tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8122948502477414102..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Here and hereafterRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37553359160629033432015-07-29T12:46:40.813-04:002015-07-29T12:46:40.813-04:00This is the third time you've imputed to me a ...This is the third time you've imputed to me a position I never stated. You keep projecting your own framework onto me.<br /><br />Even credobaptists don't make membership in the covenant a condition for conferring the sign. Rather, they make a credible profession of faith the condition. The link between covenant membership and a credible profession of faith is indirect, and often unreliable. <br /><br />Consider the mass baptism in Acts 2. It's not as of the 3000 baptismal candidates were carefully interviewed. It's not as if they had fruits of repentance. The threshold for baptism was pretty low. <br /><br />Membership in the new covenant community was quite informal. You had neighborhood house-churches where people hung out. <br /><br />Likewise, I didn't appeal to the secret will of God in my argument. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61222340859005572112015-07-29T06:52:29.742-04:002015-07-29T06:52:29.742-04:00You seem to be saying the sign should not only be ...You seem to be saying the sign should not only be given to the covenant members but also to the infants in the covenant community. That one doesn't have to be a member of the covenant to receive the sign. What is the biblical basis for this? This seems like a very important part of your rebuttal. <br /><br />Also, Why is it not living by the secret will of God to baptize all these children since we cannot know if they are regenerated? <br /><br />Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993599903032999202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34688976910499743032015-07-28T14:16:28.844-04:002015-07-28T14:16:28.844-04:00"How do you substantiate your positive argume..."How do you substantiate your positive argument that children are extensions of the family which then warrants baptism?"<br /><br />i) For starters, there are monographs on the family in ancient Israel, the ANE, and Greco-Roman culture. Children were viewed as extensions of the family.<br /><br />ii) I haven't argued for infant baptism in my replies to Bnonn. I'm just critiquing his arguments against infant baptism. There's a difference.<br /><br />iii) In addition, there's a difference between saying infant baptism is obligatory and saying it's permissible. Given how vague Scripture is on the subject, it's hard to see how infant baptism could be forbidden. If God intended infant baptism to be prohibited, why not come right out and say so? The reason we're having this debate is the first place is because Scripture is fairly vague on the subject. "Also, if we cannot know if an infant is regenerated, are you saying to baptize these children of the elect anyway because it is inevitable that we can't match covenant members exactly. Since some infants are regenerated both sides are not matching the regenerate exactly and it is better to include them than to not. Is this like a pragmatic thing?"<br /><br />i) If church membership is too strict, you weed out wheat. If church membership is too lax, the weeds choke the wheat. So we need to avoid extremes as best we can. <br /><br />ii) I'm not basing baptism on covenant membership. For some reason you're stuck on that. Rather, I'm basing baptism on communal membership.<br /><br />Infant baptism would be a public acknowledgement that children born to members of the Christian community are born into the religious community to which their parents belong. At that age, they are members of the community via their parents. It's an ascribed status, not an achieved status. And that's a common understanding in the ancient world. "If you agree that all in the new covenant are regenerated isn't it the proper route to wait until there are evidences of regeneration because we are limited and they can know."<br /><br />What about waiting to baptize people until they lie on their deadbed? That avoids the risk of baptizing future apostates. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45657347209267823012015-07-28T06:42:09.345-04:002015-07-28T06:42:09.345-04:00How do you substantiate your positive argument tha...How do you substantiate your positive argument that children are extensions of the family which then warrants baptism?<br /><br />Also, if we cannot know if an infant is regenerated, are you saying to baptize these children of the elect anyway because it is inevitable that we can't match covenant members exactly. Since some infants are regenerated both sides are not matching the regenerate exactly and it is better to include them than to not. <br />Is this like a pragmatic thing?<br /><br />If you agree that all in the new covenant are regenerated isn't it the proper route to wait until there are evidences of regeneration because we are limited and they can know. <br /><br />Maybe you have a very good resource on this topic. I lean towards the credo side but I am not firmly convicted yet. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993599903032999202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1467158860029694192015-07-27T23:46:30.348-04:002015-07-27T23:46:30.348-04:00To the contrary, I specifically said membership in...To the contrary, I specifically said membership in the covenant was *not* an argument I was using for infant baptism. Likewise, I did *not* say the sign should only be given to members of the covenant. How you manage to infer the opposite of what I actually said is curious. You seem to be filtering my comments through a "covenant child" lens which I expressly distanced myself from using. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32987819118234183922015-07-27T16:40:23.023-04:002015-07-27T16:40:23.023-04:00It appears as though one of your primary arguments...It appears as though one of your primary arguments is that we cannot baptize all covenant members and you lean towards baptizing children which will at times include too many. But you didn't support that argument with much that I could think about. Do you have some good reasons for this so that I can think through the issue more. <br /><br />Also it sounds as though you agree with his main contention that the sign should only be given to members but then are you saying those infants are members in the covenant or they are a special class so they can get the sign but not be members which sometimes because we just can't know. Therefore we presume them part of the family unit? Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05993599903032999202noreply@blogger.com