Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Infant Baptism

Expand Messages
  • gmw
    ... Yes, THAT is question begging, isn t it? ;) gmw.
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 5, 2004
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "timmopussycat"
      <timmopussycat@y...> wrote:

      > Since Jesus took Baptism up in the New
      > Covenant and since Baptism unlike circumcision, was administered to
      > the repentant, not everyone, .... is a begging of the
      > question.

      Yes, THAT is question begging, isn't it? ;)

      gmw.
    • timmopussycat
      ... to ... Tim-I forgot to put in the Old Covenant after since Baptism to make the point unequivocal. Since Baptism in the Old Covenant was administered to
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 6, 2004
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "gmw"
        <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "timmopussycat"
        > <timmopussycat@y...> wrote:
        >
        > > Since Jesus took Baptism up in the New
        > > Covenant and since Baptism unlike circumcision, was administered
        to
        > > the repentant, not everyone, .... is a begging of the
        > > question.
        >
        > Yes, THAT is question begging, isn't it? ;)
        >
        > gmw.

        Tim-I forgot to put "in the Old Covenant" after "since Baptism" to
        make the point unequivocal. Since Baptism in the Old Covenant was
        administered to the repentant, either prostelytes if converting to
        Judaism or repentant circumcised Jews under John's baptism, my
        assertion was not question begging.

        Tim
      • gmw
        ... I see what you re saying. Forgive me, but I m sure you can see why I could take it the way I did. For the interested reader, George Gillespie deals with
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 6, 2004
          timmopussycat wrote:

          > Tim-I forgot to put "in the Old Covenant" after "since Baptism" to
          > make the point unequivocal. Since Baptism in the Old Covenant was
          > administered to the repentant, either prostelytes if converting to
          > Judaism or repentant circumcised Jews under John's baptism, my
          > assertion was not question begging.

          I see what you're saying. Forgive me, but I'm sure you can see why I
          could take it the way I did. For the interested reader, George
          Gillespie deals with this argument (put forth by one "Mr.[John?]
          Tombes"), and I include it here (see also Dr. John Owen's response to
          the same man, :
          http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/OwenJohnInfantBaptism.htm):

          <http://www.truecovenanter.com/gillespie/ggilles17.html>

          gmw.
        • gmw
          Ahh! I tried sending the actual page, but I guess I haven t figured out how to do that with Firefox yet! Follow the link, if you care to see Gillespie s
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 6, 2004
            Ahh! I tried sending the actual page, but I guess I haven't figured
            out how to do that with Firefox yet! Follow the link, if you care to
            see Gillespie's treatment of this argument.

            gmw.

            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, gmw
            <raging.calvinist@v...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > timmopussycat wrote:
            >
            > > Tim-I forgot to put "in the Old Covenant" after "since Baptism" to
            > > make the point unequivocal. Since Baptism in the Old Covenant was
            > > administered to the repentant, either prostelytes if converting to
            > > Judaism or repentant circumcised Jews under John's baptism, my
            > > assertion was not question begging.
            >
            > I see what you're saying. Forgive me, but I'm sure you can see why I
            > could take it the way I did. For the interested reader, George
            > Gillespie deals with this argument (put forth by one "Mr.[John?]
            > Tombes"), and I include it here (see also Dr. John Owen's response to
            > the same man, :
            > http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/OwenJohnInfantBaptism.htm):
            >
            > <http://www.truecovenanter.com/gillespie/ggilles17.html>
            >
            > gmw.
          • gmw
            ... I always appreciate when someone does my homework for me. A friend of mine, observing the recent assertions regarding Jewish proselyte baptisms, sent me
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 7, 2004
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "timmopussycat"
              <timmopussycat@y...> wrote:

              > Since Jesus took Baptism up in the New
              > Covenant and since Baptism unlike circumcision, was administered to
              > the repentant, not everyone, prematurely speculating that since
              > children were a part of the Old covenant in one way, they must
              > therefore be part of the New in the same way is a begging of the
              > question.

              I always appreciate when someone does my homework for me. A friend of
              mine, observing the recent assertions regarding Jewish proselyte
              baptisms, sent me the following interesting links to works by Baptists
              (two of them being perhaps the best known Reformed Baptists ever):

              First, John Gill, who argues that New Testament baptism IS NOT the
              Jewish proselyte baptism (he does this, ironically, to get away from
              the fact that infants were included that):

              http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/sermons&tracts/sermon_70.htm

              Charles Spurgeon:

              "An attempt to prove the rightful subjects of Christian baptism from
              God's word and Jewish proselyte baptism, is to imitate the Popish
              appeal to Scripture and tradition. Besides, no man upon earth knows
              that proselyte baptism had an existence in apostolic times, whilst
              every one may know that its origin is 'of men,' not 'from heaven;' and
              that the Bible alone is man's rule of faith and practice. Every
              legitimate inference from every part of Holy Writ we admit."
              http://www.founders.org/FJ35/article3.html

              Fred Malone:
              "First of all, Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 2,
              p. 746) and Berkhof (Systematic Theology, p. 622) both admit that
              Jewish proselytes and their children up to age twelve were baptized
              into Judaism. However, unborn children in the womb of the baptized
              mother were not baptized after birth as they were considered already
              clean and a part of Israel... Some scholars discount Jewish proselyte
              baptism in the first century altogether."
              http://www.founders.org/library/malone1/malone_text.html

              A.T. Robertson:
              "The Jews had ablutions before John the Baptist introduced the
              ordinance of baptism. Some of those ablutions were immersions, but
              there is no evidence that the Jewish Proselyte baptism of later times
              (which was also immersion) existed before the time of Christ."
              http://www.thebaptistpage.com/Distinctives/baptism
              /baptism_robertson.htm

              A Concise History Of The Baptists By G. H. Orchard:
              "[* Had Jewish proselyte baptism been in use at this period, this
              inquiry would not have been made, nor would the rulers have felt any
              difficulty in answering the Redeemer, Matt. 12:25. Some of the rabbins
              speak of John as being the innovator of this rite, and affirm the
              newness of its character. When proselyte baptism came into use, is not
              known: the proselyte dipped himself, but his posterity was not subject
              to the rite; no repentance, faith, or belief was required. If it
              existed, there is no part of scripture for the practice; and if it
              belonged to the Jewish dispensation, all ceremonies were abrogated by
              Christ's death. Yet this rite is said to be the "basis of infant
              baptism." Many able divines, as Owen, Jennings, Benson, &c., declare
              the absence of such rite in the Jewish church. See this ably handled
              in Gale's Reflect. on Wall, and Appendix. edit. 1820.]" See:
              http://www.reformedreader.org/history/orchard/ch01s01.htm

              John Winebrenner, The Ordinances: Baptism, Feet Washing, and the
              Lord's Supper (1860):
              "Wall, Hammond, and others of their school, claim that Jewish
              proselyte baptism is the foundation upon which infant baptism rests.
              But Owen, Jennings, and many more, have clearly shown that proselyte
              baptism did not exist until long after the ascension of Christ."
              http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/believers/wineord/ORD01B.HTM

              Davis Huckabee:
              "Nor was Gill alone in denying that proselyte baptism existed this
              early. Owens, Jennings, and others of their pedobaptist brethren also
              denied its existence this early. But pedobaptists have not been
              willing to give up this, their 'strongest proof' (?) of the practice
              of infant baptism in apostolic times, and some, either ignorantly or
              willfully, have quoted Jewish writings of later times concerning the
              baptism of proselytes, and have passed it off as proof that this was
              the practice of the First Century. The average person has no idea to
              what age the different Jewish writings pertain, and so, might accept a
              modern writer's word and think it was written before the Christian
              era. Others do not know that even ancient writings often have modern
              glosses and comments appended to them. For instance, the Babylonian
              Talmud, quoting Exodus 2:5, has a gloss which says that Pharaoh's
              daughter came down 'to dip on account of proselytism,' but the average
              person does not realize that this gloss was not appended until the
              twelfth century of the Christian era. Many pedobaptists make bold
              statements to the fact of the baptism of Jewish proselytes, but they
              offer no proof, nor can they, for it does not exist. The first
              instance of Jewish proselyte baptism is found in the Jerusalem Talmud
              which was written some time in the Fifth Century. Infant baptism is
              founded upon the supposition that it has been practiced from the very
              beginning of the Christian era, and even before, yet in no writings is
              Jewish proselyte baptism certainly mentioned before about the Fifth
              Century."
              http://www.pbministries.org/Baptists/Davis%20Hucka
              bee/Studies%20on%20Church%20Truth/chapter05.htm

              "Second, Jewish proselyte baptism was administered to the children of
              proselytes born before their parents became proselytes, and generally
              at the same time with their parents, but it was not administered to
              children born after that event, because the parents and their
              offspring were considered as Israelites, clean from their birth.
              (Lightfoot's Hor. Hebr., on Matt. iii. 6., and Horne's Introduction,
              Vol. iii., p. 292.)"
              http://www.christianhomesite.com/belfast/text/littleones.htm

              And just for kicks and giggles, here's a Lutheran:
              "Although the evidence of Scripture alone is the basis for our
              understanding of the command, necessity and efficacy of infant
              baptism, we may for the sake of understanding the liturgical elements
              of the accompanying rite look at the predecessor of our infant baptism
              in the Jewish proselyte baptism. [Joachim] Jeremias makes a convincing
              case for infant washing and even the immersion of infants on the basis
              of Jewish custom. Ancient sources from Jewish literature mention
              specifically that children were baptized."
              http://www.wls.wels.net/library/Essays/Authors/M/M
              uellerRite/MuellerRite.rtf

              Again, I can't take any credit for digging up this information. My
              buddy did the leg work, I'm just posting what he found.

              gmw.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.