THE NEW COVENANT VS INFANT BAPTISM - THE VALUE OF THE DISCUSSIONS

[Al Scholten]

In the book Believer's Baptism there are a number of statements on the merits of these discussions.

Ultimately, if Baptists want to argue cogently against the paedobaptist viewpoint and for a believer's baptism, we must, in the end, respond to this covenantal argument. (Page 98.)

The Reformed paedobaptist argument is grounded in an explicit view of the covenants; if this understanding of the "covenant of grace" can be sustained, it provides a strong warrant for the position. However, if this understanding is inaccurate, then the entire biblical and theological warrant for the practice of infant baptism evaporates. (Page 160.)

Believer's Baptism is not essential for being an evangelical. We do not consider those who proclaim the gospel of justification by faith yet practice infant baptism to be heretics; we consider them brothers and sisters in the Lord. Still, it does not follow that the matter is unimportant.

Baptism receives a lot of attention in the pages of the New Testament. This ranges from accounts of thousands being baptized to references concerning what baptism means. It is the rite of initiation into the church - it is the ceremony which celebrates a person coming from a path destined to hell and changing to an eternity in heaven with God. It is an important act in the life of Christians.

How important is it to get baptism right?

* * * *

YOUR TURN TO WEIGH IN:

Question: Is there value in debating the merits of believer's baptism vs. infant baptism? Why or why not?

MOST INSIGHTFUL AND CONSTRUCTIVE REPLY:

BY: (Will also be added.)


For more info - the main post on this topic is:
http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/jeremiah-31-the-new-covenant


FOR MORE MATERIAL ON A DIALOGUE ON BAPTISM GO TO:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos/baptism/forum.htm

[Crazyupstart]

uuuhhhhhhh...... no difference. I was dunked after I professed faith, my wife was sprinkled as a child. I have FULL confidence that one of us will not be burning in Hell for eternity. Christ's redemptive work in our lives is my assurance. We are both bought at a price.

[Al Scholten]

To be bought with the price is certainly a top priority. Although, would you say it doesn't make any difference at all if we understand baptism correctly?
AL

Crazyupstart said:

uuuhhhhhhh...... no difference. I was dunked after I professed faith, my wife was sprinkled as a child. I have FULL confidence that one of us will not be burning in Hell for eternity. Christ's redemptive work in our lives is my assurance. We are both bought at a price.

[Dallas]

It does make a difference because baptism is closely related to faith and repentance in the Biblical texts. Infant baptism obscures this relationship, and in doing so, obscures understanding as to it's purpose.

I would also add that building a doctrine soley or primarily on the basis of the logical implication of a systematic theology, in this case the paedobaptist understanding of covenant theology, amounts to eisegesis. While systematic theology is useful, we must base sound doctrine on the explicit reading or direct logical conclusion of the actual texts themselves. This way systematic theology is based on sound interpretations of the text rather forcing the interpretation of the text to fit the systematic theology.

[Al Scholten]

Reformed theologians believe that infant baptism is just as much taught by God's Holy Word as the doctrine of the Trinity is. It is not a matter of eisegesis, or being read into the text. You are certainly correct in that faith and repentance are very important concepts. It is hoped you will follow the discussions as they unfold and contribute point-by-point. As Christians we can all benefit from a better understanding of God's Word.
Al

Dallas said:

It does make a difference because baptism is closely related to faith and repentance in the Biblical texts. Infant baptism obscures this relationship, and in doing so, obscures understanding as to it's purpose.

I would also add that building a doctrine soley or primarily on the basis of the logical implication of a systematic theology, in this case the paedobaptist understanding of covenant theology, amounts to eisegesis. While systematic theology is useful, we must base sound doctrine on the explicit reading or direct logical conclusion of the actual texts themselves. This way systematic theology is based on sound interpretations of the text rather forcing the interpretation of the text to fit the systematic theology.

[xulon]

I think it doesn't make any difference, but since you asked I assume you think it makes a difference. What would you say that difference is? Since the Biblical data is light on the details, what is the source of the "correct" understanding of Baptism?
Al Scholten said:

Although, would you say it doesn't make any difference at all if we understand baptism correctly?

[Al Scholten]

If we follow the Protestant lead in this regard, which I believe is important to do so, then the only source for a correct understanding of baptism is the Bible. Since baptism is the rite of initiation into the membership of the church I would think it would be important to get it right. Of course, dispensationalists see it differently.
Al

xulon said:

I think it doesn't make any difference, but since you asked I assume you think it makes a difference. What would you say that difference is? Since the Biblical data is light on the details, what is the source of the "correct" understanding of Baptism?
Al Scholten said:

Although, would you say it doesn't make any difference at all if we understand baptism correctly?

[Dallas]

Al,
The point that I was making is that over reliance on systematic theology can inadvertantly lead to eisegesis. The good use of systematic theology is to lead us to a coherent understanding of how various ideas and passages fit logically together. Good systematic theology may entail interpreting some passages in light of the systematic theology provided that there is direct exegetical support from other passages. The problem comes when a systematic theology leads to doctrines that do not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text.

I am curious as why you do not regard it as eisegesis. There is another reason, that this discussion is important-it highlight issues of systematic theology concerning the role and limitations of systematic theology in the formulation of doctrine.

[xulon]

So, what is the difference between "correct" and "incorrect"? What is the difference in results (what if one does Baptism "incorrectly" or not at all)? "Rite of initiation into the Church" where is this taught biblically?

Al Scholten said:

If we follow the Protestant lead in this regard, which I believe is important to do so, then the only source for a correct understanding of baptism is the Bible. Since baptism is the rite of initiation into the membership of the church I would think it would be important to get it right. Of course, dispensationalists see it differently.
Al

xulon said:

I think it doesn't make any difference, but since you asked I assume you think it makes a difference. What would you say that difference is? Since the Biblical data is light on the details, what is the source of the "correct" understanding of Baptism?
Al Scholten said:

Although, would you say it doesn't make any difference at all if we understand baptism correctly?

[Al Scholten]

Quote: "The problem comes when a systematic theology leads to doctrines that do not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text."

Am I correct to conclude from your statement that you believe infant baptism does not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text? I do not consider the doctrine of paedobaptism as eisegesis because I believe it is grounded on biblical data. The main challenge here is to deal with the matter of infant baptism and strive to show if it is eisegesis or if it is grounded solidly in Scripture. And yes, this kind of discussion has the value of exercising our ability to examine systematic theology and biblical interpretation. As long as we keep it on the high road we can all benefit from it!
Al

Dallas said:

Al,
The point that I was making is that over reliance on systematic theology can inadvertantly lead to eisegesis. The good use of systematic theology is to lead us to a coherent understanding of how various ideas and passages fit logically together. Good systematic theology may entail interpreting some passages in light of the systematic theology provided that there is direct exegetical support from other passages. The problem comes when a systematic theology leads to doctrines that do not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text.

I am curious as why you do not regard it as eisegesis. There is another reason, that this discussion is important-it highlight issues of systematic theology concerning the role and limitations of systematic theology in the formulation of doctrine.

[Rey Reynoso]

More interrelated posts:
Infant Baptism
Infant Baptism
Muntzer and Anabaptists
Thougths on Re-Baptized
A Baptismal Bibliography
What About Children
Covenant at Creation
What Do You Mean By "The Church"
Who is "in" and Who is "out"

[Jack]

In the O.T. God clearly commanded that the male descendants of Abraham, be circumcised on the eight day.
Some have argued that water baptism means or does the same thing.
1. Where does the scripture make that claim?
2. Where is infant baptism commanded, in the N.T.?
3. Where does the N.T. state or declare, that infants were water baptized?
I'm not asking for what some folks claim are "inferences", to infant baptism, nor rational arguments as to why it should be practiced.

[Dallas]

I believe that the weight of Biblical evidence is against paedobaptism. Direct references to baptism show baptism accompanying faith. Believers were baptized. While there are a few passages depicting household baptisms which some believe could involve infant baptism, the pattern is to baptize believers.It is the believers who are the children of Abraham,and therefore heirs to the covenant(Rom 4)



Al Scholten said:

Quote: "The problem comes when a systematic theology leads to doctrines that do not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text."

Am I correct to conclude from your statement that you believe infant baptism does not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text? I do not consider the doctrine of paedobaptism as eisegesis because I believe it is grounded on biblical data. The main challenge here is to deal with the matter of infant baptism and strive to show if it is eisegesis or if it is grounded solidly in Scripture. And yes, this kind of discussion has the value of exercising our ability to examine systematic theology and biblical interpretation. As long as we keep it on the high road we can all benefit from it!
Al

Dallas said:

Al,
The point that I was making is that over reliance on systematic theology can inadvertantly lead to eisegesis. The good use of systematic theology is to lead us to a coherent understanding of how various ideas and passages fit logically together. Good systematic theology may entail interpreting some passages in light of the systematic theology provided that there is direct exegetical support from other passages. The problem comes when a systematic theology leads to doctrines that do not have any explicit or logical exegetical support from any text.

I am curious as why you do not regard it as eisegesis. There is another reason, that this discussion is important-it highlight issues of systematic theology concerning the role and limitations of systematic theology in the formulation of doctrine.