[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Consider Isaiah 64:6. There's nothing natural man can do. This is further reiterated Romans 3:10-11.

I think Ephesians 2 also gets the point across nicely. The unbeliever is dead in sin. Sharing the Gospel with someone is not like throwing a life preserver to someone who's about to go under; it's like throwing a life preserver to someone who's already at the bottom of the sea. There is nothing a dead person can do to save themselves.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[. . .]
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

The differences held by Paedo Baptism and Credo Baptism is highly controversial.

I used to be a Presbyterian before I joined the Baptists, so I was also a staunch pedobaptist. But allow me to share with you why I changed my mind on the subject. I was brought up to believe that baptism replaced circumcision. Just as God's Old Covenant people, the Israelites, circumcised their children, so God's New Covenant people, the church, should baptize their children.

The passage erroneously used to support this assertion is from Colossians.

Col 2:10-13
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 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:
12 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.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses . . .

But it doesn't actually say, "Baptism replaces circumcision." It does say, however, that baptism symbolises our burial and resurrection with Christ, which is the Baptist position.

Peter's words at Pentecost are used to bolster the pedobaptist position, but it actually supports the credobaptist position.

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The promise only applies to children when they're old enough to repent, for they must repent before they can be baptized. Now there are some passages in the New Testament where entire households were baptized.

Acts 10:24b And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
[. . .]
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

1 Cor 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

But we can be assured there were no infants among them; otherwise these verses would contradict the passages supporting credobaptism which Brother Elmer quoted earlier. If God wanted us to baptize babies, don't you think He would have just come out and said so plainly in His Word? It is an important issue. If the pedobaptists are right and baptism replaces circumcision, then unbaptized children in Baptist households are guilty breaking covenant with God.

Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people: he hath broken my covenant.

If the credobaptists are right -- and we are -- then those baptised as infants need to get baptized properly or risk damnation.

Mk 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

[Faith_Machine]

Wait a minute, pedo-baptism?

I don't think I like the sound of that. No sir, I don't.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Pim Pendergast

Peter's words at Pentecost are used to bolster the pedobaptist position, but it actually supports the credobaptist position.

Acts 2:38-39 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

The promise only applies to children when they're old enough to repent, for they must repent before they can be baptized. Now there are some passages in the New Testament where entire households were baptized.

I enjoy these theological discussions in this forum. It has been mentioned to me, even in this thread about the behavior of others that come into your forum and attack Christians with their own personal belief - whatever that means. I have found nothing but insightful dialogue, with respect to CONTEXT by members here. Just wanted to say this as a compliment.

The arguments presented Pim, are widely known and were the main ones that began to lean me Credo-Baptism, I couldn't find a solid argument for the other side of Believer's baptism for those who were baptized as infants and never made a profession of faith as adults when they were to admitted into the church. While I do not believe Baptism is essential for salvation, I do believe it is essential for an outward sign of obedience. Galatians 3:27, for someone who was baptized as an infant and never professed their faith, they really are misrepresenting the nature of Baptism.

Paedo-Baptism only makes sense to me when parallels are drawn between the OT Covenant and the NT Covenant. It becomes whether at that point, the doctrine and practice conveys the concepts and truths of Scripture, regardless of being an explicit practice. Those who argue against Paedo-Baptism on such points sometimes lose their ground when the Paedo-Baptist point out that because something is explicit like the Trinity, which is never found in Scripture - but the doctrine conveys the concepts and truths of the Bible. I personally don't like to argue that point, but admit to having done that in order to understand whether the person making his case actually could point out the Scriptures that conveyed the concepts and truths - Sola Scriptura. My tactic wasn't to act as though they owed me personally a convinced statement of faith, but it was nothing more than to sharpen the edge of a sword.

Lastly, Acts 2:38-39, with emphasis on Acts 2:28, Peter having said Repent and be Baptized. In respect to context, I ask to who was Peter addressing this? I'm cautious, because I do adhere to Sola Fide. So when someone begins adding to faith, as Faith ++++++++++ and not pointing to Christ Crucified I begin analytical mode.

Jesus said, in Mark 10:17-27, with Emphasis on 10:19-22, to a rich young ruler that this was directed to, that he was to follow the Law and also sell all his goods and then Jesus. Jesus' answered an important question in 10:27. My point that I am asking, and differentiating between as a Covenant of Works. I read these Scriptures and also those of Peter with respect to the audience, as Jesus had destroyed in these verses the Spiritual pride the Jews had in the Law.

Now, I am not saying that Christian should not try to follow the Law, and DO what beloved Christ asked of us. But I am saying as Christ said, concerning Salvation, with man these things are impossible, but with God. I hear arguments, that go the other way too, and beleive that a person that has been Regenerated does have a heart that is both receptive and obedient to the word of God. As advocates of the liberal bent, I have come into contact with, suggested it is not even necessary to baptized. That makes me seriously question whether regeneration has even taken place, and therefore the bad doctrine that flows from their lips. I then wonder if they even understand the nature of baptism, which demonstrates an inward spiritual truth. Obviously they profess the words of the lord and testify to receiving it, but do they when they demonstrate disobedience? Anyways, I'm not going to make a case for bad doctrine.

Last question, Pim, or anyone... do you think that there is in general, an age of accountability? Or is this a case by case basis? And also, I'm just curious, if whether you ever ran into anyone making the case for paedo-baptism and they point to John the Baptist being filled with the Holy Spirit in the womb? I "think" if I am not wrong, that Roman Catholics as well as some Protestants use this in defense of Paedo Baptism. I must admit I have used this towards someone that was defending a Covenant of Works and had also promoted Credo-Baptism in light of the C. of Works. I was waiting for them to make the charge on a superficial level as a guilt by association that because Roman Catholics believe it, it must be wrong. Of course many will have a hard time with that considering the Nicene Creed is widely held, and usually differentiates between the cohesion that makes denominations a denomination of Christianity - again pointing to the concepts and truths.

God bless.

[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Last question, Pim, or anyone... do you think that there is in general, an age of accountability?

No. An age of accountability is never mentioned in the Bible. Children are accountable for their own sin, and their parents', from the womb.

2 Sam 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
2 Sam 12:15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
[. . .]
2 Sam 12:18a And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.