“That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a
seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our
union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life
eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both
the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and
actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the
dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That
baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the
cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together
with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life,
by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is
made to believers and their seed; and that ###the seed and posterity of the
faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the
covenant###, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of
the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in
the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance,
being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers,
more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children
into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is
the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received
into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and
them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are
baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are
bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: #####That they
are Christians####, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are
they baptized.”

1. What sort of automatic interest do the seed have in the covenant?

2. How is one a Christian without faith and conversion? Is this not presumptive regeneration?

Thanks

Can you please answer the following:

For argument’s sake, let’s grant that your argument that circumcision was replaced by baptism is correct.

Who was circumcised in OT? Answer: The Jew.

Then only the Jew should be baptized in the NT, right?

So who is the Jew?

Only 2 possible definitions in the Bible:

OT Jew- literal descendant of Abraham

NT Jew – born again believer

What about the unbelieving child of the born again believer? What sort of Jew is he that he should be baptized?

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

This is a very odd passage of Scripture. The Mormons use this passage as the basis for their belief in Baptism for the Dead. I will present the orthodox Christian/Lutheran view of this passage below, but first I would like us to look at something else in this passage that is odd:

If the Church in Corinth had been taught by the Apostle Paul that the manner in which one is saved is to pray (verbally or nonverbally) a sincere, penitent, prayer/petition to God, such as a version of the Sinner’s Prayer, why does this passage of God’s Holy Word discuss baptisms for the dead and not “prayers for the dead”, specifically, praying a version of the Sinner’s Prayer for the dead?

Isn’t that really odd? No matter what activity was actually going on in the Corinthian church regarding “the dead”, why is the discussion/controversy about baptism and not the “true” means of salvation according to Baptists and evangelicals: an internal belief in Christ; an internal “decision” for Christ?

And even more odd…why didn’t Paul scold the Corinthians for focusing so much on baptism which he had surely taught them (according to Baptists and evangelicals) was nothing other than an act of obedience; a public profession of faith??

Why so much emphasis on baptism?

Is it possible that the reason that the Corinthians were so concerned about baptism is that they had been taught by the Apostle Paul and other Christian evangelists that salvation and the promise of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life are received in Baptism, just as orthodox Christians, including Lutherans, have been teaching for almost 2,000 years??

Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals

Baptist/evangelical response:

The reason there is no mention of infant baptism in the New Testament is because this practice is a Catholic invention that developed two to three centuries after the Apostles. The Bible states that sinners must believe and repent before being baptized. Infants do not have the mental maturity to believe or to make a decision to repent. If God had wanted infants to be baptized he would have specifically mentioned it in Scripture. Infant baptism is NOT scriptural.

Lutheran response:

When God made his covenant with Abraham, God included everyone in Abraham’s household in the covenant:

1. Abraham, the head of the household.
2. His wife.
3. His children: teens, toddlers, and infants
4. His servants and their wives and children.
5. His slaves and their wives and children.

Genesis records that it was not just Abraham who God required to be circumcised. His son, his male servants, and his male slaves were all circumcised; more than 300 men and boys.

Did the act of circumcision save all these people and give them an automatic ticket into heaven? No. Just as in the New Covenant, it is not the sign that saves, it is God’s declaration that saves, received in faith. If these men and boys grew in faith in God, they would be saved. If they later rejected God by living a life of willful sin, they would perish.

This pattern of including the children of believers in God’s covenant continued for several thousand years until Christ’s resurrection. There is no mention in the OT that the children of the Hebrews were left out of the covenant until they reached an Age of Accountability, at which time they were required to make a decision: Do I want to be a member of the covenant or not? And only if they made an affirmative decision were they then included into God’s covenant. Hebrew/Jewish infants and toddlers have ALWAYS been included in the covenant. There is zero evidence from the OT that says otherwise.

Infants WERE part of the covenant. If a Hebrew infant died, he was considered “saved”.

However, circumcision did NOT “save” the male Hebrew child. It was the responsibility of the Hebrew parents to bring up their child in the faith, so that when he was older “he would not depart from it”. The child was born a member of the covenant. Then, as he grew up, he would have the choice: do I want to continue placing my faith in God, or do I want to live in willful sin? If he chose to live by faith, he would be saved. If he chose to live a life of willful sin and never repented, and then died, he would perish.

When Christ established the New Covenant, he said nothing explicit in the New Testament about the salvation of infants and small children; neither do the Apostles nor any of the writers of the New Testament. Isn’t that odd? If the new Covenant no longer automatically included the children of believers, why didn’t Christ, one of the Apostles, or one of the writers of the NT mention this profound change?

Why is there no mention in the NT of any adult convert asking this question: “But what about my little children? Are you saying that I have to wait until my children grow up and make a decision for themselves, before I will know if they will be a part of the new faith? What happens if my child dies before he has the opportunity to make this decision?” But no, there is no record in Scripture that any of these questions are made by new converts to the new faith. Isn’t that really, really odd??? As a parent of small children, the FIRST question I would ask would be, “What about my little children?”

But the New Testament is completely silent on the issue of the salvation or safety of the infants and toddlers of believers. Another interesting point is this: why is there no mention of any child of believers “accepting Christ” when he is an older child (8-12 years old) or as a teenager and then, being baptized? Not one single instance and the writing of the New Testament occurred over a period of 30 years, approximately thirty years after Christ’s death: So over a period of 60 years, not one example of a believer’s child being saved as a teenager and then receiving “Believers Baptism”. Why???

So isn’t it quite likely that the reason God does not explicitly state in the NT that infants should be baptized, is because everyone in first century Palestine would know that infants and toddlers are included in a household conversion. That fact that Christ and the Apostles did NOT forbid infant baptism was understood to indicate that the pattern of household conversion had not changed: the infants and toddlers of believers are still included in this new and better covenant.

Circumcision nor Baptism was considered a “Get-into-heaven-free” card. It was understood under both Covenants that the child must be raised in the faith, and that when he was older, he would need to decide for himself whether to continue in the faith and receive everlasting life, or choose a life of sin, breaking the covenant relationship with God, and forfeiting the gift of salvation.

Which of these two belief systems seems to be most in harmony with Scripture and the writings of the Early Christians?

Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals

Paedo-baptist: “My child, you belong to Christ: trust in Him, seeking forgiveness for your sins every day, and walking in His commandments. (Reads 1 Cor. 10:1-3).”

Credo-baptist: “My child, you have to be sure that you have faith. Work hard at having faith and maybe God will love you enough to let you get baptized someday.”

See? Putting words in the mouth of your opponent isn’t an argument.

To try and untangle it:

Your presumption would have been wrong in the case of John the Baptist, David, (likely) Jeremiah, and all those covenant children throughout history that God chose to regnerate in the womb or in infancy. Reformed Theology has always regarded such as a signigicant class. The doctrine of Total Depravity which you posit as the basis of your view of presumptive unregeneration in no way necessitates your position. The only thing it necessitates that we presume is that regeneration is necessary.

Others wrongly presume that all covenant children are regenerated. On this we agree.

My point is that both presumptions are wrong. I am encouraged with your optomism in relation to the promises given to our children. Must our optimism only concern the future, does it only kick in when our children are old enough to exercise their wills? This is a concession to Arminianism and is like the erroneous theology of the Disciples who did not wish mothers to bother Jesus with infants. Jesus said however ‘of such is the kingdom of heaven’ i.e. this kind or class of person is in the kingdom of heaven. Our optomism is therefore not only confined to what God might do in the future but what he may already have done in the past with respect to regeneration.

I will add this caution however. It is clear that many covenant children, the majority even, are not regenerated in infancy. We need to keep this in mind when we deal with our children. This is not the same however as wholesale presumptive unregeneration.

See this link which describes the view which on the whole I would espouse.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=122605124549