the next verse God cut his manhood!

Brian,

You wrote: Again, this is the typical Western evangelical view of faith and I believe this is wrong. Calvin didn't believe this, Luther didn't believe this, and I believe the Bible doesn't teach this."

My response: We can learn and have learned a lot about great teachers like Calvin and Luther. And without validating what you said about what Calvin may have said on this matter, Calvin also said baptize meant to immerse and that it was the early church and I take that pedobaptists will not start immersion based on what Calvin said.

You wrote: " If we are worshippers of God, then our children are worshippers of God. Why do we treat them as reprobates? Why do we heartily give the benefit of the doubt to the adult who has an "experience" and walks an aisle, but (as a buddy of mine in seminary argued) refuse to teach them "I am a C, I am a C-H, I am a C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N" because we would be teaching them to lie?"

My response: I'm not following what you are saying. Credobaptists nor pedobaptists, treat their children (nor should they) as reprobates. Whoever are the elect and reprobate is not for us to know, nor it is good for us to know. The Lord keeps certain things to Himself because He needs no counsel.

Believing parents understand their children are born corrupt with a depraved and defiled nature and bearing guilt for their sin.

We also know from Jeremiah and Jonah, that the Lord calls children (even children of unbelieving parents and idolaters) innocent.

Even Jesus, we learn from the gospel accounts, that He had a great affinity to children of unbelievers (Jews). In one sense, these millions upon millions of babies and young children who have died under idolatrous and unbelieving parents is really a mercy action by God Himself to those children who have not reached sufficient, mature understanding in order to comprehend convincingly the issues of law and grace, sin and salvation.

You wrote: "We must teach our children "You are baptized! From you're earliest days God has made you one of His own. So believe! Repent! Do not turn to the left or to the right!" This is the language of Paul."

You wrote: "In regards to your point on Acts 18 and 19, it only echoes my point in the previous post: a mature person must make a mature profession. Just because this story only includes mature people does not mean that this is the measuring rod of all Scripture. Should we all expect a conversion experience like Paul too?"

My response: There is nothing in the context about maturity Brian that I am aware of. When John's disciples were asked if they received the Holy Spirit when they believed and they responded by saying, they hadn't even heard of the Holy Spirit. All who receive the Holy Spirit believe because it is that spirit that imparts faith. After these 12 disciples heard all that Paul was teaching about Christ and the Holy Spirit they believed and were re-baptized. This is not a maturity issue Brian. These events took place 20 years after the death of John the Baptist. They were apparently faithfull preaching John's message but simply had not heard that Jesus had come and raised.

You wrote: "If this is true, why do many of them baptize their infants when they don't believe they are really Christians? This never made sense to me, and was a big reason why I remained a baptist for so long."

To them, the external sign (of baptism) was an external sign of something spiritual, and in this case, as pedobaptists view it, it is the external sign of what Jer 31:31 preached. That is, a covenant where His laws would be put in them, he will write upon their hearts and we shall be His people. That's all good.

But I think Acts 18-19 clearly show acts of cognition that one must knowingly and willingly embrace the message of Jesus.

Apollos in his travels who only received the baptism of John was teaching and preaching of the Christ and the Holy Spirit who had come. These 12 disciples of John, also baptized by John, did not Jesus, and then were preached Jesus and got baptized.

Brian,
Let me me re-echo something that Carlo said. I do not assume that my children are reprobate. Neither do I assume that they are Christians. Either assumption would be presumptuous. What I assume is that they are under the discipline and instruction of the Lord NOT in the local church, but in the family. I don't think that it is necessary or helpful for me to try to discern whether my 6 year old child's profession of faith is a genuine love for the Lord or merely a reflection of her love for her parents. I trust that will become clear in time.
For us to baptize at the earliest profession of faith is to place adult responsibilities of the discipline of the local church on shoulders too small to bear them.

Carlo,

As far as Calvin’s view of the mode of baptism, he taught that immersion was probably used in the NT and was legitimate. He did not practice it, though. Mode, according to Calvin, was a tertiary issue – as long as Trinitarian baptism was taking place, he was happy. I tend to agree with him. But that’s neither here nor there, really. I think the issue at hand – what the Bible teaches about children – is much more important, and my point was that Calvin and Luther would agree.

You said: “Credobaptists nor pedobaptists, treat their children (nor should they) as reprobates.”

OK, reprobrates is probably too strong a word…. I take it back…. Although I’m suspicious of the way some of my friends at SBTS believed. I remember coming out of my Sunday school class one morning and seeing a couple of mothers crying in the hall. It turned out, the regular teacher of their class – a seminary prof – was out of town and a couple of seminary students taught the class…. On how we can have no assurance that infants go to heaven when they die. YOWZA!!! BTW, that was a conversation I heard more than once while I was there. :(

Anyways, my point is at the very best, Baptists and many Presbyterians treat their children as “potential Christians.” I still think this falls far short of what the Bible teaches. I agree with you, the elect and reprobate are not for us to know, in terms of the secret council of God, but He does teach us how to address and identify the church and the non-church – by baptism. In fact, I think this lends support to my position on infants… we are not to use professions of faith as marker of salvation. God is the One who gives faith, and He has promised to give our children faith… but no where does it say that it is a potential faith for when they reach a certain age.

You said: “There is nothing in the context about maturity Brian that I am aware of,” and “But I think Acts 18-19 clearly show acts of cognition that one must knowingly and willingly embrace the message of Jesus.”
This is what I mean my maturity – “acts of cognition” or as I put it previously – “mature professions of faith.” Again, I believe these are important and necessary, but these are not the only biblically mandated acts of faith. I believe that God graciously gives faith to the children of believers – because He promised to – and it might show itself in unfamiliar ways:
9Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
10On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.
Psalm 22: 9-11

Finally, you said: “To them, the external sign (of baptism) was an external sign of something spiritual, and in this case, as pedobaptists view it, it is the external sign of what Jer 31:31 preached. That is, a covenant where His laws would be put in them, he will write upon their hearts and we shall be His people. That's all good.”
I understand the argument, I just think it’s wrong. Baptism = Being a Christian/Church membership… not potential Christianity/Church membership.
BTW, I enjoy the interaction… I appreciate your response.

Mike,
Thanks for your response, too.

You said: “Either assumption would be presumptuous.”

I disagree. It’s not presumptuous to call your child a Christian when that is what God has told us to call them.

You said: “What I assume is that they are under the discipline and instruction of the Lord NOT in the local church, but in the family.”

Why do you make this assumption?

You said: “I don't think that it is necessary or helpful for me to try to discern whether my 6 year old child's profession of faith is a genuine love for the Lord or merely a reflection of her love for her parents. I trust that will become clear in time.”

I agree. This is why God has given us His promise. And, yes, it will become clear in time, as well.

Finally, you said: “For us to baptize at the earliest profession of faith is to place adult responsibilities of the discipline of the local church on shoulders too small to bear them.”

Could you elaborate?

Thanks. God Bless.

Brian,

You wrote: "On how we can have no assurance that infants go to heaven when they die. YOWZA!!! BTW, that was a conversation I heard more than once while I was there. :("

My response: I onced believed that for a few years and I now believe that we can have assurance that babies dying in infancy go to heaven. Different subject for a different time. We all go through stages of learning, I don't remember who you said SBTS was, but all of us have some error.

You wrote: "Anyways, my point is at the very best, Baptists and many Presbyterians treat their children as “potential Christians.” I still think this falls far short of what the Bible teaches."

My response: I don't want to pretend to know what's going through believers' minds as they raise their children. I'm single. What I'd like to think, and hopefully some parents would chime in is not so much they see their children as potential Christians or potential _______ (you fill in the blank). I do not see in the New Covenant promise that the Lord is faithful to save all children of believers. I can only speculate why? Maybe the Lord did not promise to save all children of believers because He knew parents would trust the means and not trust Him. I don't know, and given that He hasn't revealed that to us, it's probably not good for us to know anyway.

I'd like to think that believing parents see their role as teaching their children the truth of God and his will (Eph 6:4). For those believing parents that are not doing that role responsibly, the church chimes in (Matt 18:5; Heb 3:12).

So, parents instruct their children to pray, to give their devotions, to give thanks, etc. etc. etc. Why? Because it is the means that makes the children saved? No. And I know you don't believe that either. But the Lord has chosen,it appears, for children that are in believing families, to be instructed and disciplined and taught the ways of God by their parents. Do parents hope that their children come to saving faith, of course, they do. But the primary reason, they do what they do, I'd like to think is out of love and obedience and trust for the Lord. Do they want all that other stuff on their kids becoming a Christian? Sure they do. But they see, or at least they should see their instruction of their children as an act of love and obedience to the Lord.

And you know, the Lord tells the same thing to children. Children cannot say they love God and disobey their parents. I mean, if there is anything that we learn I think in those latter passages of Eph 5 and early passages of Eph 6 on the functional subordination of roles is that the good fight of faith is really fought in carrying out our responsibilities in the families and in the workplace. I mean, the temptation for me to be lazy at work and not do my job and do the work I'm suppose to do that I'm being paid for, if the battle is not fought there, then where else is it fought for me? The Lord is not leading me to be a missionary in Egypt or Pakistan. So, for me, as an employee, for parents, for children, for wives and husbands, the battle to obey the Lord and be faithful to what He has commanded us to do, that should be what is mainly driving us. And all the other icings on the cake, like an employee really, really, liking his job, and the father being one of the most perfect father and the wife being the par excellence Proverbs 31 so that motivates the husband more, well, great, if all that is included.

I've enjoyed our exchanges also. Have a blessed week.

Brian,

You wrote, "God is the One who gives faith, and He has promised to give our children faith…"

I think that this is a dangerous thing to say. What do you do with the Non-Christian child of a Christian. do you say that God hasn't kept his promise, or do you say that the person who idetifies themselves as a Non-Christian and lives as a Non-Christian is really a Christian?
This both seem like terrible options to me.

Mike,

The source of Brian's (and many others) position of the promise given to children might be from Acts 2:39. I do not believe that is what Acts 2:39 is teaching, but how would you respond to what is Acts 2:39 is teaching?

Mike,

I think it may be helpful to define what a Christian is. You seem to be saying that a Christian = elect. This isn't exactly correct, though. The elect refers to God's eternal decree of those He has chosen to eternal life. This is God's perspective of His people. Our perspective is Christianity. A Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is someone who has been baptized into Christ. As I've said previously, it is a mistake to equate subjective elements, such aa a profession of faith, with being a Christian rather than the objective marker of baptism. This is the example of Paul, who addresses those who have been baptized into Christ. Even when he is rebuking those who are in disobedience, he never assumes they "didn't really mean it." He calls them Christians and tells them to repent because they are Christians, lest they fall away. At this point we could get into a debate about warning passages and whether people are "once saved, always saved," but I don't think this is necessary. What's important is how God has taught his people to address and think about each other.
That said, it is not for me to wonder or speculate whether a child of a Christian is elect or not. God has told me that they are His - that's why we baptize them. This is why they are Christians. What if they grow and rebel against God and live as a non-Christian? I treat them as Paul treated people like them: Christians who need to repent. This is why church discipline is important. This is why baptism is important.
You said this a dangerous thing to say. I agree. It's dangerous to our preconceived notions about children, our nicely packaged systematic theologies, and our rich baptist doctrines. But I say it's more dangerous to neglect what the Bible teaches us about children.

Brian,

You wrote: " God has told me that they are His - that's why we baptize them. This is why they are Christians. What if they grow and rebel against God and live as a non-Christian?"

My response: Maybe I'm being a little pedantic here, and perhaps you mean to say, that the Scripture says (rather than God told you) that children of Christians are Christians. Can you define what you believe the Bible to teach on who is a Christian and can you show us where in Scripture it says children of Christians are Christians?

Carlo

I was reading Abraham Piper's blog on the the Desiring God Ministries website. Many of you may know that Abraham was the prodigal son of John Piper.

Anyway, the blog talked about a current situation happening with a family at Bethlehem Baptist church. Jeremy Archer was baptized as an infant but sometime ago came to the conviction that he needed to be baptized as a believer. When he came to that conviction, the church that he was attending at the time did not have a baptismal so they told him he could either be baptized by pouring or wait until the summer. This was in the winter at Minnesota. Jeremy decided to be baptized by pouring. He later changed churches and started going to Bethlehem Baptist Church where Piper preaches. The elders rejected his membership because he was not baptized by immersion. Jeremy has some convictions about not being baptized again especially since he was baptized as a believer.

In my humble opinion, I believe this is not how the Lord intended baptism to be used, but for any who doubt BBC's convictions on baptism, might want to read that blog.

Carlo,

In my last post to Mike I summed up what I believe a Christian is: "A Christian is a follower of Christ. A follower of Christ is someone who has been baptized into Christ." Are you wanting me to expand on this more, and if so, in what aspect?

As far as the Scriptural proof for the children of Christians being Christians, there are many verses I could point to. Probably a good starting point would be to check out the Scripture proofs that accompany the Westminster Confession on baptism and infants. For me, though, it goes much deeper than verses that specifically say the children of believers are Christians. I see the whole of Scripture as a story of Christ and His church. This relationship has always included children. Certainly the New Covenant is better than the Old, but it's incorrect to see it as different - the Bible just doesn't say this. A better way to view the covenant is to see it as maturing to an ultimate fulfillment. Once you stop reading the Bible as a systematic theology and start reading it as the story of Christ and His bride, its easy to see how children of Christians are indeed Christians. Of course, as I've stated, you're baptism is the objective marker that identifies you as a Christian to others, so, even though I believe the infants of Baptists are most certainly candidates for baptism, because they do not baptize their children, you can't call them Christians. This, of course, doesn't speak to how God views them, but rather how we are to view them. Regardless of their baptism, I believe God calls them His own - they just don't receive the benefits of being part of the church, and to some extant, the blessings of being "in Christ." (Which may explain why the Western evangelical church is having no impact on its culture.)

I do have one verse, though, that is not usually mentioned in this discussion, but nobody ever has a good answer for - Romans 5:15-18. In what condition are infants made partakers of the nature of the first Adam? If, then, God has provided a second Adam, why should infants -in the same state - receive, in baptism, the benefits of being in the second Adam that can only counteract the curse of being in the first Adam? Is God forming a church of only mature Christians? This is how the disciples thought at one point... Jesus rebuked them.

BTW, you're last post is interesting. It's a good thing there has always been the proper elements for immersion throughout history - in all ages, climates, enviroments, and seasons.... I mean, since immersion IS the only legitimate form of baptism... right?

Brian,

It looks like you and I are the only ones that are going back and forth on this, so, I'm going to let the blog owners take this issue where they want and make this my last post on this thread.

While, technically, you are correct, a follower of Christ is someone that has been baptized into Christ, of course there, we are not speaking of water baptism but a cleansing and a renewal of the heart, the baptism of the Spirit, I still don't see any passages in Scripture where we are promised that children of Christians will be saved? In fact, I think one of the dishearting things (in one sense) is at the Final Judgment, mother will be separated from daughter, father from son, church member from church member, pastors from church members, etc. etc. etc. It's really hard to imagine now, but when we enter into eternal life we will be able to give praise to God because we will be in a glorified state and truly experience that God has been wronged and his wrath is just.

But on the passage you provide to Romans, I don't see how that is a justification of children of parents are guaranteed to be Christians. And you know, in one sense, I can see why the Lord would not tell us something like that, that is, children of Christians, or anyone for that matter, who is His elect and who is not. I can only imagine what parents would or would not do in raising their children if they knew, that their children would get a "Pass Go" or "Get out of Jail" card automatically into eternal life no matter what they do. The Lord works through means, and He understands human nature better than we do and the fact is, I think if he would reveal to us one way or the other, we would neglect the very means He has ordained to bring our children to saving faith: prayer, discipline, etc. etc. etc.

The case of the person being rejected membership because he wanted to get baptized and there was no baptismal availabe so he got baptized by pouring is truly, in my opinion, an unfortunate event. I've asked other fundamentalists, baptists about this question, and they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole and it's because I think they realize baptism was not intended to be used to deny people local church membership especially in the case similar to this.

Brian,

I'm not sure that your distinction works well with Acts 2:39. You say that it isn't saying that they are elect: but the promise here is that if they repent and are baptised they will be filled with the Holy Spirit. i do not think that there is a group of unelect spirit-filled Christians.

Rather, those who believe and baptised are precisely those who are elect - all whom the Lord our God will call.

Mike

Mike,

You said: " i do not think that there is a group of unelect spirit-filled Christians."

Why not?

Isn't this precisely what occurred in King Saul's life?

Yeah, I know, that was the OT, this is the NT... but the Spirit is the Spirit - regardless of age. The fact is, water baptism and Spirit baptism are linked - all who are united to Christ in baptism are Spirit-filled - somehow, someway... just ask Simon the magician. But Spirit filled does not equal "elect" - at least in terms of God's salvific decree.

The term elect is a little tricky in itself. It does not always refer to God's secret decree. Election is also used in the Bible in reference to the visible church - just as it was with Israel.

I think this works itself out practically in our own time as well. Let's say you have a revival in your town and three thousand believe and are baptised. Are they Spirit-filled. They are all certainly acting like it. So what do you call them? Christians? Elect? A year later, ten of them have left the church and are living pagan lives. Were we fooled? Should we not have called them Christians? Were they not really Spirit-filled?

What's so different about the way Peter preached than what is preached today? "Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you WILL receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

I don't think God's secret decree of election has anything to do with it. The point is not that Three thousand souls were added to God's elect that day - although they could have been - they were added to the church. The same as if it happened today.