tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post5192991107167344498..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Regeneration - Baptism - CircumcisionTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-29777608747414747922010-10-30T21:31:17.963+01:002010-10-30T21:31:17.963+01:00Regarding louis stating: "Then all infants wh...Regarding louis stating: <i>"Then all infants who die in infancy are damned, because they are incapable of hearing and believing."</i><br /><br />CD responded: <b>"What would make you think that? I'd like to see your exegesis on this assertion."</b><br /><br />To which louis responded: <i>"It is not my assertion; I believe it is a logical result of your assertion.&Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-41248267070304105562010-10-30T17:05:22.713+01:002010-10-30T17:05:22.713+01:00"Your church only baptizes professing beleive..."Your church only baptizes professing beleivers after a credible profession of faith? Doesn't this necessarily exclude infants?"<br /><br />No, I didn't say "only." We baptise professing believers, so the pattern of baptising professing believers that we see in scripture fits perfectly well with our theology. There is no point in repeating these instances as if they louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10235122046667453142010-10-30T16:05:04.666+01:002010-10-30T16:05:04.666+01:00louis said:
i. we have no problem with the patt...louis said: <br /><br /><i>i. we have no problem with the pattern of "repent and be baptised." We baptise people that way just like you do.</i><br /><br />Maybe I don't understand what tradition you hale from, louis. Your church only baptizes professing beleivers after a credible profession of faith? Doesn't this necessarily exclude infants? <br /><br /><i>ii. You have not Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-72598562095926908322010-10-30T14:49:53.135+01:002010-10-30T14:49:53.135+01:00"Detecting a pattern yet?"
i. we have n..."Detecting a pattern yet?"<br /><br />i. we have no problem with the pattern of "repent and be baptised." We baptise people that way just like you do. <br /><br />ii. You have not dealt with my point about Abraham and circumcision. <br /><br />"This pattern necessarily excludes infants because infants are incapable of hearing and believing"<br /><br />Then all louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-85717998602051310082010-10-30T04:59:02.164+01:002010-10-30T04:59:02.164+01:00Cont.
Furthermore the passage says, "All who...Cont.<br /><br />Furthermore the passage says, <b>"All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church."</b> Again, this is an impossibility for infants. <br /><br />In John 4:53 the Scriptures say about the nobleman whose son Jesus healed, <b>"He himself believed and his whole household."</b> <br /><br />They believed. <br /><br />Belief, then baptism. <br Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-26617834106751341752010-10-30T04:58:28.538+01:002010-10-30T04:58:28.538+01:00Cont.
Notice the pattern?
Heard, believed as evi...Cont.<br /><br />Notice the pattern?<br /><br />Heard, believed as evidenced by the pouring out of the Spirit , the speaking in tongues, and extolling God, they were baptized. <br /><br />Incidentally, although this is merely anecdotal, I've never heard of an infant hearing the gospel, and believing as evidenced by speaking in tongues and extolling God. <br /><br />And while if this were to Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-29316286952424838172010-10-30T04:57:03.711+01:002010-10-30T04:57:03.711+01:00louis said: Where does it expound this? The best t...louis said: <i>Where does it expound this? The best that I can tell, you have cited passages that relate baptism to faith. And from that you conclude that baptism is only for those old enough to profess faith.</i><br /><br />What other conclusion can one reach given the consistent, plain, clear pattern of repentance, baptism? <br /><br />Oh that's right! The other conclusion is that the NewCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-37768606193985128192010-10-30T02:51:58.789+01:002010-10-30T02:51:58.789+01:00CD:
We do see explicit (in my and the dictionary...CD: <br /><br />We do see explicit (in my and the dictionary's sense of the term) references to infant baptism in Rome, North Africa, and Egypt in the 3rd century. We see things that have been taken as allusions to infant baptism even earlier, for example:<br /><br />"And if any righteous man among them passes from the world, they rejoice and offer thanks to God; and they escort his Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-65728841219472549592010-10-30T02:17:21.941+01:002010-10-30T02:17:21.941+01:00"the NT expounds the meaning behind and prope..."the NT expounds the meaning behind and proper recipients of the sacraments of water baptism and communion in the plainest of language."<br /><br />Where does it expound this? The best that I can tell, you have cited passages that relate baptism to faith. And from that you conclude that baptism is only for those old enough to profess faith.<br /><br />But scripture clearly teaches louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-88258723094586226162010-10-30T00:26:58.612+01:002010-10-30T00:26:58.612+01:00TF,
True, you didn't raise this line of argum...TF,<br /><br />True, you didn't raise this line of argumentation; although given the fact that the "lack of prohibition" angle lies squarely amongst the traditional lines of argumentation in favor of paedobaptism, I hope you would concede that generally anticipating this arugment during a discussion isn't a straw man.<br /><br />And I'd note that I did not assert that you orCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-27829414479428132982010-10-29T23:21:43.437+01:002010-10-29T23:21:43.437+01:00CD,
We practice paedobaptism because we believe i...CD,<br /><br />We practice paedobaptism because we believe it is the teaching of scripture. Raising the Bogeyman of "tradition" does not advance the discussion, and frankly it just makes it sound like you can't deal with the actual issues.<br /><br />As far as your comment about the "plain sense teaching of the NT", I'm sure you know that before one can understand wholouishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-60849925629894983042010-10-29T22:38:01.629+01:002010-10-29T22:38:01.629+01:00Specifically, CD, I didn't argue from the lack...Specifically, CD, I didn't argue from the lack of prohibition.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19783752842523151382010-10-29T22:35:21.254+01:002010-10-29T22:35:21.254+01:00CD:
It seems like you're mostly arguing again...CD:<br /><br />It seems like you're mostly arguing against your own straw men, my friend.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19487029316586045602010-10-29T22:26:53.408+01:002010-10-29T22:26:53.408+01:00louis said: No problem, bro'. We've been t...louis said: <i>No problem, bro'. We've been trying to tell you that, but you keep throwing up nonsense like "tradition."</i><br /><br />I know, I know, louis, us credos can be silly like that. After all, everyone knows there are *no traditions* surrounding the practice of infant baptism, it's just the straight up, explicit, plain sense teaching of the New Testament.<br /><Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-40898275140528809332010-10-29T20:22:29.909+01:002010-10-29T20:22:29.909+01:00"it should be easy to demonstrate from Script..."it should be easy to demonstrate from Scripture, as I have demonstrated with female communion"<br /><br />Some things are easier to demonstrate than other things. I'm sure you're aware of that.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-30539892474735686922010-10-29T20:19:29.353+01:002010-10-29T20:19:29.353+01:00No problem, bro'. We've been trying to te...No problem, bro'. We've been trying to tell you that, but you keep throwing up nonsense like "tradition."louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42525570060706478232010-10-29T19:54:22.162+01:002010-10-29T19:54:22.162+01:00Understood, CD. Infant baptism is similarly deriva...<i>Understood, CD. Infant baptism is similarly derivable from explicit statements in Scripture.</i><br /><br />Really? <br /><br />Then it should be easy to demonstrate from Scripture, as I have demonstrated with female communion.<br /><br />So, since believers are called to communion, and God created them male and female, it follows that female communion is explict in the Scriptures.<br /><br />Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-82617397339111448712010-10-29T19:47:54.959+01:002010-10-29T19:47:54.959+01:00LOL!
Okay louis, thanks for clearing that up!
I ...LOL!<br /><br />Okay louis, thanks for clearing that up!<br /><br />I don't know why the paedos didn't just tell the credos that in the first place and settle the argument at the outset.<br /><br />In Him,<br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-53091642839953025252010-10-29T16:49:19.689+01:002010-10-29T16:49:19.689+01:00"one must start with a tradition, and then wo..."one must start with a tradition, and then work one's way backward to arguments from silence in an effort to prop up said tradition."<br /><br />This is incorrect. One starts with theology. Scripture does not say "baptise infants", but it also does not say "don't baptise infants." Both credos and paedos fill in the silence with their own theological louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05447894010657835114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-16613697175216653572010-10-29T13:06:44.312+01:002010-10-29T13:06:44.312+01:00Understood, CD. Infant baptism is similarly deriv...Understood, CD. Infant baptism is similarly derivable from explicit statements in Scripture.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-78575418756819911582010-10-28T23:32:25.647+01:002010-10-28T23:32:25.647+01:00TF,
As you know, the fact that believers are cal...TF, <br /><br />As you know, the fact that believers are called to communion, and the fact that God created them male and female are facts *explicitly* taught in Scripture.<br /><br />And based upon the defintion of the word "explicit" supplied by dictionary.com, it follows that female communion is explicit, as I've already demonstrated in my comment above.<br /><br />Of course you&Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-77161898169665265422010-10-28T21:47:35.621+01:002010-10-28T21:47:35.621+01:00No. I also did not imply (or - at any rate - did ...No. I also did not imply (or - at any rate - did not mean to imply) that there is any ambiguity.<br /><br />It's simply not something stated explicitly.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-990810035731888082010-10-28T21:37:50.958+01:002010-10-28T21:37:50.958+01:00TF said: I didn't say there was ambiguity.
Pe...TF said: <i>I didn't say there was ambiguity.</i><br /><br />Perhaps it was merely implied...<br /><br />:)<br /><br />CDCoram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-46010961983648860642010-10-28T21:23:49.300+01:002010-10-28T21:23:49.300+01:00I didn't say there was ambiguity.I didn't say there was ambiguity.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-1835144170242368062010-10-28T19:30:56.473+01:002010-10-28T19:30:56.473+01:00TF said: Ah, I see. That's not what "expl...TF said: <i>Ah, I see. That's not what "explicit" means. Explicit doesn't mean you can derive it, it means it is directly stated.</i><br /><br />Courtesy of Dictionary.com:<br /><br />ex·plic·it /ɪkˈsplɪsɪt/ <br />[ik-splis-it] <br /> <br />–adjective <br />1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.com