# Split From "Why I am now a paedo!" Thread.



## JonathanHunt

Martin Marsh said:


> It is simply the most safe feeling when everybody in your family are resting on the covenant promise.
> By this I mean no offense to those of my brothers who feel different in this subject.



No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!


----------



## Herald

Jonathan, I know that, and you know that. Any Baptist who can walk and chew gum at the same time knows that.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh sorry I spoke in the paedo only section. Naughty me! Still, the response stands and is neccessary. Thanks for doing the spade work, Bill!


----------



## Herald

Jonathan, I think Josh split your comment into a new thread.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Hicks? I should have known. Never misses an opportunity to gun me down.


----------



## Ronnie

JonathanHunt said:


> No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!



I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God? 

Ronnie


----------



## lynnie

God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied. 

We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.

* But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven*

When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God. 

I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.

99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.


----------



## Notthemama1984

I have no problem admitting that both sides have some good arguments. If I am reading something on paedo, I lean paedo. If I am reading credo, then I think credo is right. It is confusing and needs more studying on my part.


----------



## Davidius

lynnie said:


> God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.
> 
> Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.
> 
> We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.
> 
> * But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven*
> 
> When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.
> 
> I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.
> 
> 99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.



Lynnie,

If Baptists believe that children are "infused into the church of the firstborn" (which, according to your quote, is enrolled in heaven) and are part of God's covenant people, why don't they baptize them and put them on their membership rolls?


----------



## Herald

Ronnie said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?
> 
> Ronnie
Click to expand...


I'll tell you exactly what promises we rest on. We rest on the promise that those who place their faith in Christ and Christ alone are forgiven of their sins and given right standing with God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Water baptism does not impute righteousness. Once right standing with God is conveyed, so too are the precious promises God makes to His saints.

-----Added 12/23/2008 at 09:20:43 EST-----



lynnie said:


> God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.
> 
> Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.
> 
> We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.
> 
> * But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven*
> 
> When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.
> 
> I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.
> 
> 99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.



Lynnie, I'm a Baptist and I don't understand what covenant you're referring to. Baby dedication is really _parent _dedication. Parent's are covenanting before God and the church to raise their children under the authority of the Word of God. We are looking forward to the day when the obvious fruit of faith becomes clear. We do not believe that anyone is part of the invisible New Covenant community apart from faith, even though they interact within the visible church. It's more than "just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place." There's no preference about it. It's a material difference on how we interpret the New Covenant and it's members.

-----Added 12/23/2008 at 09:21:19 EST-----



Davidius said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.
> 
> Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.
> 
> We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.
> 
> * But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven*
> 
> When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.
> 
> I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.
> 
> 99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lynnie,
> 
> If Baptists believe that children are "infused into the church of the firstborn" (which, according to your quote, is enrolled in heaven) and are part of God's covenant people, why don't they baptize them and put them on their membership rolls?
Click to expand...


David, because we don't believe this.


----------



## Thomas2007

lynnie said:


> God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.
> 
> Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.
> 
> We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.
> 
> * But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven*
> 
> When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.
> 
> I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.
> 
> 99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.



I was raised a Baptist and remained one until maybe a decade ago - but still struggled with the doctrine baptism until a few years ago. But I was never taught what you are saying above. We never used the word "covenant" nor did we interpret Scripture the way the Reformed do, at all.

Maybe Reformed Baptists fit into your model, but the vast majority don't.


----------



## Herald

> Maybe Reformed Baptists fit into your model, but the vast majority don't.



Hello? Anybody listening? We don't!


----------



## ManleyBeasley

There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.


----------



## lynnie

Davidius-Herald-

I did not mean to imply any infusion of saving grace by dedication.

I maybe didn't articulate it well. No, dedicating a baby does not make the baby "in Christ" any more than water does not make the baby "in Christ".
I don't believe in dedicational regeneration or baptismal regeneration.

When every single Jew took their firstborn to the Temple and dedicated it, did it mean every single Jewish baby would end up in the church of the redeemed first born? No. But they obeyed. I am not talking about infusing regeneration, I am talking about the symbolism of paedo baptism and baby dedication and trying to draw a parallel. ( not too well obviously)

What I am trying to point out is that reformed people do not believe the child of believers is exactly the same as the children of the heathen. They believe there are special promises to that child and it is "set apart" by the faith of the parents in some way. Paedos see baptism like circumcision....the sign of being part of the covenant people in a certain way that OF COURSE still demands personal regeneration at some age. And I am saying that a baby dedication (rightly understood) fulfills the same exact purpose.

I heard a Horton audio a year or two ago where he said straight out essentially that Baptists have NO PLACE for their kids as part of the Covenant community because they reject the sign of the covenant in baptism. Well with all due respect for Horton that is rediculous. To understand baby dedication as what it is- that we are the church of the firstborn and the redeemed- and the child is in a provisional sort of covenant through that dedication- means that a Baptist can certainly have a place for their child as part of the Covenant people.

I was in a Reformed Baptist church and then a PCA in another state before we moved here to a Reformed Baptist that went bad and are now in a PCA. This is not our defining doctrine for where we choose to fellowship obviously. But I am stunned at the ignorance of PhD paedos who say Baptists have no special place for their kids as part of the church, they are THE SAME as heathen kids....and I am equally disgusted by Baptists who treat paedos like dopes who must have never read the bible or are emmeshed in papal bondage. I've seen it on both sides. I don't know how people can degrade the likes of Piper, Grudem, Spurgeon, etc...not how they can feel so superior to Sproul or Edwards and so forth.


----------



## TsonMariytho

To my view, it's backwards to claim that credo's exclude their children from the offer of the covenant promises, whereas paedo's claim the promises on behalf of their children.

The reality is that both credo's and paedo's offer the gospel freely to everyone who will hear it, to young and old, no matter who their parents are. The gospel contains great covenant promises to be received in faith, and fearful covenant curses upon those who reject God's command to believe in the name of his Son. These offered promises and threatened curses are equally extended to everyone who hears the gospel.

It so happens that not everyone who is offered the promises believes, and apprehends them by God's grace. The question is whether one's own children should be extended a presumption of belief.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A paedo-baptist believes covenant membership is entered into by birthright of being born to a Christian parent or baptized into a trinitarian formula of baptism. 

A credo Baptist believes one is a covenant member because of his union with Christ based upon the person and work of Christ on behalf of the individuals life.

Of course one must define the many shades of paedo and credo baptists outside of the Covenant Theology camps also. On this board we are Covenant Theologians. We all base our understanding of who is a covenant member based upon our understanding of Covenant Theology unlike the evangelical world. 

I am amazed at the credo conversion to paedo decrying that they are having a born again like experience because they now understand Covenant Theology (Per Matt's books) when they have probably never even understood that the Reformed Baptist hold to Covenant Theology also. We just differ on who is a covenant member and who isn't as defined by the Covenants.

Ignorance comes shining through when knowledge is hid in the dark.


----------



## discipulo

First of all I must state that some of the Christians I most highly respect are Calvinist Baptists, 

dear consecrated brothers whom I am not worthy to tie their shoes.

Yet I still find there is a dimension of God’s Sovereignty that is not considered in strict Credo Baptism.

We all accept that Justification and Regeneration God applies to individuals through 

individual faith, that He grants to the elect, personally and individually.

But what do you make of household salvation? Salvation has the household as its unit.

For the sake of a very simplistic metaphor. You eat eggs one by one, but you don’t buy a single egg.

You buy a box of 6 or 12. That is the unit to buy them. So it’s sure you will eat them all, even if only one at once. 

And a second later, all will be eaten in due time.

Here are some passages that in my opinion teach household salvation.

_By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house _(Hebrews 11:7).

The Passover has a lamb for each household. 

_Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house _(Exodus 12:3).

_And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved_(Acts 11:13-14).

_And when she was baptized, and her household_(Acts 16:14-15).

_Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house _(Acts 16:31-32)


In my humble opinion this also the way I see that the Covenant applies to the children of believers, 

and baptism, as a sign and seal of the Covenant, 

(Romans 4 Abraham and The Heidelberg Catechism Question 74)

should be applied also to the children of believers, since the entire household has the sure promise of salvation. 

_*Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house*_


_*For the promise is unto you, and to your children *_Acts 2:39



.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Will respond to the household baptism teaching when I have more time. I am going to be busy the next few days. Just a note on the Acts 2 passage... I am amazed how many paedo's cut off the beginning and the last part of the passage. 



> (Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, *Repent, and be baptized* every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ *for the remission of sins*, and *ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost*.
> 
> (Act 2:39) *For the promise* is unto you, and to your children, *and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.*



-----Added 12/24/2008 at 01:02:33 EST-----



discipulo said:


> In my humble opinion this also the way I see that the Covenant applies to the children of believers,
> 
> to the entire household as a sure promise of salvation.
> 
> .




So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation? 

You might wanna think about that.

Headed out for Christmas dinner at my Mom's.

Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## VictorBravo

lynnie said:


> 99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and *credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible*. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.



I find this statement strange. I've heard numerous sermons in Baptist churches dealing with Col. 2 as well as Romans 6. I've never known a Reformed Baptist preacher to be afraid of any portion of scripture.

BTW, and For what it's worth, Romans 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12 have very similar statements about being dead in baptism and being raised with Christ.


----------



## discipulo

One strong argument is actually made by its negative side, so to speak.

In the Jewish Culture and Religion so used to Circumcision made to every born child in 

the Jewish household, and Being Baptism the sign of the New Covenant, Jewish would naturally 

and immediately understand Baptism to apply to all the household, children included, then.

So if they were not supposed to, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or 

Commandment preventing infants to be baptized along with their believing parents ? 


Actually the narratives of baptisms in Acts sustain a household - including paedo - baptism, as does the mention of Paul:

_And I baptized also the household of Stephanas_ 1 Corinthians 1:16


A Household baptism clearly differentiated from individual baptisms, 

_I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius _1 Corinthians 1:14



.


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?
> 
> Ronnie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll tell you exactly what promises we rest on. We rest on the promise that those who place their faith in Christ and Christ alone are forgiven of their sins and given right standing with God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Water baptism does not impute righteousness. Once right standing with God is conveyed, so too are the precious promises God makes to His saints.
Click to expand...


Thanks for responding. I'm not sure Herald meant the same thing, because he was basing his response on having the *same* confidence as those who believe their children are already in covenant with God. You are speaking of the promise that is giving to everyone, but that would not be what we are talking about, so how is this confidence the same as ours? 

Under the Old Covenant, God had special promises for those who were in covenant with Him even though they were not all regenerated(cf. Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4-5). Paul himself was challenged with the question, "What advantage is there in being a Jew"(Roman 3:1 ) He answered, "Much in every way!"(Romans 3:2 ) and he started to list all the promises that were specifically given to those in covenant with God( Romans 3:1; Romans 9:4-5) even though they were not all regenerate. Likewise today those who are in covenant with God have promises that the general world does not have.


----------



## Herald

Ronnie said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?
> 
> Ronnie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tell you exactly what promises we rest on. We rest on the promise that those who place their faith in Christ and Christ alone are forgiven of their sins and given right standing with God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Water baptism does not impute righteousness. Once right standing with God is conveyed, so too are the precious promises God makes to His saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for responding. I'm not sure Herald meant the same thing, because he was basing his response on having the *same* confidence as those who believe their children are already in covenant with God. You are speaking of the promise that is giving to everyone, but that would not be what we are talking about, so how is this confidence the same as ours?
> 
> Under the Old Covenant, God had special promises for those who were in covenant with Him even though they were not all regenerated(cf. Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4-5). Paul himself was challenged with the question, "What advantage is there in being a Jew"(Roman 3:1 ) He answered, "Much in every way!"(Romans 3:2 ) and he started to list all the promises that were specifically given to those in covenant with God( Romans 3:1; Romans 9:4-5) even though they were not all regenerate. Likewise today those who are in covenant with God have promises that the general world does not have.
Click to expand...


Ronnie, Jonathan never said that the promises he is resting on are promises towards unbelieving children. Read _exactly _what he wrote. 

The requirements of the Old Covenant (and its promises), were made null and void in Christ (Daniel 9:27). The spiritual promise of the seed of Abraham was made possible by Christ, and is manifested in the lives of all those who come to Christ by faith. I believe in a clear and definitive line of demarcation between the visible church and those who are under the New Covenant (invisible church). The only way to receive the blessings of this eternal covenant is by faith in Christ. You may believe your children are part of the visible church, and therefore part of the "covenant." I just can't figure out what covenant they're part of. It certainly isn't the New Covenant which is entered into by faith.


----------



## discipulo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation?
> 
> You might wanna think about that.



Dear Brother I will answer by someone else's words.


Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) Puritan Pastor and a member of the Westminster Assembly

The Covenant Seed  (the part on Luke xix ) - quote 

_When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth *his covenant to Zaccheus family also*, *'This day is salvation come to this house,* inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason *why his house should be saved also*, and so the *covenant stuck with them of his family likewise*, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, *then salvation had come unto him and them all,* because they all were sons of Abraham by birth (if Jews) as well as he. So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth, so now being converted, is therefore called a ' son of Abraham ' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son (which is the point I allege this for), *to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation,* in conformity to his father Abraham, whose house at the first giving of that covenant, even children and all, were circumcised and saved upon that ground, Christ intending now he should go in to eat with him, *to convert his household also*._

emphasis mine




.


----------



## Herald

discipulo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation?
> 
> You might wanna think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Brother I will answer by someone else's words.
> 
> 
> Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) Puritan Pastor and a member of the Westminster Assembly
> 
> The Covenant Seed
> 
> quote
> 
> _on Luke xix
> 
> When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth *his covenant to Zaccheus family also*, *'This day is salvation come to this house,* inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason *why his house should be saved also*, and so the *covenant stuck with them of his family likewise*, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, *then salvation had come unto him and them all.*_
> 
> emphasis mine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Can you answer plainly? Are you saying that a child is saved simply because he is born into a covenant family? I'm not interested in what Goodwin has to say, but in what you have to say about it.


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> Can you answer plainly? Are you saying that a child is saved simply because he is born into a covenant family? I'm not interested in what Goodwin has to say, but in what you have to say about it.



Actually I shouldn’t have to say this but 

you should care much more for what Thomas Goodwin has to say 

than about me.

And no one is saved except by God's Grace

_For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God_ Ephesians 2:8



.


----------



## Herald

I appreciate your appeL the grace of God and the scholarship of Goodwin, but can you answer my question? Do you believe a child is saved because they are born into a covenant family? A simples yes or no will suffice.


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> I appreciate your appeL the grace of God and the scholarship of Goodwin, but can you answer my question? Do you believe a child is saved because they are born into a covenant family? A simples yes or no will suffice.



Thank you for bearing with me on this argument brother, 

more than my own opinion, I'm striving to present 

Biblical and Confessional authority.

So with the passages from Scripture that I posted before

I must answer through

The Heidelberg Catechism 

question 74 Are infants also to be baptized? 

Answer. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, *are included in the covenant and church of God*; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith,* is promised to them no less than to the adult*; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant. 

emphasis mine


.


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> Ronnie, Jonathan never said that the promises he is resting on are promises towards unbelieving children. Read _exactly _what he wrote.


OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?



Herald said:


> The requirements of the Old Covenant (and its promises), were made null and void in Christ (Daniel 9:27).


No, not all the promises of the Old Covenant were abrogated. Some of the same promises that were held out to them are still held out to us today, they are just under a different covenant administration. As the book of Hebrews teaches at the end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4, we all have the same promises of the Gospel. 



Herald said:


> The spiritual promise of the seed of Abraham was made possible by Christ, and is manifested in the lives of all those who come to Christ by faith. I believe in a clear and definitive line of demarcation between the visible church and those who are under the New Covenant (invisible church). The only way to receive the blessings of this eternal covenant is by faith in Christ. You may believe your children are part of the visible church, and therefore part of the "covenant." I just can't figure out what covenant they're part of. It certainly isn't the New Covenant which is entered into by faith.



Of course it is the New Covenant in its external administration. As Paul said about that Old Covenant "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" we can likewise say of the New, "not all who are in the New Covenant are of the New Covenant".


----------



## Herald

discipulo said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your appeL the grace of God and the scholarship of Goodwin, but can you answer my question? Do you believe a child is saved because they are born into a covenant family? A simples yes or no will suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for bearing with me on this argument brother,
> 
> more than my own opinion, I'm striving to present
> 
> Biblical and Confessional authority.
> 
> So with the passages from Scripture that I posted before
> 
> I must answer through
> 
> The Heidelberg Catechism
> 
> question 74 Are infants also to be baptized?
> 
> Answer. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, *are included in the covenant and church of God*; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith,* is promised to them no less than to the adult*; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.
> 
> emphasis mine
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I give up. I have a confession and catechism too, but I have no problem answering plainly to a yes or no question.


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> I give up. I have a confession and catechism too, but I have no problem answering plainly to a yes or no question.





It is not a *Yes or No * answer, or question for that matter.


Because it is *a already and not yet * answer, also to your question.


That is the *Gerhardus Vos * exegesis we need in this debate.


Are the children of believers in the Covenant?


*Already* from their birth, even from their mother’s womb.


Are the children of believers Justified and Regenerated?


If they still have not reached the individual personal 

God’s given saving faith in Christ, *Not yet*


Does God fail to honour and fulfil His promises?

Never

Our faith and assurance must remain in the Lord and in His Word !


*So please never give up!*



.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

discipulo said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give up. I have a confession and catechism too, but I have no problem answering plainly to a yes or no question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a *Yes or No * answer, or question for that matter.
> 
> 
> Because it is *a already and not yet * answer, also to your question.
> 
> 
> That is the *Gerhardus Vos * exegesis we need in this debate.
> 
> 
> Are the children of believers in the Covenant?
> 
> 
> *Already* from their birth, even from their mother’s womb.
> 
> 
> Are the children of believers Justified and Regenerated?
> 
> 
> If they still have not reached the individual personal
> 
> God’s given saving faith in Christ, *Not yet*
> 
> 
> Does God fail to honour and fulfil His promises?
> 
> Never
> 
> Our faith and assurance must remain in the Lord and in His Word !
> 
> 
> *So please never give up!*
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I have to disagree. It is absolutely a yes or no answer. The question is simple. I know it may not be your intention but it kinda sounds like you're dodging.Do you believe there are unelect children that are baptized into the covenant or does their being born into a covenant family make them elect? It seems like you are saying that people born into a covenant family will definitely be saved.

Believe it or not we Baptists are also covenantal (at least here on the PB) but hold to the position that it is not through the physical family that the covenant is passed but the spiritual (we are not in the 1st Adam but the last Adam). I believe Jeremiah 31 clearly states that the NC is different because it is made of exclusively elect people as opposed to the OC which had a mixture of elect and non-elect.


----------



## discipulo

Well, I do understand you question and I find very reasonable your critical approach to my answers

My great concern is that we remain comparing Scripture with Scripture

and we won't go astray from the greatest Truth, one we both believe that 

_Salvation is of the Lord _ Jonah 2:9

So I can’t state it in any other way than this.

_And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and *you will be saved*, *you and your household.* _(Acts 16:31)

emphasis mine

All the other Scriptures and the Heildeberg Catechism are very relevant 

and so in my opinion is Thomas Goodwin excerpt too.

But now «I rest my case brother».

I just add an article by Dr. Scott Clark. 

with a very clear interaction with other views on baptism and all the Covenant implications. 

a must read!


*A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism

Dr. Scott Clark*  link below

Westminster Seminary California clark



-----Added 12/25/2008 at 05:42:16 EST-----



For the sake of clarity I should add this quote:


_Since *the infant children of Christians are also included in the church*, into which Christ will have all those who belong to him to be received and enrolled by baptism; and as baptism has been substituted in the place of circumcision, by which (as well to the infants as to the adults belonging to the seed of Abraham,) justification, regeneration and reception into the church were sealed by and for the sake of Christ; and as no one can forbid water that those should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit purifying their hearts, *it follows that those infants should be baptized, who are either born in the church, or come into it from the world with their parents.*_

_*The condition of faith is joined to the promise*; for those who are baptized do not receive what is promised and sealed by baptism *unless they have faith, so that without faith the promise is not ratified, and baptism is of no profit.* In these words we have expressed in a concise manner the proper use of baptism in which the sacraments are always ratified to those who receive them in faith; whilst the sacraments are no sacraments, and profit nothing in their improper use._


emphasis mine


*Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism*


.


----------



## Prufrock

Ronnie said:


> OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?



Ronnie, one paedo to another, I think you're misreading Herald (Bill Brown); he's talking about a different confidence than you seem to be thinking: he's not confident his children are saved; rather, he's resting on the same promises we paedos are: all those believing shall be saved. Thus, he is confident, just as we paedos are that if his children believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be saved. Baptismal views don't change the confidence.


With regard to the Goodwin quote:


> When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth his covenant to Zaccheus family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, then salvation had come unto him and them all, because they all were sons of Abraham by birth (if Jews) as well as he. So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth, so now being converted, is therefore called a ' son of Abraham ' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son (which is the point I allege this for), to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham, whose house at the first giving of that covenant, even children and all, were circumcised and saved upon that ground, Christ intending now he should go in to eat with him, *to convert his household also.*


,
That bolded part at the end is quite important. Just because Goodwin taught that Zaccheus' family was brought into the covenant did not think he meant they did not still need to be converted by Christ and brought to faith that they might be saved.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I think a good exegesis of Genesis 17 might help here. Was Ishmael included in the everlasting Covenant of Grace? The Answer is no. Even though Abraham petitioned God for this, the Lord told Abraham no. There are promises in Abraham's Covenant that pertain to the seed (which is Christ) and promises that are separate from this promise that pertain to his posterity as a nation. Some intermingle and others do not. If one is a New Covenant member he is a member of the Eternal Covenant of Grace by his or her union with Christ. If you are outside of this union you are not a New Covenant member.


----------



## Herald

Cesar, it's at this point that I believe further dialog on this topic is futile. While the matter is important, simply quoting authors doesn't achieve anything. I'm backing out of the discussion at this point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here were a couple of good threads concerning Ishmael and Abraham.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/abrahamic-covenant-29062/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/covenant-grace-children-24488/



> 'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "'
> Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think a good exegesis of Genesis 17 might help here. Was Ishmael included in the everlasting Covenant of Grace? The Answer is no. Even though Abraham petitioned God for this, the Lord told Abraham no. There are promises in Abraham's Covenant that pertain to the seed (which is Christ) and promises that are separate from this promise that pertain to his posterity as a nation. Some intermingle and others do not. If one is a New Covenant member he is a member of the Eternal Covenant of Grace by his or her union with Christ. If you are outside of this union you are not a New Covenant member.



This is faulty reasoning. That Abraham is told that the Promise will come through Sarah does not preclude Ishmael's further participation in the Covenant.

It is wrong that Gen 17 reveals that God told Abraham that Ishmael was not in the Covenant. You are required to insist that but the text does not say so. Were Ruben, Simeon, and Levi excluded from the Covenant because the birthright passed over the first three children of Israel? The assertion that Abraham is told that Ishmael is outside the Covenant is inserted for theological and not textual reasons.


----------



## Ronnie

Prufrock said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie, one paedo to another, I think you're misreading Herald (Bill Brown); he's talking about a different confidence than you seem to be thinking: he's not confident his children are saved; rather, he's resting on the same promises we paedos are: all those believing shall be saved. Thus, he is confident, just as we paedos are that if his children believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be saved. Baptismal views don't change the confidence.
Click to expand...


Prufrock,

And that was my point, he doesn't have the same confidence that paedos may have. We may have the same confidence in one sense but we have a confidence that is different from the credo and it is not that our children are currently saved at any point in time, but that they will be saved in the end. This confidence is based on the fact that they are members of the covenant and baptism signifies this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I will just let the scripture speak here with little comment. 



> (Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> (Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
> 
> (Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
> 
> (Gal 4:30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.



Your equating the Abrahamic as a solid Covenant of Grace only is based upon your presupposition for inclusion. Whereas mine isn't. As we have discussed before, anyone who is in the Covenant of Grace will not be cast out. It is only for the elect. That is also a Presbyterian interpretation concerning the Covenant of Grace. The non elect were never members in the Covenant of Grace. 

And according to the following passage it looks like God refuses to establish his covenant with Ishmael. He only blesses him in posterity. Not covenantally. 



> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.


----------



## Notthemama1984

But wasn't Ishmael still circumcised thus making him apart of the visible church, but not the invisible?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

He shared in part of Abraham's blessing and in part of the Abrahamic Covenant. I see there are two covenant principles at motion in Abraham as I quoted above in Galatians 4. The CofW and the CofG. There are promises made to Abraham concerning his posterity that are not included in the Covenant of Grace. The New Covenant member is one who shares only in the Covenant of Grace.

To answer your question specifically I would refer you to Romans 9:6.



> Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:


----------



## Herald

Ronnie said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie, one paedo to another, I think you're misreading Herald (Bill Brown); he's talking about a different confidence than you seem to be thinking: he's not confident his children are saved; rather, he's resting on the same promises we paedos are: all those believing shall be saved. Thus, he is confident, just as we paedos are that if his children believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be saved. Baptismal views don't change the confidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prufrock,
> 
> And that was my point, he doesn't have the same confidence that paedos may have. We may have the same confidence in one sense but we have a confidence that is different from the credo and it is not that our children are currently saved at any point in time, but that they will be saved in the end. This confidence is based on the fact that they are members of the covenant and baptism signifies this.
Click to expand...


How does the covenant you baptize your children into give you hope that your children "will be saved in the end"? Do you believe there is a material difference in how God deals with a child born into a credo home compared to a paedo-home? I am acquainted with enough paedo families to know that they proclaim the gospel to their children. In practice, paedo and credo families are almost indistinguishable in their commitment to teach the Word to their children. We (Calvinistic Baptists) proclaim the Word to our children in the hope and expectation that it will one day be met with faith; thus resulting in salvation. Unlike our Arminian leaning brethren, we are not seeking a sinners prayer or a raised hand at a gospel meeting. The evidence of faith is a changed life with changed affections. We have no guarantee our children will ever exhibit faith, although we trust in the saving power of the gospel. Instead of looking at baptism as a sign of that promise, we look at the gospel itself as the sign. But it's not a guaranteed sign to all children born to believing families. Both paedo and credo families have children that never pass from death to life. That is why I have a difficult time with the presumption of salvation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Boliver I would also recommend you read Nehemiah Coxe's book 'Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ'. He deals with the Abrahamic Covenant very well in this book. Nehemiah Coxe was probably very instrumental in the 1689.


----------



## Ronnie

Chaplainintraining said:


> But wasn't Ishmael still circumcised thus making him apart of the visible church, but not the invisible?



Yes, yes, and yes. Ishmael was most definitely a member of the covenant visibly(i.e. externally, administration, in ) though not a member internally(i.e. invisible, of, elect ). This was not only true for Ishmael, but as you said everyone who received the sign of circumcision such as Esau and all the other wicked kings of Israel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is something that you might benefit from also....

John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 - The PuritanBoard

I believe Dr. Mike Renihan is putting this online on the Church's homepage that he Pastors.

http://hbcma.org/content/


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> How does the covenant you baptize your children into give you hope that your children "will be saved in the end"?


I have greater hope for my children as members of the covenant, than none covenant members, because God is a covenant God and He offer promises, blessings, and gifts to covenant members that does outside of the covenant does not have or get. This is why Paul asks and answers in Romans 3:1:

“What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way!"​
Of course when Paul speaks of the Jew and circumcision he is speaking of those in covenant with God. So is there any benefit of being in covenant with God? Paul answers emphatically, “Much in every way!”. Credos seem to answer it doesn’t make much of a difference, which demonstrates their understanding of God working within the covenant is flawed.



Herald said:


> Do you believe there is a material difference in how God deals with a child born into a credo home compared to a paedo-home?


No not really, because of this point. Your children are still members of the covenant by birth even if credos sinfully refused to give them the sign of the covenant. You may regard them as a typical pagan, but God sees them as holy by birth and beckons you to bring them to him for blessing because of such is the kingdom of heaven. But yes, if the parents are not believers then God normally deals with children of the covenant different than the pagan.



Herald said:


> I am acquainted with enough paedo families to know that they proclaim the gospel to their children. In practice, paedo and credo families are almost indistinguishable in their commitment to teach the Word to their children. We (Calvinistic Baptists) proclaim the Word to our children in the hope and expectation that it will one day be met with faith; thus resulting in salvation.


Yes, but your hope for your children is no different than the hope you should have for proclaiming the Gospel to Bin Laden. I’m saying I have a much greater hope and confidence for those of the covenant than those without. So even though our actions are the same with approach it from different perspectives. 



Herald said:


> Unlike our Arminian leaning brethren, we are not seeking a sinners prayer or a raised hand at gospel meeting. The evidence of faith is a changed life with changed affections. We have no guarantee our children will ever exhibit faith, although we trust in the saving power of the gospel. Instead of looking at baptism as a sign of that promise, we look at the gospel itself as the sign.


Yes, but like I said previously, this can be said in reference to anyone that we proclaim the Gospel to, that is we trust in the saving power of the Gospel. Furthermore, you should look at baptism as sign of the promise, because it is exactly that!! It is a sign of the promise of God’s saving grace. The Gospel is not a sign, because a sign is something you can see.



Herald said:


> But it's not a guaranteed sign to all children born to believing families. Both paedo and credo families have children that never pass from death to life. That is why I have a difficult time with the presumption of salvation.


Yes, I agree there is no guarantee, nor am I presuming salvation in my children at any point until they profess and confess their faith in Christ. However, I have a hope and confidence based on God’s covenantal promises. He will be a God to me and my children and their being born to a believing parent makes them clean/holy, whereas does that are not born to believing parents are NOT clean/holy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ronnie said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the covenant you baptize your children into give you hope that your children "will be saved in the end"?
> 
> 
> 
> I have greater hope for my children as members of the covenant, than none covenant members, because God is a covenant God and He offer promises, blessings, and gifts to covenant members that does outside of the covenant does not have or get. This is why Paul asks and answers in Romans 3:1:
> 
> “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way!"​
> Of course when Paul speaks of the Jew and circumcision he is speaking of those in covenant with God. So is there any benefit of being in covenant with God? Paul answers emphatically, “Much in every way!”. Credos seem to answer it doesn’t make much of a difference, which demonstrates their understanding of God working within the covenant is flawed.
Click to expand...


Again lets examine the rest of the story.... Why is it beneficial... Because of what? Is it that they will be regenerate or more likely to be regerate? I am sorry but the text doesn't bare that out.



> (Rom 3:1) What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
> 
> (Rom 3:2) Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.



Read the whole chapter and beyond. 

I will post some of it....



> (Rom 3:9) * What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;*
> 
> (Rom 3:10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
> 
> (Rom 3:11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
> 
> (Rom 3:12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
> 
> (Rom 3:13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
> 
> (Rom 3:14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
> 
> (Rom 3:15) Their feet are swift to shed blood:
> 
> (Rom 3:16) Destruction and misery are in their ways:
> 
> (Rom 3:17) And the way of peace have they not known:
> 
> (Rom 3:18) There is no fear of God before their eyes......
> 
> ....(Rom 4:8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
> 
> (Rom 4:9) Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
> 
> (Rom 4:10) How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I will just let the scripture speak here with little comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> (Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
> 
> (Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
> 
> (Gal 4:30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
Click to expand...

The Scriptures do speak clearly here and they refute what you assert. The application you make is precisely the opposite of what Paul is making throughout Galatians: that the Judaizers _miss_ the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is precisely the error that the blessing is somehow merely seminal or on the basis of the flesh that he is refuting and, further, why an Israelite who was a contemporary of Paul could be compared to someone outside his actual ancestry. Sadly, I fear people are wont to mine Galatians to buttress a theological point that they miss the real force and intent of Paul's extended argument.



> Your equating the Abrahamic as a solid Covenant of Grace only is based upon your presupposition for inclusion. Whereas mine isn't. As we have discussed before, anyone who is in the Covenant of Grace will not be cast out. It is only for the elect. That is also a Presbyterian interpretation concerning the Covenant of Grace. The non elect were never members in the Covenant of Grace.


The Book of Hebrews completely repudiates this line of thinking.



> And according to the following passage it looks like God refuses to establish his covenant with Ishmael. He only blesses him in posterity. Not covenantally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Click to expand...

By your reasoning it does. Again, why does the fact that the right of the firstborn passing to Isaac excludes Ishmael from the Covenant? You haven't answered that. You've imported reasoning from Galatians to try to establish the case but you've left the text of Gen 17. Again, I ask you, why does the fact that Ishmael is not the "firstborn" excluded him from the Covenant when Ruben, Simeon, and Levi are not given the same circumstances?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Ronnie said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the covenant you baptize your children into give you hope that your children "will be saved in the end"?
> 
> 
> 
> I have greater hope for my children as members of the covenant, than none covenant members, because God is a covenant God and He offer promises, blessings, and gifts to covenant members that does outside of the covenant does not have or get. This is why Paul asks and answers in Romans 3:1:
> 
> “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way!"​
> Of course when Paul speaks of the Jew and circumcision he is speaking of those in covenant with God. So is there any benefit of being in covenant with God? Paul answers emphatically, “Much in every way!”. Credos seem to answer it doesn’t make much of a difference, which demonstrates their understanding of God working within the covenant is flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe there is a material difference in how God deals with a child born into a credo home compared to a paedo-home?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No not really, because of this point. Your children are still members of the covenant by birth even if credos sinfully refused to give them the sign of the covenant. You may regard them as a typical pagan, but God sees them as holy by birth and beckons you to bring them to him for blessing because of such is the kingdom of heaven. But yes, if the parents are not believers then God normally deals with children of the covenant different than the pagan.
> 
> 
> Yes, but your hope for your children is no different than the hope you should have for proclaiming the Gospel to Bin Laden. I’m saying I have a much greater hope and confidence for those of the covenant than those without. So even though our actions are the same with approach it from different perspectives.
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike our Arminian leaning brethren, we are not seeking a sinners prayer or a raised hand at gospel meeting. The evidence of faith is a changed life with changed affections. We have no guarantee our children will ever exhibit faith, although we trust in the saving power of the gospel. Instead of looking at baptism as a sign of that promise, we look at the gospel itself as the sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but like I said previously, this can be said in reference to anyone that we proclaim the Gospel to, that is we trust in the saving power of the Gospel. Furthermore, you should look at baptism as sign of the promise, because it is exactly that!! It is a sign of the promise of God’s saving grace. The Gospel is not a sign, because a sign is something you can see.
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not a guaranteed sign to all children born to believing families. Both paedo and credo families have children that never pass from death to life. That is why I have a difficult time with the presumption of salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I agree there is no guarantee, nor am I presuming salvation in my children at any point until they profess and confess their faith in Christ. However, I have a hope and confidence based on God’s covenantal promises. He will be a God to me and my children and their being born to a believing parent makes them clean/holy, whereas does that are not born to believing parents are NOT clean/holy.
Click to expand...


1. You are presuming your view upon this text. You can't prove that the NC is the same as the OC (circumcision=baptism) by assuming it and then applying the text from that assumption. The NC is amazingly beneficial to those in it because only God's elect can enter it by regeneration (proven by God's description of the NC in Jeremiah 31). We credos claim that all in the NC are saved so don't try to say we don't consider the NC beneficial.

2. Calling credos "sinful" for being credo is crossing the line. That is *very* offensive and not helpful for this debate. That is one of the more arrogant and ungodly things I've seen on the PB and it's not appreciated. I would never say that about paedo-baptism and neither would any of the guys in this debate.

3. God's election precedes the foundation of the earth. Baptism at infancy does not change God's mind about who He will save. To baptize infants or not to baptize them is an issue of obedience to what we believe His word is saying, not determinative of salvation. If it were, He is not sovereign.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will just let the scripture speak here with little comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> (Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
> 
> (Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
> 
> (Gal 4:30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Scriptures do speak clearly here and they refute what you assert. The application you make is precisely the opposite of what Paul is making throughout Galatians: that the Judaizers _miss_ the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is precisely the error that the blessing is somehow merely seminal or on the basis of the flesh that he is refuting and, further, why an Israelite who was a contemporary of Paul could be compared to someone outside his actual ancestry. Sadly, I fear people are wont to mine Galatians to buttress a theological point that they miss the real force and intent of Paul's extended argument.
> 
> 
> The Book of Hebrews completely repudiates this line of thinking.
Click to expand...


What am I asserting that you think is refuted? I am not necessarily disagreeing with your first paragraph about what Paul is saying concerning the law and grace. 

Again... what in the book of Hebrews is repudiating and what is it repudiating? 


Semper Fidelis said:


> And according to the following passage it looks like God refuses to establish his covenant with Ishmael. He only blesses him in posterity. Not covenantally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your reasoning it does. Again, why does the fact that the right of the firstborn passing to Isaac excludes Ishmael from the Covenant? You haven't answered that. You've imported reasoning from Galatians to try to establish the case but you've left the text of Gen 17. Again, I ask you, why does the fact that Ishmael is not the "firstborn" excluded him from the Covenant when Ruben, Simeon, and Levi are not given the same circumstances?
Click to expand...


I am letting scripture interpret scripture when I brought in Galatians 4 since it speaks specifically to the issue. I am not importing reasoning. I am just letting the text bare out as Galatians does concerning Abraham's seed, who is Christ. 

I am not quite sure I am understanding your comment, "Ishmael is not the firstborn," nor your question in connecting Ishmael's covenant of Grace exclusion with Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. I do believe that Ishmael had a part in the Abrahamic covenant. Not in the part that included the Covenant of Grace or Abraham's Seed, which is Christ.


----------



## Herald

*MODERATOR MODE ENGAGED*

Let me touch on the "sinful" comment for a moment. A year or two back the charge of being in sin regarding baptismal stand was injected into a thread. The thread spiraled into charge and counter-charge and lost any redeeming value. In a broad sense doctrinal error is sin. We would certainly consider the non-trinitarian position to be sinful. But not all doctrinal errors are equal. Some have greater weight in the Christian faith than others. Baptism is as much a doctrine as it is an issue of identification. Both groups point to baptism as a sign, and identify with that sign. Baptism debates are prone to transcend discussion on doctrine and stray into the personal. Once the charge of "sin" is directed at either view the discussion rapidly deteriorates. For that reason it is prudent to avoid charging each other with sin, or labeling our position as sinful. It only serves to polarize the discussion and lead to hard feelings. 

*MODERATOR MODE DISENGAGED*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not quite sure I am understanding your comment, "Ishmael is not the firstborn," nor your question in connecting Ishmael's covenant of Grace exclusion with Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. I do believe that Ishmael had a part in the Abrahamic covenant. Not in the part that included the Covenant of Grace or Abraham's Seed, which is Christ.



I'm asking you to apply the same logic that Ishmael is not the line through which the Promise will come and, thus, is outside the CoG. Neither were Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. Thus, by your reasoning, the three of their tribes (and every other tribe except Judah) were outside the Covenant of Grace. Also, by your reasoning, any family in Judah who is not in the line of David was excluded from the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Herald

> I have greater hope for my children as members of the covenant, than none covenant members, because God is a covenant God and He offer promises, blessings, and gifts to covenant members that does outside of the covenant does not have or get.



Ronnie, with all due respect I don't believe children are in the New Covenant apart from faith. We'll gladly disagree on that point, but that's a material difference between paedo theology and credo theology. The blessings of the New Covenant are for New Covenant members, but entrance into the New Covenant is by faith alone.



> Yes, but your hope for your children is no different than the hope you should have for proclaiming the Gospel to Bin Laden. I’m saying I have a much greater hope and confidence for those of the covenant than those without.



I would agree that the gospel is powerful enough to save all who believe (Romans 1:16), including Osama Bin Laden. But I wasn't tasked by God to nurture and raise Bin Laden. My wife and I were blessed with a baby girl nearly eighteen years ago. Our job was to care for her, and expose her to the gospel through parental instruction and exposure to the church. Since you and I both agree that heredity doesn't guarantee salvation; then we are both looking for the evidence of faith in our children. The Baptist's hope is still in the promise of the New Covenant,_ to all who believe_. 



> Furthermore, you should look at baptism as sign of the promise, because it is exactly that!!



I was speaking of the natural man. Baptism is a sign of the promise once a person has come to faith. Prior to that baptism is irrelevant and meaningless. I can now look back at my baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. I could not do that prior to being saved. 



> The Gospel is not a sign, because a sign is something you can see.



The gospel certainly is a sign (John 3:14,15). That we are prohibited by time from having witnessed the sacrifice of our Lord or His resurrection does not lessen the impact and significance of those events. 



> I agree there is no guarantee, nor am I presuming salvation in my children at any point until they profess and confess their faith in Christ. However, I have a hope and confidence based on God’s covenantal promises. He will be a God to me and my children and their being born to a believing parent makes them clean/holy, whereas does that are not born to believing parents are NOT clean/holy.



This seems contradictory. You concur that there is no presumption of salvation unless a person professes faith in Christ. But then you proceed to call our children "clean/holy." If they are "clean/holy" then they are saved. 

*1 Corinthians 1:2 * 2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, (emphasis mine)

saints = hagios Same word for holy. 

I have yet to see in the NT how one who is "holy/clean" (positionally, or covenantally) can become unholy and unclean. If your children are clean, then they are saved. btw I word it this way because I believe the administration of the covenants has changed. If you were under the Old Covenant it would be proper for you to make the statement you did.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not quite sure I am understanding your comment, "Ishmael is not the firstborn," nor your question in connecting Ishmael's covenant of Grace exclusion with Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. I do believe that Ishmael had a part in the Abrahamic covenant. Not in the part that included the Covenant of Grace or Abraham's Seed, which is Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking you to apply the same logic that Ishmael is not the line through which the Promise will come and, thus, is outside the CoG. Neither were Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. Thus, by your reasoning, the three of their tribes (and every other tribe except Judah) were outside the Covenant of Grace. Also, by your reasoning, any family in Judah who is not in the line of David was excluded from the Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...


I think you are misrepresenting my position and or not understanding me. 

This has nothing to do with being firstborn. It has everything to do with living in God's favor and grace as opposed to being excluded from the Covenant of Grace. 

"Oh that Ishmael might live before thee."

How would you interpret that? What is Abraham's request? I believe, as do other commentators, that this is a request for more than a blessed lineage and posterity. It is in fact one request for a communion of grace between a creator and a creature.

I think Romans 9 explains more of where I am going concerning Covenant inclusion and exclusion.... Ishmael is mentioned in context here and your question concerning firstborn and succeeding generations should be answered by it also.



> (Rom 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
> 
> (Rom 9:7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
> 
> (Rom 9:8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
> 
> (Rom 9:9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
> 
> (Rom 9:10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
> 
> (Rom 9:11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
> 
> (Rom 9:12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
> 
> (Rom 9:13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
> 
> (Rom 9:14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
> 
> (Rom 9:15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
> 
> (Rom 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not quite sure I am understanding your comment, "Ishmael is not the firstborn," nor your question in connecting Ishmael's covenant of Grace exclusion with Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. I do believe that Ishmael had a part in the Abrahamic covenant. Not in the part that included the Covenant of Grace or Abraham's Seed, which is Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm asking you to apply the same logic that Ishmael is not the line through which the Promise will come and, thus, is outside the CoG. Neither were Ruben, Simeon, and Levi. Thus, by your reasoning, the three of their tribes (and every other tribe except Judah) were outside the Covenant of Grace. Also, by your reasoning, any family in Judah who is not in the line of David was excluded from the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are misrepresenting my position and or not understanding me.
> 
> This has nothing to do with being firstborn. It has everything to do with living in God's favor and grace as opposed to being excluded from the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> "Oh that Ishmael might live before thee."
> 
> How would you interpret that? What is Abraham's request?
> 
> I think Romans 9 explains more of where I am going concerning Covenant inclusion and exclusion.... Ishmael is mentioned in context here and your question concerning firstborn and succeeding generations should be answered by it also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
> 
> (Rom 9:7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
> 
> (Rom 9:8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
> 
> (Rom 9:9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
> 
> (Rom 9:10) And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
> 
> (Rom 9:11) (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
> 
> (Rom 9:12) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
> 
> (Rom 9:13) As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
> 
> (Rom 9:14) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
> 
> (Rom 9:15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
> 
> (Rom 9:16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm understanding you fine, Randy. You stated that Genesis 17 clearly demonstrates that Ishmael is outside of the CoG due to the language used. What you seem to be missing is what I'm pointing out. There are plenty of times in the Scripture where God passes over the firstborn and blesses another through which the Seed will come. This does not establish the case that the person passed over for that blessing is outside of the CoG. If it did then, as I pointed out, no Jew outside of David's line would be in the CoG.

You need to stick with your original assertions and back them up before trying to move on to other points. Nobody is arguing about the nature of election here. What I am disputing is your original assertion that Gen 17 demonstrates that God had revealed to Abraham that Ishmael was outside the CoG simply by noting that the blessing of the firstborn was going to pass by him and go to Isaac. I don't know why the language of "firstborn" is confusing you. It's all over the Scriptures and even Christ is called this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry Rich... I went back and added this after I posted....



> How would you interpret that? What is Abraham's request? I believe, as do other commentators, that this is a request for more than a blessed lineage and posterity. It is in fact one request for a communion of grace between a creator and a creature.



I believe because of Abraham's request that much more is at stake here. It is more than lineage. It is also about mercy as Romans 9 indicates.


----------



## Ronnie

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the covenant you baptize your children into give you hope that your children "will be saved in the end"?
> 
> 
> 
> I have greater hope for my children as members of the covenant, than none covenant members, because God is a covenant God and He offer promises, blessings, and gifts to covenant members that does outside of the covenant does not have or get. This is why Paul asks and answers in Romans 3:1:
> 
> “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way!"​
> Of course when Paul speaks of the Jew and circumcision he is speaking of those in covenant with God. So is there any benefit of being in covenant with God? Paul answers emphatically, “Much in every way!”. Credos seem to answer it doesn’t make much of a difference, which demonstrates their understanding of God working within the covenant is flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again lets examine the rest of the story.... Why is it beneficial... Because of what? Is it that they will be regenerate or more likely to be regerate? I am sorry but the text doesn't bare that out.
Click to expand...

Of course it means because of the benefits they are more likely to be regenerate because God normally works with and amongst his covenant people. Here is the proof. How many non-Old Covenant people were saved vs the Covenant people? But now to the New Covenant. How many children of believers are saved vs children of non-believers? This should be obvious to all. Now if we as Reformed people know that it is not based on our arguments or teaching or nurturing that causes election but based on God's sovereign will then it must follow that it is God's will to redeem those within covenant families moreso than those outside.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sorry Rich... I went back and added this after I posted....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you interpret that? What is Abraham's request? I believe, as do other commentators, that this is a request for more than a blessed lineage and posterity. It is in fact one request for a communion of grace between a creator and a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe because of Abraham's request that much more is at stake here. It is more than lineage. It is also about mercy as Romans 9 indicates.
Click to expand...



I never said it's merely about seminal lineage. I believe the Promise is a spiritual one that bears out in time and history with a flesh and blood family and that the inheritance that the children of Abraham receive is far more than physical. It is your position, and not mine, that there are two Covenants with Abraham - a physical and a spiritual. I believe the two aspects can be distinguished but it is un-Scriptural to separate them into two dispensations.


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> *MODERATOR MODE ENGAGED*
> 
> Let me touch on the "sinful" comment for a moment. A year or two back the charge of being in sin regarding baptismal stand was injected into a thread. The thread spiraled into charge and counter-charge and lost any redeeming value. In a broad sense doctrinal error is sin. We would certainly consider the non-trinitarian position to be sinful. But not all doctrinal errors are equal. Some have greater weight in the Christian faith than others. Baptism is as much a doctrine as it is an issue of identification. Both groups point to baptism as a sign, and identify with that sign. Baptism debates are prone to transcend discussion on doctrine and stray into the personal. Once the charge of "sin" is directed at either view the discussion rapidly deteriorates. For that reason it is prudent to avoid charging each other with sin, or labeling our position as sinful. It only serves to polarize the discussion and lead to hard feelings.
> 
> *MODERATOR MODE DISENGAGED*



Moderator,

Thanks for the warning. To my Baptist brothers I didn't mean anything negative about the comment except that if I'm right than it would be sinful to not baptize your children. Likewise if I'm wrong then it is sinful for me to baptize my children. That is all, no disrespect or slight intended to any of you.

Ronnie


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Rich... I went back and added this after I posted....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you interpret that? What is Abraham's request? I believe, as do other commentators, that this is a request for more than a blessed lineage and posterity. It is in fact one request for a communion of grace between a creator and a creature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe because of Abraham's request that much more is at stake here. It is more than lineage. It is also about mercy as Romans 9 indicates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it's merely about seminal lineage. I believe the Promise is a spiritual one that bears out in time and history with a flesh and blood family and that the inheritance that the children of Abraham receive is far more than physical. It is your position, and not mine, that there are two Covenants with Abraham - a physical and a spiritual. I believe the two aspects can be distinguished but it is un-Scriptural to separate them into two dispensations.
Click to expand...



Ok. I don't believe it is unscriptural as per the text in Galatians 4 that I sighted earlier that the CofW and the CofG are both administered by the Abrahamic or Mosaic. Call it dispensational if you want. There is a cutting off in both of them and there is a surety promise in both. Paul says these are two covenants. And both are found proceeding from Abraham. 



> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: *for these are the two covenants*; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> (Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.



In the time of law..... the Covenant of grace was differently administered. The two do not mix do they? Do the CofW and CofG mix? Are they administered side by side in the time of law? I believe the scriptures bare this out. Not every Presbyterian would agree if I am not mistaken. They don't even agree with each other whether the Mosaic is a republication of the Covenant of Works. I do believe the Mosaic is a republication and proclamation of the Covenant of Works along side of the proclamation of the Covenant of Grace. 

I see it also in Abraham. 

Be Encouraged brother. It has been a while since we did this.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Ronnie said:


> Of course it means because of the benefits they are more likely to be regenerate because God normally works with and amongst his covenant people. Here is the proof. How many non-Old Covenant people were saved vs the Covenant people? But now to the New Covenant. How many children of believers are saved vs children of non-believers? This should be obvious to all. Now if we as Reformed people know that it is not based on our arguments or teaching or nurturing that causes election but based on God's sovereign will then it must follow that it is God's will to redeem those within covenant families moreso than those outside.


This does not mean that believing they (children of believers) are included in the NC appropriates this. It is God's sovereign decree according to His good pleasure. If you say its based on who our parents are then the election is not unconditional but based on parentage. Besides, we are speculating here(even if it is a good guess). We don't know the total historical numbers on how many believer's kids are elect verses other people. Lets keep this on scriptural proof.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ManleyBeasley said:


> There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.



Hi:

This is the crux of the matter as it is understood by Baptists is it not? There is a 1 to 1 equivalance between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace in the minds of our Credo Baptist Brethern. They do not see the New Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but as the Covenant of Grace itself. Thus, they only baptize people who make a credible profession of faith because only those who truly believe are members of the Covenant of Grace.

They admit that New Covenant Baptism does not save, and, that not all those who are Baptized are members of the Covenant of Grace. Does this then not argue that not all those who receive New Covenant Baptism are not of the elect, and, are able to break their New Covenant Baptismal vows? The prime example of such would be Simon the Sorceror.

Their answer is that such people were never in the Covenant of Grace. This is not a sufficient Biblical answer, because there were people in the Old Covenant who were not members of the Covenant of Grace either: Both Jacob and Esau were circumcised, and members of the Old Covenant, yet, Jacob only was in the Covenant of Grace, and Esau was not.

In this regard both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant illustrate their natures as administrations of the Covenant of Grace, and are not, in and of themselves, the Covenant of Grace. It is the Credo Baptist inability to mark a distinction between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace that leads them into the error of anti-paedo baptism. But even their argument here are based on their philosophy and emotions rather than sound Biblical exegesis:

1) Infants are incapable of saving faith. By whose calculation? Where is your Scripture that says "Infants are incapable of saving faith"? If the Second Person of the Trinity can become an infant, then how can an infant be incapable of saving faith? If Jeremiah can be called from the womb, then how is he incapable of saving faith? If John the Baptist can leap in the womb of Elisabeth at the hearing of the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus), then how is he incapable of saving faith? The Command was to circumcise at 8 days old.

2) An age of accountability? This is another artifical example that Credo-Baptists use in order to deny infant baptism. Where does the Bible set an "age of accountability" for human beings?

I could almost argue that the Credo Baptist view is creating a Covenant of Works within the Covenant of Grace - that one has to "exercise faith" before being admitted into the New Covenant. This is contrary to the nature of Grace being unmerited favor. I emphasize here the "almost" in the above statement. As an adult one must exercise faith in order to be Baptized, but we are not talking about adults, but the children of Believers. The Scriptures clearly mark a distinction between the two.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> I have greater hope for my children as members of the covenant, than none covenant members, because God is a covenant God and He offer promises, blessings, and gifts to covenant members that does outside of the covenant does not have or get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie, with all due respect I don't believe children are in the New Covenant apart from faith. We'll gladly disagree on that point, but that's a material difference between paedo theology and credo theology. The blessings of the New Covenant are for New Covenant members, but entrance into the New Covenant is by faith alone.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree the blessings of the New Covenant are for New Covenant members, but as you said we disagree on who is in the New Covenant and the nature of it, but that isn’t the issue under discussion. 


Herald said:


> Yes, but your hope for your children is no different than the hope you should have for proclaiming the Gospel to Bin Laden. I’m saying I have a much greater hope and confidence for those of the covenant than those without.





Herald said:


> I would agree that the gospel is powerful enough to save all who believe (Romans 1:16), including Osama Bin Laden. But I wasn't tasked by God to nurture and raise Bin Laden. My wife and I were blessed with a baby girl nearly eighteen years ago. Our job was to care for her, and expose her to the gospel through parental instruction and exposure to the church. Since you and I both agree that heredity doesn't guarantee salvation; then we are both looking for the evidence of faith in our children. The Baptist's hope is still in the promise of the New Covenant,_ to all who believe_.


Yeah, “to all who believe” can be had for Bin Laden and every other pagan regardless if you are given the responsibility of nurturing and raising them.


Herald said:


> I was speaking of the natural man. Baptism is a sign of the promise once a person has come to faith. Prior to that baptism is irrelevant and meaningless. I can now look back at my baptism as a sign of the New Covenant. I could not do that prior to being saved.


That is not an accurate description of what a sacrament is. Baptism is sign of the promise regardless if you come to faith. Didn’t Paul say as much in Romans 4:11 about circumcision? Now saying it is a sign of the promise doesn’t mean it is the receiving of the promise. The sign points to the reality. Were the Old Covenant signs of circumcision and the Passover not signs to the unregenerate members?


Herald said:


> The Gospel is not a sign, because a sign is something you can see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel certainly is a sign (John 3:14,15). That we are prohibited by time from having witnessed the sacrifice of our Lord or His resurrection does not lessen the impact and significance of those events.
Click to expand...

Huh? How does this prove the Gospel is a sign? The Gospel is news. It is proclaimed. It is preached. A sign is what you see. As Augustine said and the Reformers followed, the sacraments are the Gospel in visible form. 


Herald said:


> I agree there is no guarantee, nor am I presuming salvation in my children at any point until they profess and confess their faith in Christ. However, I have a hope and confidence based on God’s covenantal promises. He will be a God to me and my children and their being born to a believing parent makes them clean/holy, whereas does that are not born to believing parents are NOT clean/holy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems contradictory. You concur that there is no presumption of salvation unless a person professes faith in Christ. But then you proceed to call our children "clean/holy." If they are "clean/holy" then they are saved.
> *1 Corinthians 1:2 * 2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, (emphasis mine)
> 
> saints = hagios Same word for holy.
> 
> I have yet to see in the NT how one who is "holy/clean" (positionally, or covenantally) can become unholy and unclean. If your children are clean, then they are saved. btw I word it this way because I believe the administration of the covenants has changed. If you were under the Old Covenant it would be proper for you to make the statement you did.
Click to expand...


Contradictory? I was alluding to explicit teaching of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 7:14-15:

13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; *otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy*.​
Therefore, contrary to your claims the children of believers are *clean/holy*, which doesn’t jive with credo concept that there is no distinction between children of believers and pagans.


----------



## Theognome

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit trumps all. Whether Credo or Paedo, neither baptism is an absolute guarantee of salvation- look to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-23) for demonstration of insuficient fruit.

Baptism is still an outward proclamation of something that no man has the ability to see (1 Samuel 16:7). If I, as a paedo, baptize my infant child, it is by no means a guarantee but rather a promise made _to_ God. Likewise, if I wait and baptize after a profession, it is still a promise made by man, not a guarantee from God. 

Personally, I feel the challenge of this argument (regardless of the position held) is placing too much responsibility upon man and not upon God. Our Lord can save anyone He chooses regardless of baptism.

Theognome


----------



## Herald

I was just about to type my graceful exit from this thread when Bill's post came along. Well said. Ronnie and I have been having a good discussion, but it's hit the eventual circular stage (we're beginning to repeat things). There are children baptized who grow up to be great sinners, and there are professed believers who are baptized that continue to be great sinners. All we can do is observe behavior as either supporting or contradicting their profession. I know that's an over simplification, but it makes a point.

Have fun everybody with the rest of the discussion. Play nice.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Theognome said:


> The Baptism of the Holy Spirit trumps all. Whether Credo or Paedo, neither baptism is an absolute guarantee of salvation- look to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-23) for demonstration of insuficient fruit.
> 
> Baptism is still an outward proclamation of something that no man has the ability to see (1 Samuel 16:7). If I, as a paedo, baptize my infant child, it is by no means a guarantee but rather a promise made _to_ God. Likewise, if I wait and baptize after a profession, it is still a promise made by man, not a guarantee from God.
> 
> Personally, I feel the challenge of this argument (regardless of the position held) is placing too much responsibility upon man and not upon God. Our Lord can save anyone He chooses regardless of baptism.
> 
> Theognome



Thank you. I absolutely agree with that.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 01:39:12 EST-----



CalvinandHodges said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> This is the crux of the matter as it is understood by Baptists is it not? There is a 1 to 1 equivalance between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace in the minds of our Credo Baptist Brethern. They do not see the New Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but as the Covenant of Grace itself. Thus, they only baptize people who make a credible profession of faith because only those who truly believe are members of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> They admit that New Covenant Baptism does not save, and, that not all those who are Baptized are members of the Covenant of Grace. Does this then not argue that not all those who receive New Covenant Baptism are not of the elect, and, are able to break their New Covenant Baptismal vows? The prime example of such would be Simon the Sorceror.
> 
> Their answer is that such people were never in the Covenant of Grace. This is not a sufficient Biblical answer, because there were people in the Old Covenant who were not members of the Covenant of Grace either: Both Jacob and Esau were circumcised, and members of the Old Covenant, yet, Jacob only was in the Covenant of Grace, and Esau was not.
> 
> In this regard both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant illustrate their natures as administrations of the Covenant of Grace, and are not, in and of themselves, the Covenant of Grace. It is the Credo Baptist inability to mark a distinction between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace that leads them into the error of anti-paedo baptism. But even their argument here are based on their philosophy and emotions rather than sound Biblical exegesis:
> 
> 1) Infants are incapable of saving faith. By whose calculation? Where is your Scripture that says "Infants are incapable of saving faith"? If the Second Person of the Trinity can become an infant, then how can an infant be incapable of saving faith? If Jeremiah can be called from the womb, then how is he incapable of saving faith? If John the Baptist can leap in the womb of Elisabeth at the hearing of the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus), then how is he incapable of saving faith? The Command was to circumcise at 8 days old.
> 
> 2) An age of accountability? This is another artifical example that Credo-Baptists use in order to deny infant baptism. Where does the Bible set an "age of accountability" for human beings?
> 
> I could almost argue that the Credo Baptist view is creating a Covenant of Works within the Covenant of Grace - that one has to "exercise faith" before being admitted into the New Covenant. This is contrary to the nature of Grace being unmerited favor. I emphasize here the "almost" in the above statement. As an adult one must exercise faith in order to be Baptized, but we are not talking about adults, but the children of Believers. The Scriptures clearly mark a distinction between the two.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


There may be a little confusion on your part on how we credos view this. We believe that the NC is entered by regeneration, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of what is being professed. You seem to think we believe baptism is the entering into the NC and so point out that not all we baptize are elect. Since we believe regeneration is the entry then that solves the problem. We believe that the NC is superior to the OC in that it *is* perfectly congruent with the covenant of grace in that it is only partaken of by those who receive saving grace. The OC is not perfectly congruent proven by the fact that not all in the OC received saving grace. This is not an emotional argument but one based off scripture. Jeremiah 31 says that the the NC is not like the OC because the OC was broken. The mark of the NC in that passage (also quoted in Hebrews) is that the law would be written on their hearts, they will *all* know God, and their sins will be forgiven. This is the difference between the 2 covenants. If not everyone in the NC receives what is mentioned in Jeremiah 31 then why is it mentioned as distinguishing it? Some in the OC received those blessings so for only some to receive it in the NC is no change at all. The difference from what I believe the text is saying is the word "all". All in the NC are regenerate. In other words, the NC is entered by regeneration. If it is by baptism then you have to believe that all baptized infants are saved (which is akin to popery and not your view).

1. Who here made the claim that infants are incapable of saving faith? Many baptists believe that God can save infants (I do). What no one (including paedos) believes is that infants can make a profession of their faith. We baptize those who can make profession. 

2. Not all credos believe this. I don't believe in an age of accountability.

I'm not sure what you mean by that last point. Are you saying faith is a work? We believe the NC is entered by regeneration which produces faith and repentance. The grace of God is not works but the opposite of fleshly works.


----------



## discipulo

I have 2 questions that in my opinion are very relevant to the paedo credo baptism debate

Because the Children of Christians are also inside the Covenant, are then partakers of Covenant Promises and Blessings.

This applies even to a single Christian parent and his her household


_For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband:

else were your children unclean; *but now are they holy* _ (I Corinthians 7:14) emphasis mine



Otherwise, in your view, *how is your interpretation of this passage?*



And the 2nd question is related to what I wrote before


If believers were not supposed to have their children baptized, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or 

Commandment preventing infants to be baptized along with their believing parents ?


Actually the narratives of baptisms in Acts sustain a household - including paedo - baptism, as does the mention of Paul:

_And I baptized also the household of Stephanas _1 Corinthians 1:16

and all other passages on baptism and the household



And what to make of the historical archaeological evidences of infant baptism 

being the common practice in the early church?


In my humble opinion these 2 books are seminal for that understanding.


*Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries by Joachim Jeremias


The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study by Joachim Jeremias*



Would appreciate your reply!


.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ManleyBeasley said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Baptism of the Holy Spirit trumps all. Whether Credo or Paedo, neither baptism is an absolute guarantee of salvation- look to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-23) for demonstration of insuficient fruit.
> 
> Baptism is still an outward proclamation of something that no man has the ability to see (1 Samuel 16:7). If I, as a paedo, baptize my infant child, it is by no means a guarantee but rather a promise made _to_ God. Likewise, if I wait and baptize after a profession, it is still a promise made by man, not a guarantee from God.
> 
> Personally, I feel the challenge of this argument (regardless of the position held) is placing too much responsibility upon man and not upon God. Our Lord can save anyone He chooses regardless of baptism.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I absolutely agree with that.
> 
> -----Added 12/26/2008 at 01:39:12 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> This is the crux of the matter as it is understood by Baptists is it not? There is a 1 to 1 equivalance between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace in the minds of our Credo Baptist Brethern. They do not see the New Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but as the Covenant of Grace itself. Thus, they only baptize people who make a credible profession of faith because only those who truly believe are members of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> They admit that New Covenant Baptism does not save, and, that not all those who are Baptized are members of the Covenant of Grace. Does this then not argue that not all those who receive New Covenant Baptism are not of the elect, and, are able to break their New Covenant Baptismal vows? The prime example of such would be Simon the Sorceror.
> 
> Their answer is that such people were never in the Covenant of Grace. This is not a sufficient Biblical answer, because there were people in the Old Covenant who were not members of the Covenant of Grace either: Both Jacob and Esau were circumcised, and members of the Old Covenant, yet, Jacob only was in the Covenant of Grace, and Esau was not.
> 
> In this regard both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant illustrate their natures as administrations of the Covenant of Grace, and are not, in and of themselves, the Covenant of Grace. It is the Credo Baptist inability to mark a distinction between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace that leads them into the error of anti-paedo baptism. But even their argument here are based on their philosophy and emotions rather than sound Biblical exegesis:
> 
> 1) Infants are incapable of saving faith. By whose calculation? Where is your Scripture that says "Infants are incapable of saving faith"? If the Second Person of the Trinity can become an infant, then how can an infant be incapable of saving faith? If Jeremiah can be called from the womb, then how is he incapable of saving faith? If John the Baptist can leap in the womb of Elisabeth at the hearing of the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus), then how is he incapable of saving faith? The Command was to circumcise at 8 days old.
> 
> 2) An age of accountability? This is another artifical example that Credo-Baptists use in order to deny infant baptism. Where does the Bible set an "age of accountability" for human beings?
> 
> I could almost argue that the Credo Baptist view is creating a Covenant of Works within the Covenant of Grace - that one has to "exercise faith" before being admitted into the New Covenant. This is contrary to the nature of Grace being unmerited favor. I emphasize here the "almost" in the above statement. As an adult one must exercise faith in order to be Baptized, but we are not talking about adults, but the children of Believers. The Scriptures clearly mark a distinction between the two.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There may be a little confusion on your part on how we credos view this. We believe that the NC is entered by regeneration, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of what is being professed. You seem to think we believe baptism is the entering into the NC and so point out that not all we baptize are elect. Since we believe regeneration is the entry then that solves the problem. We believe that the NC is superior to the OC in that it *is* perfectly congruent with the covenant of grace in that it is only partaken of by those who receive saving grace. The OC is not perfectly congruent proven by the fact that not all in the OC received saving grace. This is not an emotional argument but one based off scripture. Jeremiah 31 says that the the NC is not like the OC because the OC was broken. The mark of the NC in that passage (also quoted in Hebrews) is that the law would be written on their hearts, they will *all* know God, and their sins will be forgiven. This is the difference between the 2 covenants. If not everyone in the NC receives what is mentioned in Jeremiah 31 then why is it mentioned as distinguishing it? Some in the OC received those blessings so for only some to receive it in the NC is no change at all. The difference from what I believe the text is saying is the word "all". All in the NC are regenerate. In other words, the NC is entered by regeneration. If it is by baptism then you have to believe that all baptized infants are saved (which is akin to popery and not your view).
> 
> 1. Who here made the claim that infants are incapable of saving faith? Many baptists believe that God can save infants (I do). What no one (including paedos) believes is that infants can make a profession of their faith. We baptize those who can make profession.
> 
> 2. Not all credos believe this. I don't believe in an age of accountability.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that last point. Are you saying faith is a work? We believe the NC is entered by regeneration which produces faith and repentance. The grace of God is not works but the opposite of fleshly works.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Thank you for your clarification, but I think that by trying to clarify you have, in fact, proved my point. Regeneration, first and foremost, brings one into the Covenant of Grace. That you seem to think that Regeneration brings one into the New Covenant is a confirmation that you are looking at it on a 1 to 1 basis with the Covenant of Grace. It is apparent, in your mind, that:

New Covenant = Covenant of Grace.

Once you realize that there is a distinction between the administration of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant, and the Covenant of Grace itself, then you will be able to comprehend the Paedo Baptist argument from its Biblical understanding. Until then you will continue to think that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are one and the same thing.

I do not see why you are so confused. The Credo Baptist claims that one must make a "credible profession of faith" in order for one to be Baptized. Thus, one must "do something" before one is baptized. This is the understanding of the 1689 Confession:



> Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.


The Westminster Confession says something different:



> Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.


The differnce in these views is found in the fact that the Westminster Confession marks a distinction between the administration of the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Grace itself.

As Bill has noted before we will simply be running around in circles on this matter. If you can acknowledge that there is a distinction between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace, then we can move on from these circles.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## jpechin

victorbravo said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and *credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible*. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find this statement strange. I've heard numerous sermons in Baptist churches dealing with Col. 2 as well as Romans 6. I've never known a Reformed Baptist preacher to be afraid of any portion of scripture.
> 
> BTW, and For what it's worth, Romans 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12 have very similar statements about being dead in baptism and being raised with Christ.
Click to expand...


Yep, amen. 

I wanted to add my two cents here. The circumcision spoken of in Col 2:11 is the circumcision of the heart spoken of often throughout the scriptures. The new covenant is all about being circumcised in the heart, and focusing on a covenant (and signs and seals thereof) by faith, not by lineage or parentage (Gal. 4:21-31). So, of course we are baptized (definitely in the Spirit and likely in water) when our heart is circumcised.

The focus of the NT is much more on faith in the fully revealed Christ, and the spiritual activity of the body of Christ working in unity, and much less about the physical trappings or external covenant of God's people. I am NOT saying that we exclude the governance of the church, etc, from our covenantal duties, but we are certainly directed toward a better covenant in the NT, one that is focused much more on the eternal and the 'heart' of the law. Baptism is a physical ordinance that merely points to the true baptism and rebirth that all must experience to enter the kingdom of heaven - no rebirth/regeneration, no entry to heaven. Though this concept is hinted at in the old covenant, it is now clearly spelled out. One might even say that the covenant of grace has now been circumcised, loosing the physical imperfections for what is now perfected and truly dedicated to God.

I don't dedicate my children at birth because I feel no requirement or need to. I am bound by God’s commands to immerse my children in the word of God daily, to raise them in the training and admonition of the Lord, to pass God’s word from one generation to the next, and to hope and pray for their salvation fervently. Any kind of dedication, in my opinion, is just not necessary, though I can understand why some would want to do it. Our precious children are a blessing, and their birth seems to herald some sort of ceremony - but we must all admit that they are truly outside of Christ's blood of the new covenant, and thereby outside of God's eternal kingdom until they are baptized by the Holy Spirit and regenerated by His caring influence. No assumptions can be made in this case, and the elect are obviously under God's sovereign purview.

Again, my two cents and how I see the scriptures.


----------



## Scott1

Excellent back and forth. Edifying.



> CalvinandHodges's
> Puritanboard Sophomore
> 
> 1) Infants are incapable of saving faith. By whose calculation? Where is your Scripture that says "Infants are incapable of saving faith"? *If the Second Person of the Trinity can become an infant, then how can an infant be incapable of saving faith? *If Jeremiah can be called from the womb, then how is he incapable of saving faith? If John the Baptist can leap in the womb of Elisabeth at the hearing of the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus), then how is he incapable of saving faith? The Command was to circumcise at 8 days old.



Reading this it might immediately come to mind that our Lord was different than Jeremiah and John the Baptist in that our Lord is one person with two natures. The point regarding Jeremiah and Baptist is well taken but it would seem to be a different case asking if the second member of the Trinity could "have faith."




> response to:
> ManleyBeasley's
> Puritanboard Sophomore





> I do not see why you are so confused. The Credo Baptist claims that *one must make a "credible profession of faith"* in order for one to be Baptized. Thus, one must "do something" before one is baptized. This is the understanding of the 1689 Confession:



Don't we require adults to make a credible profession of faith before we baptize them? That is, since reformed who baptize infants also baptize adults by profession of faith are we the same in that aspect?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Baptism of the Holy Spirit trumps all. Whether Credo or Paedo, neither baptism is an absolute guarantee of salvation- look to the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-23) for demonstration of insuficient fruit.
> 
> Baptism is still an outward proclamation of something that no man has the ability to see (1 Samuel 16:7). If I, as a paedo, baptize my infant child, it is by no means a guarantee but rather a promise made _to_ God. Likewise, if I wait and baptize after a profession, it is still a promise made by man, not a guarantee from God.
> 
> Personally, I feel the challenge of this argument (regardless of the position held) is placing too much responsibility upon man and not upon God. Our Lord can save anyone He chooses regardless of baptism.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I absolutely agree with that.
> 
> -----Added 12/26/2008 at 01:39:12 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> There may be a little confusion on your part on how we credos view this. We believe that the NC is entered by regeneration, not baptism. Baptism is a sign of what is being professed. You seem to think we believe baptism is the entering into the NC and so point out that not all we baptize are elect. Since we believe regeneration is the entry then that solves the problem. We believe that the NC is superior to the OC in that it *is* perfectly congruent with the covenant of grace in that it is only partaken of by those who receive saving grace. The OC is not perfectly congruent proven by the fact that not all in the OC received saving grace. This is not an emotional argument but one based off scripture. Jeremiah 31 says that the the NC is not like the OC because the OC was broken. The mark of the NC in that passage (also quoted in Hebrews) is that the law would be written on their hearts, they will *all* know God, and their sins will be forgiven. This is the difference between the 2 covenants. If not everyone in the NC receives what is mentioned in Jeremiah 31 then why is it mentioned as distinguishing it? Some in the OC received those blessings so for only some to receive it in the NC is no change at all. The difference from what I believe the text is saying is the word "all". All in the NC are regenerate. In other words, the NC is entered by regeneration. If it is by baptism then you have to believe that all baptized infants are saved (which is akin to popery and not your view).
> 
> 1. Who here made the claim that infants are incapable of saving faith? Many baptists believe that God can save infants (I do). What no one (including paedos) believes is that infants can make a profession of their faith. We baptize those who can make profession.
> 
> 2. Not all credos believe this. I don't believe in an age of accountability.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by that last point. Are you saying faith is a work? We believe the NC is entered by regeneration which produces faith and repentance. The grace of God is not works but the opposite of fleshly works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Thank you for your clarification, but I think that by trying to clarify you have, in fact, proved my point. Regeneration, first and foremost, brings one into the Covenant of Grace. That you seem to think that Regeneration brings one into the New Covenant is a confirmation that you are looking at it on a 1 to 1 basis with the Covenant of Grace. It is apparent, in your mind, that:
> 
> New Covenant = Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Once you realize that there is a distinction between the administration of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant, and the Covenant of Grace itself, then you will be able to comprehend the Paedo Baptist argument from its Biblical understanding. Until then you will continue to think that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are one and the same thing.
> 
> I do not see why you are so confused. The Credo Baptist claims that one must make a "credible profession of faith" in order for one to be Baptized. Thus, one must "do something" before one is baptized. This is the understanding of the 1689 Confession:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Westminster Confession says something different:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The differnce in these views is found in the fact that the Westminster Confession marks a distinction between the administration of the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Grace itself.
> 
> As Bill has noted before we will simply be running around in circles on this matter. If you can acknowledge that there is a distinction between the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace, then we can move on from these circles.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...

1. I actually did not prove your point because the point I made was that credos do not see baptism as the entering of the NC but regeneration. Because of that, the argument that says we baptize unbelievers is moot.

2. I don't have to make any such distinction. The COG is a theological (but accurately termed) construct. The NC is a biblical construct. I believe that Jeremiah 31 clearly places all in the NC under saving grace as I said earlier.

3. I don't disagree that one has to make a profession of faith before one is baptized but that is a moot point because of what I said before. We don't believe a person enters the NC when he or she is baptized but the moment God has regenerated them.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ManleyBeasley said:


> [
> I believe that Jeremiah 31 clearly places all in the NC under saving grace as I said earlier.



Is Baptism a part of the New Covenant?

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I believe that Jeremiah 31 clearly places all in the NC under saving grace as I said earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism a part of the New Covenant?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...

It is certainly a NC ordinance commanded by God but not what enters us into the NC. I believe regeneration is what enters us into covenant. Baptism signifies what is professed to have already taken place in new birth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is something historical from John Tombes concerning what Baptism does.



> Question 34 of Tombes Short Catechism about Baptism.
> 
> What is the chief end of Baptism?
> 
> To testifie the Repentance, Faith, Hope, Love, and Resolution of the Baptized to follow Christ, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3,4. 1 Cor. 15.29. calling upon the Name of the Lord, Acts 22.16.


----------



## Ronnie

ManleyBeasley said:


> It is certainly a NC ordinance commanded by God but not what enters us into the NC.


Just as with the Old Covenant there is an external and internal aspect of the New Covenant. The covenantal sign for entering the external aspect of the Old Covenant was circumcision and the only way one could enter the internal aspect of the Old Covenant was faith alone. Under the New Covenant we have the same thing with a different covenantal sign. Baptism is the covenantal sign for entering the New Covenant, and the only way one could enter the internal aspect of the New Covenant is by faith alone.



ManleyBeasley said:


> I believe regeneration is what enters us into covenant. Baptism signifies what is professed to have already taken place in new birth.



If only the regenerate are part of the New Covenant and these will never fall away how do you underrstand this verse which is speaking of the New Covenant:

Hebrews 10:29
How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, *who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him*, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?​


----------



## TsonMariytho

Ronnie said:


> Hebrews 10:29
> How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, *who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him*, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?​



It means Federal Vision theology is true! No, I'm just kidding... it doesn't mean that.

I have to admit that this is a tough passage for me. What does the author of Hebrews mean by "sanctified"? That is pretty strong wording. Some of the other occurrences, such as previously in the very same chapter, seem to be restricted to the elect:

Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.​
But this person seems obviously non-elect. He's presumably the same kind of person who in chapter 6 was "englightened", "tasted the heavenly gift", "shared in the Holy Spirit", "tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" --- and yet "fell away".

A Reformed paedobaptist might want to restrict the application of this passage to a person who is baptized and received into church membership, yet subsequently falls away. But I see applicability to anyone who hears the gospel of Jesus Christ, understands its free offer to him, and ultimately rejects it -- whether or not his name is ever on a church roll.

Was such a one ever included in the lineup of the "least to the greatest" in the New Covenant according to Jer. 31? I'd say "no".


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ManleyBeasley said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> I believe that Jeremiah 31 clearly places all in the NC under saving grace as I said earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism a part of the New Covenant?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is certainly a NC ordinance commanded by God but not what enters us into the NC. I believe regeneration is what enters us into covenant. Baptism signifies what is professed to have already taken place in new birth.
Click to expand...


Hi:

If baptism is an ordinance of the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is only for the regenerate, then why do you baptize the non-regenerate? I will give the prior example of Simon the Sorceror for your consideration.

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## discipulo

TsonMariytho said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 10:29
> How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, *who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him*, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?​
> 
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> What does the author of Hebrews mean by "sanctified"?
Click to expand...


Taking the risk to be "bumping" the thread - I must re-post 1 of the questions that still found no feedback - hopefully in due time.


Because the Children of Christians are also inside the Covenant, are then 

partakers of Covenant Promises and Blessings.

This applies even to a single Christian parent and his her household


_For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the 

unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children 

unclean; *but now are they holy *_ (I Corinthians 7:14) 




*Otherwise, in your view, how is your interpretation of this passage?*


.


----------



## Herald

*Hebrews 10:29 * 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 

This verse is talking about the person who is not saved. This person has taken a most holy thing (the blood of Christ) and despised it. The sanctification spoken of here is not regeneration. It is an outward claim by an impostor; a deceiver. This is the same type of person spoken about in Jude:

*Jude 1:4* 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 

Can the grace of God be turned into licentiousness? No. Grace is a most holy thing and cannot be perverted. Then what it is turned into licentiousness? The deceitful actions of those who claim to have experienced the grace of God. By their actions they deny the effectual working of grace in their life and actually glorify God in the process. How?

*Romans 3:3-4* 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written, "That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, And mightest prevail when Thou art judged." 

In the same manner the sanctification of Hebrews 10:29 is not the sanctification that accompanies and companions a Christian throughout his life, but a professed sanctification that was worthless from the beginning.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Baptism a part of the New Covenant?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> It is certainly a NC ordinance commanded by God but not what enters us into the NC. I believe regeneration is what enters us into covenant. Baptism signifies what is professed to have already taken place in new birth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> If baptism is an ordinance of the New Covenant, and the New Covenant is only for the regenerate, then why do you baptize the non-regenerate? I will give the prior example of Simon the Sorceror for your consideration.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


We baptize those who profess to partake of the NC (they claim regeneration). If they are false professors then their baptism avails nothing for them. We baptists do not claim to baptize only the elect, we claim to baptize only professors. We will not purposefully baptize anyone who does not or cannot profess. Since the ordinances of the NC do not place the person in the NC (only regeneration does) it does not help the paedo argument to point out that we baptize false professors.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 06:37:57 EST-----



discipulo said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 10:29
> How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, *who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him*, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?​
> 
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> What does the author of Hebrews mean by "sanctified"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taking the risk to be "bumping" the thread - I must re-post 1 of the questions that still found no feedback - hopefully in due time.
> 
> 
> Because the Children of Christians are also inside the Covenant, are then
> 
> partakers of Covenant Promises and Blessings.
> 
> This applies even to a single Christian parent and his her household
> 
> 
> _For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
> 
> unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
> 
> unclean; *but now are they holy *_ (I Corinthians 7:14)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Otherwise, in your view, how is your interpretation of this passage?*
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You are assuming what is being debated. We do not believe children of Christians are inside the covenant. Also, by your argumentation why aren't unbelieving spouses included in the NC and baptized? Obviously "sanctified" in this context is not referring to the inclusion in the NC. It can certainly refer to benefit be received by the spouse and children from the believer but not inclusion into the NC since the scripture shows that only the regenerate are in covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As a general comment, I would like to commend Douglas Kelly's discussion on the Sacraments in Systematic Theology II at RTS on iTunes U. It occurs in about the last 6 lectures that you can download for free.

I think the basic difference in Sacramental understanding leap out.

What most people don't seem to grasp is the Reformed understanding of the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. You can see the fingerprints of this all over the thread. The Baptist position insists that human response precedes Sacramental significance while, like the Gospel, the Reformed understanding has always been that the grace held forth in the Sacraments precede human activity.

God is sovereign in the Sacraments and we do not wait for human action to determine if they are going to be successful but, rather, the Church faithfully holds forth Christ in them and the Holy Spirit sovereignly works through them for the conversion and sanctification of souls. They are not merely retrospective but bring Christ present to the individual.

Insisting that one wait upon the Sacraments until they prove themselves worthy of them is akin to waiting to proclaim the Gospel as we understand it. While I appreciate the Baptists' appreciation for the nature of union with Christ, I do wish they understood better the means that God utilizes in real history to bring that about within the CoG. Obviously I don't expect those who disagree to simply accept this but you can at least appreciate where we're coming from.


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> *Hebrews 10:29 * 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
> 
> This verse is talking about the person who is not saved. This person has taken a most holy thing (the blood of Christ) and despised it. The sanctification spoken of here is not regeneration. It is an outward claim by an impostor; a deceiver.


Of course the person is not saved, however here is the rub for the “regenerate-only-in-the-New-Covenant-position”. This person was sanctified by the blood of the covenant! How were the sanctified? The blood of which covenant? This type of being sanctified is synonymous with children of the believers in 1 Cor. 7:14. The Reformed covenantal position easily answers this question. They were sanctified in that they were set apart as members of the New Covenant in its external administration. They trampled the blood of the New Covenant just like the Israelites who without faith spurned the blood of their covenant. This done as Hebrews 4:1-2 warns us not to do as Israel had done, which is to not combine the hearing of the Gospel with faith. 


Herald said:


> In the same manner the sanctification of Hebrews 10:29 is not the sanctification that accompanies and companions a Christian throughout his life, but a professed sanctification that was worthless from the beginning.



A "professed sanctification"? The text doesn't say the sanctification was professed, but instead "he was sanctified". Neither does it say it was worthless, but on the contrary the judgment is said to be worse for this person than the Old Covenant members because their benefits( including the sanctification) was of much greater value!!


----------



## Herald

> I don't expect those who disagree to simply accept this but you can at least appreciate where we're coming from.



Rich, appreciation is not lacking. My appreciation for the paedo position has and remains high. Our disagreement notwithstanding, many of my fellow Baptists and I have benefited greatly from the love paedos have for God's covenant. This thread has displayed charity towards one another while not lessening our theological convictions. 

The Baptist view of the sacrament is no less rooted in God's sovereignty than the paedo view. It is applied to all who profess faith in Christ. Yes, it is applied _after _faith has been professed, but we see it as consistent with the _nature _of the New Covenant, not in contradiction to it. I will not defend the majority of Baptist churches that are neither Reformed nor Calvinistic. They possess a flawed soteriology, whose importance trumps sacramentology in my opinion. But within the RB camp the issue of covenant inclusion centers on the nature of the covenant itself. _This is why these discussions reach a certain point and then turn in on themselves_. They're helpful to those unacquainted with the debate, or for those looking to sharpen their argument.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 08:09:34 EST-----



Ronnie said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hebrews 10:29 * 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
> 
> This verse is talking about the person who is not saved. This person has taken a most holy thing (the blood of Christ) and despised it. The sanctification spoken of here is not regeneration. It is an outward claim by an impostor; a deceiver.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the person is not saved, however here is the rub for the “regenerate-only-in-the-New-Covenant-position”. This person was sanctified by the blood of the covenant! How were the sanctified? The blood of which covenant? This type of being sanctified is synonymous with children of the believers in 1 Cor. 7:14. The Reformed covenantal position easily answers this question. They were sanctified in that they were set apart as members of the New Covenant in its external administration. They trampled the blood of the New Covenant just like the Israelites who without faith spurned the blood of their covenant. This done as Hebrews 4:1-2 warns us not to do as Israel had done, which is to not combine the hearing of the Gospel with faith.
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same manner the sanctification of Hebrews 10:29 is not the sanctification that accompanies and companions a Christian throughout his life, but a professed sanctification that was worthless from the beginning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "professed sanctification"? The text doesn't say the sanctification was professed, but instead "he was sanctified". Neither does it say it was worthless, but on the contrary the judgment is said to be worse for this person than the Old Covenant members because their benefits( including the sanctification) was of much greater value!!
Click to expand...


Ronnie, the sanctification spoken of here is soteriological in nature. Since a person sanctified in this manner cannot fall away, than the blood of Christ cannot be applied. Hence, it never was applied. I stand by my understanding of text as presented in the post you responded to.


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> Ronnie, the sanctification spoken of here is soteriological in nature. Since a person sanctified in this manner cannot fall away, than the blood of Christ cannot be applied. Hence, it never was applied. I stand by my understanding of text as presented in the post you responded to.



I'm not arguing that the blood of Christ was ever applied, the text says it was trampled. Your understanding goes directly against the text. Whereas the text says he was sanctified, you are saying he professed a sanctification. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. The text says it was the blood of the New Covenant. You are saying a non-believer is in no way a part of the New Covenant, so one is left wondering how they can trampled the blood of the New Covenant?


----------



## Herald

Ronnie said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie, the sanctification spoken of here is soteriological in nature. Since a person sanctified in this manner cannot fall away, than the blood of Christ cannot be applied. Hence, it never was applied. I stand by my understanding of text as presented in the post you responded to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing that the blood of Christ was ever applied, the text says it was trampled. Your understanding goes directly against the text. Whereas the text says he was sanctified, you are saying he professed a sanctification. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. The text says it was the blood of the New Covenant. You are saying a non-believer is in no way a part of the New Covenant, so one is left wondering how they can trampled the blood of the New Covenant?
Click to expand...


Ronnie,

That I disagree with you and your understanding of the text is no revelation. Let me inject Gill into the fray so that you do not think I have conjured this interpretation up from thin air.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]


> *
> and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was*
> *sanctified, an unholy thing*;
> 
> or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it, "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was* sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion*; _having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ,_ _though he was not really so_: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy:


[/FONT]

(all emphasis in Gill's writing are mine)

I don't expect you to accept Gill's exegesis since, he too was a Baptist. I'll let my comments on this passage rest with what I have already said.

-----Added 12/26/2008 at 09:42:45 EST-----

Ronnie, btw...you get the last word. We can't keep chasing tails all the time. You're up!


----------



## Ronnie

Herald said:


> Ronnie,
> 
> That I disagree with you and your understanding of the text is no revelation.


My problem is not that we disagree, but you offer an explanation that is directly at odds with the text so I'm asking you to harmonize the discrepancies. That is what you have not done. You just repeat that you are standing by your original understanding without explaining it based on the questions I asked. Gill actuaully confirms at least one of the points I've made.


Herald said:


> Let me inject Gill into the fray so that you do not think I have conjured this interpretation up from thin air.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
> 
> 
> 
> *
> and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was*
> *sanctified, an unholy thing*;
> 
> or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it, "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was* sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion*; _having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ,_ _though he was not really so_: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy:
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT]
> 
> (all emphasis in Gill's writing are mine)
> 
> I don't expect you to accept Gill's exegesis since, he too was a Baptist. I'll let my comments on this passage rest with what I have already said.
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't have much problem with Gill's interpretation. Of course I would want to know if he believes the apostate is in some way a member of the New Covenant, but I can't ask Gill questions. However, it is clear that on at least one of the points Gill is in agreement with me. Notice what he says here:


and from sanctification by it: either of the person, *the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion;having given himself up to a church*​
Do you notice what he is saying here? 1) the apostate "was sanctified"!!, not a profession of sanctification. 2) There was a profession of religion which united him to the church, and this is the sanctification that Gill is speaking of. But this is exactly what I said the sanctification was, that is being a member of the New Covenant(i.e. visible church ). Now we disagree on other aspects, but on these things I have no problem with what Gill is saying.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Manley Beasley wrote:



> We baptize those who profess to partake of the NC (they claim regeneration). If they are false professors then their baptism avails nothing for them. We baptists do not claim to baptize only the elect, we claim to baptize only professors. We will not purposefully baptize anyone who does not or cannot profess. Since the ordinances of the NC do not place the person in the NC (only regeneration does) it does not help the paedo argument to point out that we baptize false professors.


So? You claim that the New Covenant is for the Regenerate only, but will baptize a person of whom you do not know is Regenerate?

Sounds like a contradiction is forming here.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## discipulo

ManleyBeasley said:


> Because the Children of Christians are also inside the Covenant, are then
> 
> partakers of Covenant Promises and Blessings.
> 
> This applies even to a single Christian parent and his her household
> 
> 
> _For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
> 
> unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
> 
> unclean; *but now are they holy *_ (I Corinthians 7:14)
> 
> 
> *Otherwise, in your view, how is your interpretation of this passage?*
> 
> 
> You are assuming what is being debated. We do not believe children of Christians are inside the covenant. Also, by your argumentation why aren't unbelieving spouses included in the NC and baptized? Obviously "sanctified" in this context is not referring to the inclusion in the NC. It can certainly refer to benefit be received by the spouse and children from the believer but not inclusion into the NC since the scripture shows that only the regenerate are in covenant.




So what does in your opinion _sanctified_ refers to? _and children being holy _refers to ?

How do you interpret it? Would appreciate if you could also comment my other 2 questions posted.

Of course the wife / husband is an adult so a profession of faith is required to be baptized.

Indeed a commitment to raise a child in Christian Education and Church Attendance

are also part of a proper requirement to Christian Parents for the Baptism of their child .

quote

_Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction. 
Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. (…). 
Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by 
profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized.
*But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.*_

Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary of the Heidelberg Catechism

This inclination is clearly seen by Paul in Timothy and in this passage is often commented as a «kind of inheritance».

_I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that *dwelt first *in your grandmother
Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, *dwells in you as well*._ (2 Timothy 1:5)

_and that *from childhood *you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able 
to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus._ (2 Timothy 3:15)

quote !!! 

_There is no transmigration of souls, but *there is a kind of transmigration of faith*,
as if the very form and shape of faith, which was in Lois and Eunice, afterwards appeared in Timothy._

*Charles Spurgeon* on 2 Timothy 1:5 link below

Spurgeon on 2Timothy

emphasis mine


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Manley Beasley wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We baptize those who profess to partake of the NC (they claim regeneration). If they are false professors then their baptism avails nothing for them. We baptists do not claim to baptize only the elect, we claim to baptize only professors. We will not purposefully baptize anyone who does not or cannot profess. Since the ordinances of the NC do not place the person in the NC (only regeneration does) it does not help the paedo argument to point out that we baptize false professors.
> 
> 
> 
> So? You claim that the New Covenant is for the Regenerate only, but will baptize a person of whom you do not know is Regenerate?
> 
> Sounds like a contradiction is forming here.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


What you say is a contradiction is only a contradiction if I believe what you believe about baptism. I don't believe baptism is the entering of the NC. I believe it is an ordinance for those who profess to be in the NC. Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered by regeneration*. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 12:02:30 EST-----



discipulo said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Children of Christians are also inside the Covenant, are then
> 
> partakers of Covenant Promises and Blessings.
> 
> This applies even to a single Christian parent and his her household
> 
> 
> _For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
> 
> unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
> 
> unclean; *but now are they holy *_ (I Corinthians 7:14)
> 
> 
> *Otherwise, in your view, how is your interpretation of this passage?*
> 
> 
> You are assuming what is being debated. We do not believe children of Christians are inside the covenant. Also, by your argumentation why aren't unbelieving spouses included in the NC and baptized? Obviously "sanctified" in this context is not referring to the inclusion in the NC. It can certainly refer to benefit be received by the spouse and children from the believer but not inclusion into the NC since the scripture shows that only the regenerate are in covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does in your opinion _sanctified_ refers to? _and children being holy _refers to ?
> 
> How do you interpret it? Would appreciate if you could also comment my other 2 questions posted.
> 
> Of course the wife / husband is an adult so a profession of faith is required to be baptized.
> 
> Indeed a commitment to raise a child in Christian Education and Church Attendance
> 
> are also part of a proper requirement to Christian Parents for the Baptism of their child .
> 
> quote
> 
> _Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction.
> Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. (…).
> Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by
> profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized.
> *But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.*_
> 
> Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary of the Heidelberg Catechism
> 
> This inclination is clearly seen by Paul in Timothy and often mentioned as a kind of inheritance.
> 
> _I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that *dwelt first *in your grandmother
> Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, *dwells in you as well*._ (2 Timothy 1:5)
> 
> _and that *from childhood *you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able
> to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus._ (2 Timothy 3:15)
> 
> quote !!!
> 
> _There is no transmigration of souls, but *there is a kind of transmigration of faith*,
> as if the very form and shape of faith, which was in Lois and Eunice, afterwards appeared in Timothy._
> 
> *Charles Spurgeon* on 2 Timothy 1:5 link below
> 
> Spurgeon on 2Timothy
> 
> emphasis mine
Click to expand...

 I will answer your question with a question. What do you believe it means when it says the unbelieving husbands and wives are sanctified by their believing spouses? You don't baptize the unbelieving spouses and include them as NC people. Apply what you believe about the unbelieving husbands and wives to the children. They are under the teaching, influence and prayers of the believing spouse/parent though not included into the NC.

What were the other 2 questions? I'm not sure which ones you refer to.

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 12:09:09 EST-----



discipulo said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Children of Christians are also inside the Covenant, are then
> 
> partakers of Covenant Promises and Blessings.
> 
> This applies even to a single Christian parent and his her household
> 
> 
> _For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
> 
> unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
> 
> unclean; *but now are they holy *_ (I Corinthians 7:14)
> 
> 
> *Otherwise, in your view, how is your interpretation of this passage?*
> 
> 
> You are assuming what is being debated. We do not believe children of Christians are inside the covenant. Also, by your argumentation why aren't unbelieving spouses included in the NC and baptized? Obviously "sanctified" in this context is not referring to the inclusion in the NC. It can certainly refer to benefit be received by the spouse and children from the believer but not inclusion into the NC since the scripture shows that only the regenerate are in covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does in your opinion _sanctified_ refers to? _and children being holy _refers to ?
> 
> How do you interpret it? Would appreciate if you could also comment my other 2 questions posted.
> 
> Of course the wife / husband is an adult so a profession of faith is required to be baptized.
> 
> Indeed a commitment to raise a child in Christian Education and Church Attendance
> 
> are also part of a proper requirement to Christian Parents for the Baptism of their child .
> 
> quote
> 
> _Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism, with this distinction.
> Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants. (…).
> Those who do not believe, that is, who have no faith at all, neither by
> profession nor by inclination, are not to be baptized.
> *But infants born to believing parents have faith as to inclination.*_
> 
> Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary of the Heidelberg Catechism
> 
> This inclination is clearly seen by Paul in Timothy and often mentioned as a kind of inheritance.
> 
> _I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that *dwelt first *in your grandmother
> Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, *dwells in you as well*._ (2 Timothy 1:5)
> 
> _and that *from childhood *you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able
> to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus._ (2 Timothy 3:15)
> 
> quote !!!
> 
> _There is no transmigration of souls, but *there is a kind of transmigration of faith*,
> as if the very form and shape of faith, which was in Lois and Eunice, afterwards appeared in Timothy._
> 
> *Charles Spurgeon* on 2 Timothy 1:5 link below
> 
> Spurgeon on 2Timothy
> 
> emphasis mine
Click to expand...


*Grace does not run in the blood, but it often runs side by side with it. The “grandmother Lois” and the “mother Eunice “ had the true grace of saving faith dwelling in them, and Paul was persuaded that it dwelt in the son and grandson Timothy.

There is no transmigration of souls, but there is a kind of transmigration of faith, as if the very form and shape of faith, which was in Lois and Eunice, afterwards appeared in Timothy. Truly, there are certain idiosyncrasies which may pass from some Christian people to others; and when those idiosyncrasies are of a high and noble kind, it is a great mercy to see them reproduced in children and children’s children. “I thought I heard your mother speak,” said one, when she heard a Christian woman talking of the Savior, “you speak in just the way in which she used to tell out her experience, and describe the love of Christ.”*

This is the full quote by Spurgeon and I think you will have to see that Spurgeon is not meaning it the way you are. He even gives an example of how he means it. At the beginning of it he clearly says "grace does not run in the blood" disavowing any belief that God certainly *promises* to always save entire families.


----------



## discipulo

ManleyBeasley said:


> Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered by regeneration*. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.



Manley 

I do appreciate your honesty, tank you!

Many Credo Baptists I know refute Infant baptism on the basis that some / several 

children baptized never assume a profession and «never» become faithful Christians.

But it’s very honest of you to recognize that also some adult baptized people who professed faith, apostatize. 

_They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us._ (1 John 2:19)

Actually that is precisely the theme of the chapter by R. C . Sproul on

The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge

Amazon.com: The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism: Gregg Strawbridge: Books

Unfortunately the book is a mixed bag with great articles and a few to read very carefully 

I will answer the rest of your post asap, you know it’s 5 am here so...

anyway we better watch out not to quote each other ad nauseam

or we will end up crashing the PB server 


add notes:


----------



## ManleyBeasley

discipulo said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered by regeneration*. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manley
> 
> I do appreciate your honesty, tank you!
> 
> Many Credo Baptists I know refute Infant baptism on the basis that some / several
> 
> children baptized never assume a profession and «never» become faithful Christians.
> 
> But it’s very honest of you to recognize that also some adult baptized people who professed faith, apostatize.
> 
> _They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us._ (1 John 2:19)
> 
> Actually that is precisely the theme of the chapter by R. C . Sproul on
> 
> The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge
> 
> Amazon.com: The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism: Gregg Strawbridge: Books
> 
> Unfortunately the book is a mixed bag with great articles and a few to read very carefully
> 
> I will answer the rest of your post asap, you know it’s 5 am here so...
> 
> anyway we better watch out not to quote each other ad nauseam
> 
> or we will end up crashing the PB server
> 
> 
> add notes:
Click to expand...


Wow 5 am? Get some sleep brother! I do appreciate the dialog with you and the rest of my paedo-baptist brothers. I learn a ton from you guys!


----------



## discipulo

ManleyBeasley said:


> Wow 5 am? Get some sleep brother! I do appreciate the dialog with you and the rest of my paedo-baptist brothers. I learn a ton from you guys!




Manley, of course we both agree Spurgeon is far from supporting 

household baptism, or very likely you, me and we all would not

be changing posts on this thread, at least not this late...or early 

My personal belief is that Bible passage is so emphatic that Spurgeon has to 

make some acknowledgement of it. The part I highlighted.

We diverge that I truly see Covenant Theology in all these passages,

you «mainly» (not to take personally ) see Christian Godly Influence.

The other questions are on a former post, please take a look and let me know.

*Likewise ! It's been a privilege !* Looking forward to hear from you!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hello:

We are making some headway here. Manley Beasley wrote:



> What you say is a contradiction is only a contradiction if I believe what you believe about baptism. I don't believe baptism is the entering of the NC. I believe it is an ordinance for those who profess to be in the NC. Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is entered by regeneration. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.


As a paedo-baptist I am most interested in your statement thus:



> I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is entered by regeneration.


You say that the New Covenant is entered into by Regeneration, but then you say that the New Covenant is not only for the Regenerate? Do those who make a profession of faith, but do not have true faith, are they part of the New Covenant?

In other words, are you admitting that those who do not have true faith in Jesus Christ, but profess to believe, are members of the New Covenant?

You then wrote:



> If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.


So, it seems, you are taking with one hand, and taking away with the other: "I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate" - if it is not just for the regenerate, then it must also be for those who are not regenerate as well? As a paedo-baptist this statement makes Biblical sense to me:



> Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Heb. 10:29, c.f. vs. 16.


Before going further I will await your response on the above.

But, there is another curious aspect of your presentation of Credo Baptism that I would like to explore. I have heard it repeatedly said by other CB'ers that "we only Baptise those who are in the New Covenant." Their main argument derives from the 'membership of those who are in the New Covenant." However, it appears that you are drawing a distinction between the New Covenant and Baptism (a distinction, I might add, that is similar to Paedo-Baptist views on the subject).

That is, that the New Covenant is for the Regenerate only, but you baptise those who may or may not be in the New Covenant. Thus, there are those you baptise who are not in the New Covenant. Do you consider those who are not Regenerate, but make a profession of faith, and are baptised members of the New Covenant (unless sometime in the future they prove their profession of faith to be false?) I am not asking about the future - I am asking about their present profession of faith.

If so, then I would like to see your Biblical warrant for doing such a thing (I believe that such a practice is Biblical, but I would like to see where you derive the authority to do so?) Remember, you were the one to draw the distinction between New Covenant membership and Baptism.

Thanks in advance,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> As a general comment, I would like to commend Douglas Kelly's discussion on the Sacraments in Systematic Theology II at RTS on iTunes U. It occurs in about the last 6 lectures that you can download for free.
> 
> I think the basic difference in Sacramental understanding leap out.
> 
> What most people don't seem to grasp is the Reformed understanding of the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. You can see the fingerprints of this all over the thread. The Baptist position insists that human response precedes Sacramental significance while, like the Gospel, the Reformed understanding has always been that the grace held forth in the Sacraments precede human activity.
> 
> God is sovereign in the Sacraments and we do not wait for human action to determine if they are going to be successful but, rather, the Church faithfully holds forth Christ in them and the Holy Spirit sovereignly works through them for the conversion and sanctification of souls. They are not merely retrospective but bring Christ present to the individual.
> 
> Insisting that one wait upon the Sacraments until they prove themselves worthy of them is akin to waiting to proclaim the Gospel as we understand it. While I appreciate the Baptists' appreciation for the nature of union with Christ, I do wish they understood better the means that God utilizes in real history to bring that about within the CoG. Obviously I don't expect those who disagree to simply accept this but you can at least appreciate where we're coming from.



I am busy the next few days and haven't heard the afore mentioned, I will only say that you must mean sacrament. ie baptism. Most Presbyterians hold that the Lord's table is closed unless you hold to paedocommunion. 

And yes, maybe you are reading the Baptist position correctly. Because the scriptures portray a New Covenant Child as one who is born from above and not one because of ancestral heritage. Baptism signifies something. And it isn't just grace. It is being buried and risen with Christ. We are made just through faith by the grace of God. 



> (Col 2:12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him *through the faith* of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.



Through faith..... which is preceeded by a circumsicion made without hands. And that is regeneration. Regeneration preceeds faith. It does signify something.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hello:
> 
> We are making some headway here. Manley Beasley wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is a contradiction is only a contradiction if I believe what you believe about baptism. I don't believe baptism is the entering of the NC. I believe it is an ordinance for those who profess to be in the NC. Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is entered by regeneration. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> As a paedo-baptist I am most interested in your statement thus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is entered by regeneration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that the New Covenant is entered into by Regeneration, but then you say that the New Covenant is not only for the Regenerate? Do those who make a profession of faith, but do not have true faith, are they part of the New Covenant?
> 
> In other words, are you admitting that those who do not have true faith in Jesus Christ, but profess to believe, are members of the New Covenant?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I meant. What I was saying is "I don't *only* believe the the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered* by regeneration." Regeneration is what enters the person into the NC not baptism. I've said this many times so it makes no since to think I am saying that people who "do not have true faith" are part of the NC.
You then wrote:

[quote/]


> If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.


So, it seems, you are taking with one hand, and taking away with the other: "I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate" - if it is not just for the regenerate, then it must also be for those who are not regenerate as well? As a paedo-baptist this statement makes Biblical sense to me:



> Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Heb. 10:29, c.f. vs. 16.


Before going further I will await your response on the above.[/QUOTE]
No, you are basing your entire argument off of a misinterpretation of what I said. The key word in what I said was "just" which I just replaced with the synonym "only".



CalvinandHodges said:


> But, there is another curious aspect of your presentation of Credo Baptism that I would like to explore. I have heard it repeatedly said by other CB'ers that "we only Baptise those who are in the New Covenant." Their main argument derives from the 'membership of those who are in the New Covenant." However, it appears that you are drawing a distinction between the New Covenant and Baptism (a distinction, I might add, that is similar to Paedo-Baptist views on the subject).
> 
> That is, that the New Covenant is for the Regenerate only, but you baptise those who may or may not be in the New Covenant. Thus, there are those you baptise who are not in the New Covenant. Do you consider those who are not Regenerate, but make a profession of faith, and are baptised members of the New Covenant (unless sometime in the future they prove their profession of faith to be false?) I am not asking about the future - I am asking about their present profession of faith.
> 
> If so, then I would like to see your Biblical warrant for doing such a thing (I believe that such a practice is Biblical, but I would like to see where you derive the authority to do so?) Remember, you were the one to draw the distinction between New Covenant membership and Baptism.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Rob



That argument is used by baptists who are more dispensational in their views (in my opinion). I certainly believe we baptists are probably more consistent in baptizing actual elect people (just because we do wait for a profession) but I don't think that is a good argument. The issue is which view is biblical, not ratios of saved and baptized. The reason I argue from Jeremiah 31 that people enter the NC by regeneration is not to positively prove credo-baptism but to take away the argument (many Paedos have agreed) that paedo-baptism depends on; baptism is the entry into the NC in the same way that circumcision was entry into the OC.


----------



## TsonMariytho

ManleyBeasley said:


> in the same way that circumcision was entry into the OC.



But circumcision was not entry into the OC. Every descendant of Abraham, and every male member of such a one's household, was obligated to be circumcised. But it is not the case that prior to circumcision an Israelite was not under the full covenantal obligations. You could say "in a status of covenant-breaking", but not "outside the covenant".

Proof: God's covenant people, Israel, were largely uncircumcised, even as adults, as they prepared to enter the Promised Land. God commanded Joshua to circumcise the people and "roll away" the "reproach" of the former stiff-neckedness and covenant breaking they and their fathers had been guilty of. But these uncircumcised Israelites were still God's chosen nation, his covenant people, whether they liked it or not.

Similarly for an infant -- an infant was not circumcised in order to make him party to the covenant and bring him under its obligations and blessings. An infant was circumcised because he was already under the obligations -- and to avoid covenant-breaking, which was an obstacle to the covenant blessings.


----------



## discipulo

TsonMariytho said:


> Similarly for an infant -- an infant was not circumcised in order to make him party to the covenant and bring him under its obligations and blessings. An infant was circumcised because he was already under the obligations -- and to avoid covenant-breaking, which was an obstacle to the covenant blessings.




I believe it is crucial to understand there are two 2 sides of the Sacrament.

_X. The matter of a sacrament is twofold: one external and sensible, the other internal and intelligible;
the former is called the sign, the latter the thing signified._

Also for the Israelites there was the need of the internal side of the sacrament, as God's Saving Grace
was the only way to Justification and Sanctification, as clearly seen in passages like:


_So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer_. Deuteronomy 10:16

_Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart._ Jeremiah 4:4

Because the Eternal Covenant of Grace is present in the 2 administrations mentioned

the Apostle Paul can «clearly inter correlate and compare» the 2 Related Sacraments.


_XI As Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8), so He has always declared the same grace
to His church and sealed it by the sacraments. This is the reason why with respect to the internal matter 
*Paul ascribes the sacraments of the New Testament to believers under the Old (1 Cor. 10:1-3);
and in turn the sacraments of the Old to believers under the New (Col. 2:11; 1 Cor. 5:7)*._

Francis Turretin - Institutes in Elentic Theology – The Sacraments - 1st question – X , XI emphasis mine


Having seen this apostolic expression of the close mutual relation between circumcision and baptism

and also, in former posts, several apostolic mentions of baptism so closely associated with the household,

how would there be no not even a single apostolic sentence preventing infant baptism then, 

*IF* infants were not meant to be baptized after all *?*


.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ManleyBeasley said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello:
> 
> We are making some headway here. Manley Beasley wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is a contradiction is only a contradiction if I believe what you believe about baptism. I don't believe baptism is the entering of the NC. I believe it is an ordinance for those who profess to be in the NC. Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is entered by regeneration. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.
> 
> 
> 
> As a paedo-baptist I am most interested in your statement thus:
> 
> 
> You say that the New Covenant is entered into by Regeneration, but then you say that the New Covenant is not only for the Regenerate? Do those who make a profession of faith, but do not have true faith, are they part of the New Covenant?
> 
> In other words, are you admitting that those who do not have true faith in Jesus Christ, but profess to believe, are members of the New Covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's not what I meant. What I was saying is "I don't *only* believe the the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered* by regeneration." Regeneration is what enters the person into the NC not baptism. I've said this many times so it makes no since to think I am saying that people who "do not have true faith" are part of the NC.
> You then wrote:
> 
> [quote/]
> So, it seems, you are taking with one hand, and taking away with the other: "I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate" - if it is not just for the regenerate, then it must also be for those who are not regenerate as well? As a paedo-baptist this statement makes Biblical sense to me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Heb. 10:29, c.f. vs. 16.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before going further I will await your response on the above.
Click to expand...

No, you are basing your entire argument off of a misinterpretation of what I said. The key word in what I said was "just" which I just replaced with the synonym "only".



CalvinandHodges said:


> But, there is another curious aspect of your presentation of Credo Baptism that I would like to explore. I have heard it repeatedly said by other CB'ers that "we only Baptise those who are in the New Covenant." Their main argument derives from the 'membership of those who are in the New Covenant." However, it appears that you are drawing a distinction between the New Covenant and Baptism (a distinction, I might add, that is similar to Paedo-Baptist views on the subject).
> 
> That is, that the New Covenant is for the Regenerate only, but you baptise those who may or may not be in the New Covenant. Thus, there are those you baptise who are not in the New Covenant. Do you consider those who are not Regenerate, but make a profession of faith, and are baptised members of the New Covenant (unless sometime in the future they prove their profession of faith to be false?) I am not asking about the future - I am asking about their present profession of faith.
> 
> If so, then I would like to see your Biblical warrant for doing such a thing (I believe that such a practice is Biblical, but I would like to see where you derive the authority to do so?) Remember, you were the one to draw the distinction between New Covenant membership and Baptism.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Rob



That argument is used by baptists who are more dispensational in their views (in my opinion). I certainly believe we baptists are probably more consistent in baptizing actual elect people (just because we do wait for a profession) but I don't think that is a good argument. The issue is which view is biblical, not ratios of saved and baptized. The reason I argue from Jeremiah 31 that people enter the NC by regeneration is not to positively prove credo-baptism but to take away the argument (many Paedos have agreed) that paedo-baptism depends on; baptism is the entry into the NC in the same way that circumcision was entry into the OC.[/QUOTE]

Hi:

Thank you for that correction. I figured that the phraseology was a bit different than what you think which is why I waited for your response.

Now, all I need is your Biblical reasons why you would only Baptise believers?

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

Note to both Manley and Rob: some quote tag problems in your most recent posts above.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Soooooooooooo... just a few posts while I was away for Christmas eh? I'd like to go back to the beginning and respond to one or two but it would probably be very confusing for everyone else so I'll refrain. Unless anyone would like to ask me a question on what I originally wrote from this point on, that is.


----------



## Ronnie

JonathanHunt said:


> Soooooooooooo... just a few posts while I was away for Christmas eh? I'd like to go back to the beginning and respond to one or two but it would probably be very confusing for everyone else so I'll refrain. Unless anyone would like to ask me a question on what I originally wrote from this point on, that is.



Well, a number of people attempted to answer my question for you, but I guess it would best to here from you. Here is the question and context:



Ronnie said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?
Click to expand...


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello:
> 
> We are making some headway here. Manley Beasley wrote:
> 
> 
> As a paedo-baptist I am most interested in your statement thus:
> 
> 
> You say that the New Covenant is entered into by Regeneration, but then you say that the New Covenant is not only for the Regenerate? Do those who make a profession of faith, but do not have true faith, are they part of the New Covenant?
> 
> In other words, are you admitting that those who do not have true faith in Jesus Christ, but profess to believe, are members of the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I meant. What I was saying is "I don't *only* believe the the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered* by regeneration." Regeneration is what enters the person into the NC not baptism. I've said this many times so it makes no since to think I am saying that people who "do not have true faith" are part of the NC.
> You then wrote:
> 
> [quote/]
> So, it seems, you are taking with one hand, and taking away with the other: "I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate" - if it is not just for the regenerate, then it must also be for those who are not regenerate as well? As a paedo-baptist this statement makes Biblical sense to me:
> 
> 
> Before going further I will await your response on the above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are basing your entire argument off of a misinterpretation of what I said. The key word in what I said was "just" which I just replaced with the synonym "only".
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, there is another curious aspect of your presentation of Credo Baptism that I would like to explore. I have heard it repeatedly said by other CB'ers that "we only Baptise those who are in the New Covenant." Their main argument derives from the 'membership of those who are in the New Covenant." However, it appears that you are drawing a distinction between the New Covenant and Baptism (a distinction, I might add, that is similar to Paedo-Baptist views on the subject).
> 
> That is, that the New Covenant is for the Regenerate only, but you baptise those who may or may not be in the New Covenant. Thus, there are those you baptise who are not in the New Covenant. Do you consider those who are not Regenerate, but make a profession of faith, and are baptised members of the New Covenant (unless sometime in the future they prove their profession of faith to be false?) I am not asking about the future - I am asking about their present profession of faith.
> 
> If so, then I would like to see your Biblical warrant for doing such a thing (I believe that such a practice is Biblical, but I would like to see where you derive the authority to do so?) Remember, you were the one to draw the distinction between New Covenant membership and Baptism.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That argument is used by baptists who are more dispensational in their views (in my opinion). I certainly believe we baptists are probably more consistent in baptizing actual elect people (just because we do wait for a profession) but I don't think that is a good argument. The issue is which view is biblical, not ratios of saved and baptized. The reason I argue from Jeremiah 31 that people enter the NC by regeneration is not to positively prove credo-baptism but to take away the argument (many Paedos have agreed) that paedo-baptism depends on; baptism is the entry into the NC in the same way that circumcision was entry into the OC.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Thank you for that correction. I figured that the phraseology was a bit different than what you think which is why I waited for your response.

Now, all I need is your Biblical reasons why you would only Baptise believers?

Thanks,

Rob[/QUOTE]

The commands of baptism in the Great Commission which follow the making of disciples and all the examples we have of baptism are of believers.

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 12:00:17 EST-----



TsonMariytho said:


> Note to both Manley and Rob: some quote tag problems in your most recent posts above.


I know. I have no idea how to fix it.

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 12:24:25 EST-----



TsonMariytho said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> in the same way that circumcision was entry into the OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But circumcision was not entry into the OC. Every descendant of Abraham, and every male member of such a one's household, was obligated to be circumcised. But it is not the case that prior to circumcision an Israelite was not under the full covenantal obligations. You could say "in a status of covenant-breaking", but not "outside the covenant".
> 
> Proof: God's covenant people, Israel, were largely uncircumcised, even as adults, as they prepared to enter the Promised Land. God commanded Joshua to circumcise the people and "roll away" the "reproach" of the former stiff-neckedness and covenant breaking they and their fathers had been guilty of. But these uncircumcised Israelites were still God's chosen nation, his covenant people, whether they liked it or not.
> 
> Similarly for an infant -- an infant was not circumcised in order to make him party to the covenant and bring him under its obligations and blessings. An infant was circumcised because he was already under the obligations -- and to avoid covenant-breaking, which was an obstacle to the covenant blessings.
Click to expand...


You very well may be right. I was using language I've heard paedos use before. It still doesn't change the point I was making. The OC membership was not based on a profession of faith (it was for some foreigners brought in but not for Jews) but on who their parent was. The NC (since you are a baptist I assume you agree) is an inward covenant entered by regeneration. There is only inward Israel in the NC.


----------



## Theognome

ManleyBeasley said:


> What you say is a contradiction is only a contradiction if I believe what you believe about baptism. I don't believe baptism is the entering of the NC. I believe it is an ordinance for those who profess to be in the NC. Some professions are false. Neither you or I deny that. Both paedos and credos baptize adult professors. What credos don't do is baptize non-professors (infants included). I don't just believe the NC is for the regenerate but that the NC is *entered by regeneration*. If a false professor is baptized they are still not a part of the NC. We baptists do not believe that all in the visible church are legitimate NC members. The only NC members are those whom God has regenerated.



This is very insightful, and clearly states your position. Thank you.

As odd as this may sound, as a paedo I believe that the NC is entered through profession, as opposed to regeneration. Since Judas was present at the Lord's Supper in the upper room, I tend to see the NC in terms of visible vice invisible Church. Thus if profession is the standard of entrance, then the profession of a head of household would be binding upon his whole household (as a legal contract before the Lord), while if regeneration is the standard of entrance, the emphasis is upon demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit- of which repentance and subsequent praise of our Lord is primary (through stewardship with the keys to the Kingdom).

For me, the Paedo position fits into my present mold of biblical thinking mostly due to the level of continuity it grants to the Old Testament Church.

Theognome


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I don't think you can use Judas as an example Bill. Jesus said it is finished on the Cross. He completed his work at the resurrection thus confirming the New Covenant in His blood. Besides if you want to use Judas as an example, he still was responding as a confessor to something. Or maybe he never ever confessed Christ as Lord. There are too many assumptions about Judas in your analysis.


----------



## Theognome

I think I can use Judas, as well as numerous other examples from OT and NT- otherwise I run into other theological challenges with head coverings, civil authority, OT/NT saints, Spheres of biblical law and other covenant-related issues. 

Theognome


----------



## JonathanHunt

Ronnie said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soooooooooooo... just a few posts while I was away for Christmas eh? I'd like to go back to the beginning and respond to one or two but it would probably be very confusing for everyone else so I'll refrain. Unless anyone would like to ask me a question on what I originally wrote from this point on, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, a number of people attempted to answer my question for you, but I guess it would best to here from you. Here is the question and context:
> 
> 
> 
> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


None. In that I am resting on the same promises as you.


----------



## Thomas2007

ManleyBeasley said:


> There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.



That is precisely what I believed as a Baptist.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> A paedo-baptist believes covenant membership is entered into by birthright of being born to a Christian parent or baptized into a trinitarian formula of baptism.



Correct, however, in the baptistic perspective one will read "covenant membership" consistent with the baptistic definition and understand that to mean regeneration. Then the argument will break down into presumptive regeneration and all kinds of other things that really aren't germain. It must also be understood that the two different perspectives have different presuppositions and understandings.

As a paedo-baptist "covenant membership" is really better understood as "citizenship" not salvation or regeneration. Several things I struggled with in my theological shift from credo-baptist to paedo-baptist was the implications of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. I found them to be more fully implemented in paedo-baptism and truncated or misapplied in the credo-baptistic position. I found myself in a quandry of jurisdictions concerning Christ's offices of King and High Priest, which was solved in the paedo-baptistic perspective.

Of course, please understand, I'm not accusing anyone of anything in my statements, just explaining what came to my mind and understandings as I worked through these things.

What I noticed, particularly, is that as a credo-baptist I was fully paedo-baptistic in reference to my children within the scope of civil government, it was ecclesiastical government where I held out a distinction. Then, I started thinking about that and said, "Wait a minute, what does this mean?"

Here I was accusing my paedo-baptistic brethern of being "baby sprinklers" and wrongfully bringing their children into the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical government and never considered that maybe I was wrongly bringing my children into the jurisdiction of civil government as a "baby enumerator." Bygolly, I realized, I was engaged in the same thing - imposing an adhesion contract upon my children. If I was willing to do that for the civil government, why not the ecclesiastical?

Then I realized that the two different perspective don't disagree, but rather agree on the basic presuppositions, but disagree on the jurisdictions. So, I became paedo-baptistic toward ecclesiastical government and credo-baptistic toward civil government.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> A credo Baptist believes one is a covenant member because of his union with Christ based upon the person and work of Christ on behalf of the individuals life.



Right, but that posits that "covenant membership" is limited in respect to Christ's office of High Priest. Is not Christ King of the unregenerate also, and if King, can the King not require the emoluments of citizenship be applied to the children of citizens?

Obviously, these two different religious presuppositions have startling and direct impacts upon political ideology as well as ecclesiastical.

Cordially,


Thomas


----------



## Ronnie

Well here are some basic and fundamental questions/problems I have with the Reformed Baptist position:


The consistent Reformed Baptist position should not even teach their children to call God their father or the God loves them, but they often do.
No concept of their children being holy and clean( 1 Cor. 7 )
By logical consequence they are forced to consider their children as on equal footings with pagans, which is alien to Old and New Testament?
Instead of the New Covenant becoming more inclusive the Credos make it more exclusive in one sense. Children who were in the Old Covenant and their parents embrace Jesus Christ are cast out and now considered pagans and out of the covenant. I find this unbelievable without some discussion/debate taking place in the New Testament.
No concept of a visible New Covenant church. They have visible churches but they are not New Covenant churches since that concept is only invisible.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Ronnie said:


> Well here are some basic and fundamental questions/problems I have with the Reformed Baptist position:
> 
> 
> The consistent Reformed Baptist position should not even teach their children to call God their father or the God loves them, but they often do.
> No concept of their children being holy and clean( 1 Cor. 7 )
> By logical consequence they are forced to consider their children as on equal footings with pagans, which is alien to Old and New Testament?
> Instead of the New Covenant becoming more inclusive the Credos make it more exclusive in one sense. Children who were in the Old Covenant and their parents embrace Jesus Christ are cast out and now considered pagans and out of the covenant. I find this unbelievable without some discussion/debate taking place in the New Testament.
> No concept of a visible New Covenant church. They have visible churches but they are not New Covenant churches since that concept is only invisible.


1. We shouldn't. We should exhort them to put their faith in Christ.
2. We believe our children are sanctified in that they are brought up under biblical teaching, modeled godly living, and prayed for. If they are elect God will save them if they aren't God will damn them. This is no different from paedo children. Do you think believe all paedo children are justified before God? Are any not elect?
3. We believe God elects whom He will. We teach our children the truth and pray for them. The only difference between credo and paedo children is that we don't act they are saved when they haven't expressed repentance and faith. You only say this is alien to the NT because you don't recognize the changes between the covenants.
4. Again, "pagans" is an extreme word. This argument is emotional. If they are not actually *in* the NC it would be bad to make them feel like they are a part of it until they repent and place faith in Christ. This doesn't have to be debated in the NT because they understood the change between the old and new. I exhort my paedo bretheren to stop placing confidence in baptism when God's secret election is what determines your child's salvation. If you want to believe in paedo-baptism then believe only because of biblical reasons not a sense of comfort. 
5. That's not a problem resulting from the RB view, that is the RB view. If the NC is only invisible, why should we demand a visible NC church?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a general comment, I would like to commend Douglas Kelly's discussion on the Sacraments in Systematic Theology II at RTS on iTunes U. It occurs in about the last 6 lectures that you can download for free.
> 
> I think the basic difference in Sacramental understanding leap out.
> 
> What most people don't seem to grasp is the Reformed understanding of the relationship between the sign and the thing signified. You can see the fingerprints of this all over the thread. The Baptist position insists that human response precedes Sacramental significance while, like the Gospel, the Reformed understanding has always been that the grace held forth in the Sacraments precede human activity.
> 
> God is sovereign in the Sacraments and we do not wait for human action to determine if they are going to be successful but, rather, the Church faithfully holds forth Christ in them and the Holy Spirit sovereignly works through them for the conversion and sanctification of souls. They are not merely retrospective but bring Christ present to the individual.
> 
> Insisting that one wait upon the Sacraments until they prove themselves worthy of them is akin to waiting to proclaim the Gospel as we understand it. While I appreciate the Baptists' appreciation for the nature of union with Christ, I do wish they understood better the means that God utilizes in real history to bring that about within the CoG. Obviously I don't expect those who disagree to simply accept this but you can at least appreciate where we're coming from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am busy the next few days and haven't heard the afore mentioned, I will only say that you must mean sacrament. ie baptism. Most Presbyterians hold that the Lord's table is closed unless you hold to paedocommunion.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Nevertheless, the Sacramental view even notes that the Lord's Supper is not merely retrospective for professors.



> And yes, maybe you are reading the Baptist position correctly. Because the scriptures portray a New Covenant Child as one who is born from above and not one because of ancestral heritage. Baptism signifies something. And it isn't just grace. It is being buried and risen with Christ. We are made just through faith by the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Col 2:12) Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him *through the faith* of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through faith..... which is preceeded by a circumsicion made without hands. And that is regeneration. Regeneration preceeds faith. It does signify something.
Click to expand...


...which proves my point above. What you seem to be missing (consonant with Baptist theology) is that the Sacraments are means to that end. Because your view of the ordinance is retrospective, you assume that signification follows fruit. For the Reformed, the Sacrament is a token that grace precedes faith, which is why infants are baptized. There is no grace in the Baptistic ordinance of baptism but simply a bare symbol of the Church's estimation of the person's present position.


----------



## Ronnie

ManleyBeasley said:


> 1. We shouldn't. We should exhort them to put their faith in Christ.


It is not an either/or proposition. You can teach them both. Do you teach them the Lord's prayer? Do you teach them to pray to God as their father? Do you even teach them hymns that speak of God loving them?


ManleyBeasley said:


> 2. We believe our children are sanctified in that they are brought up under biblical teaching, modeled godly living, and prayed for. If they are elect God will save them if they aren't God will damn them. This is no different from paedo children. Do you think believe all paedo children are justified before God? Are any not elect?


This is a clear example of how your position cannot square with Scripture. The Scriptures are not making the point that your children are sanctified based upon how you bring them up or pray for them. Nor are they or I addressing their elect status. Children of one believing parent are called clean and holy, but Reformed Baptist who supposedly depend on what is explicitly taught under the New Testament doesn't know what to do with this passage. They treat their kids as pagans( more on this later, because it is not just an emotional term )


ManleyBeasley said:


> 3. We believe God elects whom He will. We teach our children the truth and pray for them. The only difference between credo and paedo children is that we don't act they are saved when they haven't expressed repentance and faith. You only say this is alien to the NT because you don't recognize the changes between the covenants.


No one is talking about God's freedom in election. You are attacking a straw man. 

I say it is alien to treat them as pagans under the NT because everywhere it references children they are treated as belonging to the covenant. They are never treated as pagans. Here are a few examples:

They are called clean and holy. 
Jesus said to bring them unto Him. 
Jesus blessed them.
They are instructed to obey their parents *in the Lord*( Eph. 6:1)

Now I'm not arguing for regeneration with the above, but pointing out that when the NT references the children of believers it is always in a sense of them being part of the covenant family. This is no different than under the Old Covenant, but can you present instances where children of believers are explicitly presented as something other than covenant members? If not, that is what I mean by your understanding of treating them like that is alien to the Old and New Testament.


ManleyBeasley said:


> 4. Again, "pagans" is an extreme word. This argument is emotional. If they are not actually *in* the NC it would be bad to make them feel like they are a part of it until they repent and place faith in Christ. This doesn't have to be debated in the NT because they understood the change between the old and new. I exhort my paedo bretheren to stop placing confidence in baptism when God's secret election is what determines your child's salvation. If you want to believe in paedo-baptism then believe only because of biblical reasons not a sense of comfort.


Once again we see the Reformed Baptist not willing to be consistent in their position. There is nothing extreme or emotional about the word "pagan". It is used many times in both Old and New Testament for those outside the covenant community. It is the logical conclusion of your position, you think it is extreme, because it doesn't fit with how you treat your kids or how the New Testament speaks of them. The NT has no problem calling those outside the covenant as pagans so you should have no problem calling your children pagans.

Your point that we are placing confidence in baptism is a straw man. We are saying nothing more about baptism then we would say about circumcision under the Old Covenant and God knows we know circumcision didn't save anyone. You keep wanting to make it seem that I'm talking about election or regeneration, but instead I'm talking about tertium quid(i.e. covenant member ) without making a judgment on the other two terms. 

Finally, this is not about comfort either but radical nature of your position without any biblical teaching to support. Your position leads one to believe that one's child can be a member of the covenant with God, but when their parents embrace the Messiah and better promises that this old covenant prophesized about their children would be cast out by the same God? And all this happened without a whimper from the converts even though they seriously debated and questioned other changes from the Old to the New Covenant.



ManleyBeasley said:


> 5. That's not a problem resulting from the RB view, that is the RB view. If the NC is only invisible, why should we demand a visible NC church?



Well it is a problem in this sense. According to Reformed Baptists you only become a member of this church by being a member of the New Covenant(i.e. regeneration and a profession of faith), but this is not a New Covenant Church. Maybe you can explain to me why if this church consist of only New Covenant members it is not a New Covenant Church?


----------



## Herald

I need to jump back in here to clear up some confusion as to why RB's catechize their children. First -- 1 Cor. 2:14 makes it perfectly clear that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. The natural man is the unregenerate man. If a person is not regenerate they _cannot _appropriate the spiritual content of the Word of God - period. I will extend this conclusion to children of credos and paedos alike. But regarding RB's, we catechize our children because it is a means of evangelism. Since we are not looking for a raised hand or a sinners prayer, we teach our children the Word of God with the earnest hope and expectation that they will come to faith in Jesus Christ. It's really as simple as that.

Okay. Back to my hole.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Ronnie said:


> Well here are some basic and fundamental questions/problems I have with the Reformed Baptist position:
> 
> [*]The consistent Reformed Baptist position should not even teach their children to call God their father or the God loves them, but they often do.



The problem is not unique to Baptists. Presbyterians also admit that their child may be an Esau. Is it correct to tell an Esau that God loves him? "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

It's a tricky thing. When we evangelize our children, or other people's children, or unbelievers in general, we can emphasize God's love toward sinners, but must be cautious about giving false assurance. I don't see how the Presbyterian can avoid this criticism, either.



Ronnie said:


> [*]No concept of their children being holy and clean( 1 Cor. 7 )



On the contrary, read the context of that passage and you will discover that this state of having been sanctified is: (a) applied to an individual believer's obligation to remain with an unbelieving spouse, (b) applicable equally to an unbelieving adult pagan (i.e. he "has been sanctified"), and (c) given without any mention of ecclesiological implications.



Ronnie said:


> [*]By logical consequence they are forced to consider their children as on equal footings with pagans, which is alien to Old and New Testament?



Whatever happened to the idea of catechumens? Walk into any Presbyterian church, find an adult unbeliever who is not yet ready for baptism, but is earnestly learning the faith, and call him a "pagan". See if the pastor gives you dirty looks. I predict he will.

Whether the children of Baptists like it or not, they are in a position of catechumens. If they rebel against their instruction, or more to the point, if their instruction does not coincide with God's invisible working, then baptism may not follow instruction as we would like it to.



Ronnie said:


> [*]Instead of the New Covenant becoming more inclusive the Credos make it more exclusive in one sense. Children who were in the Old Covenant and their parents embrace Jesus Christ are cast out and now considered pagans and out of the covenant. I find this unbelievable without some discussion/debate taking place in the New Testament.



But the NT/NC is more inclusive. I am not Jewish. One of the Christian missionaries my church supports is Jewish. The dividing wall of hostility has been taken down. The limited, outward covenant succession set up in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis has been abolished. Now all are invited to believe in Christ, i.e. exercise faith, which should now be the only criterion for recognition of covenant membership.

So if you know anyone who feels excluded from the promises of the gospel, send them to any Baptist or paedobaptist minister on this forum, and I have full confidence they will be introduced to the free offer of the gospel of Christ.



Ronnie said:


> [*]No concept of a visible New Covenant church. They have visible churches but they are not New Covenant churches since that concept is only invisible.



This objection sounds stronger than it really is. God hasn't charged the church with knowing what he alone can know. So of course we must admit to the idea of a "visible church". (Why wouldn't we?)

We follow the principles given in the New Testament for the administration of baptism, and that is quite sufficient. It has the effect of culling out those who either do not know the basic doctrine of the gospel, do not believe it, or do not personally pledge to follow Christ. Those who are left are disciples, and are proper subjects of baptism according to the NT.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Ronnie said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. We shouldn't. We should exhort them to put their faith in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an either/or proposition. You can teach them both. Do you teach them the Lord's prayer? Do you teach them to pray to God as their father? Do you even teach them hymns that speak of God loving them?
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. We believe our children are sanctified in that they are brought up under biblical teaching, modeled godly living, and prayed for. If they are elect God will save them if they aren't God will damn them. This is no different from paedo children. Do you think believe all paedo children are justified before God? Are any not elect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a clear example of how your position cannot square with Scripture. The Scriptures are not making the point that your children are sanctified based upon how you bring them up or pray for them. Nor are they or I addressing their elect status. Children of one believing parent are called clean and holy, but Reformed Baptist who supposedly depend on what is explicitly taught under the New Testament doesn't know what to do with this passage. They treat their kids as pagans( more on this later, because it is not just an emotional term )
> 
> No one is talking about God's freedom in election. You are attacking a straw man.
> 
> I say it is alien to treat them as pagans under the NT because everywhere it references children they are treated as belonging to the covenant. They are never treated as pagans. Here are a few examples:
> 
> They are called clean and holy.
> Jesus said to bring them unto Him.
> Jesus blessed them.
> They are instructed to obey their parents *in the Lord*( Eph. 6:1)
> 
> Now I'm not arguing for regeneration with the above, but pointing out that when the NT references the children of believers it is always in a sense of them being part of the covenant family. This is no different than under the Old Covenant, but can you present instances where children of believers are explicitly presented as something other than covenant members? If not, that is what I mean by your understanding of treating them like that is alien to the Old and New Testament.
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Again, "pagans" is an extreme word. This argument is emotional. If they are not actually *in* the NC it would be bad to make them feel like they are a part of it until they repent and place faith in Christ. This doesn't have to be debated in the NT because they understood the change between the old and new. I exhort my paedo bretheren to stop placing confidence in baptism when God's secret election is what determines your child's salvation. If you want to believe in paedo-baptism then believe only because of biblical reasons not a sense of comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again we see the Reformed Baptist not willing to be consistent in their position. There is nothing extreme or emotional about the word "pagan". It is used many times in both Old and New Testament for those outside the covenant community. It is the logical conclusion of your position, you think it is extreme, because it doesn't fit with how you treat your kids or how the New Testament speaks of them. The NT has no problem calling those outside the covenant as pagans so you should have no problem calling your children pagans.
> 
> Your point that we are placing confidence in baptism is a straw man. We are saying nothing more about baptism then we would say about circumcision under the Old Covenant and God knows we know circumcision didn't save anyone. You keep wanting to make it seem that I'm talking about election or regeneration, but instead I'm talking about tertium quid(i.e. covenant member ) without making a judgment on the other two terms.
> 
> Finally, this is not about comfort either but radical nature of your position without any biblical teaching to support. Your position leads one to believe that one's child can be a member of the covenant with God, but when their parents embrace the Messiah and better promises that this old covenant prophesized about their children would be cast out by the same God? And all this happened without a whimper from the converts even though they seriously debated and questioned other changes from the Old to the New Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5. That's not a problem resulting from the RB view, that is the RB view. If the NC is only invisible, why should we demand a visible NC church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well it is a problem in this sense. According to Reformed Baptists you only become a member of this church by being a member of the New Covenant(i.e. regeneration and a profession of faith), but this is not a New Covenant Church. Maybe you can explain to me why if this church consist of only New Covenant members it is not a New Covenant Church?
Click to expand...


1. I believe it is an either/or issue. This is proven by the fact that Jeremiah 31 clearly identifies those in the NC; the regenerate (exclusively elect). This is the proclaimed difference between the 2 covenants.

2. No offense but all you are saying presupposes your view. It never says they are included in the covenant but you presume that's what its saying because they would have been in the OC.

I agree that the NT says all of those things about children of one believing parent. I don't believe this is inclusion into the NC. If it was it would mean that all children with a believing parent are saved because all in the NC are regenerate (Jeremiah 31). You have not dealt with Jeremiah 31 at all. Its one of the clearest NC texts in the OT resulting in its quotation in Hebrews.

There is another inconsistency in your interpretation of the- children being made holy=covenant membership. The passage also says the spouse is sanctified. Why are they not included in the NC?

Its not a straw man to bring up election. I know you believe in election. I am pointing out that election means baptizing infants cannot make them more likely to be saved. If you respond that it benefits the elect children because they are discipled then I respond, "Baptists teach their children too." 

4. Yes, my position means that children in the OC who had not professed Christ would not be included in the NC. So what? If they are elect and they believe then they are included. If they are unelect and never come to believe their inclusion would be no help to them but only condemnation. The reason I keep harping on election is that it points out an inconsistency in your view. You treat paedo-baptism as though it brings comfort to parents of baptized infants. What comfort? You don't believe that they are certainly elect. We RB have as much comfort in God's election as you guys do and His election is the only determination of who is saved; credo or paedo. 

My point is believe what you believe because of what scripture teaches and do what you do out of obedience. Your or my comfort about our children is no basis for determining what we believe.

5. You are confused on this point so maybe I wasn't clear. I believe we become members of the NC church (invisible only) by regeneration. I believe we become members of the visible church by profession of faith. The NC church is only invisible.


----------



## Ronnie

TsonMariytho said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well here are some basic and fundamental questions/problems I have with the Reformed Baptist position:
> 
> [*]The consistent Reformed Baptist position should not even teach their children to call God their father or the God loves them, but they often do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not unique to Baptists. Presbyterians also admit that their child may be an Esau. Is it correct to tell an Esau that God loves him? "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."
Click to expand...

No, this is not a problem for Presbyterians. It was and is OK to say that God loved Esau. Do you believe Issac and Rebekah never told their Son of God’s covenantal love for him? Of course they told him that, because God said the same thing to all His covenant people. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated is speaking in reference to election, not covenantal love which is different. 


TsonMariytho said:


> It's a tricky thing. When we evangelize our children, or other people's children, or unbelievers in general, we can emphasize God's love toward sinners, but must be cautious about giving false assurance. I don't see how the Presbyterian can avoid this criticism, either.


We avoid it just how the Scriptures avoid it, we communicate God’s covenantal love for those in covenant with Him, while at the same time warn them of the danger of not putting their faith in the Messiah and suffering the covenant curses.


TsonMariytho said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [*]No concept of their children being holy and clean( 1 Cor. 7 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, read the context of that passage and you will discover that this state of having been sanctified is: (a) applied to an individual believer's obligation to remain with an unbelieving spouse, (b) applicable equally to an unbelieving adult pagan (i.e. he "has been sanctified"), and (c) given without any mention of ecclesiological implications.
Click to expand...

Well what does it mean that the child of a believer is not unclean, but instead holy? Baptist constantly try to tell us what the passage doesn’t mean, but never explains what it means from the text. One thing can be certain, there is a distinction between a child of a believer and a child of a non-believer. However from the Reformed Baptist position there is no difference between our children and the pagans. This is a concept nowhere supported in Scripture, and on the contrary it is explicitly refuted.




TsonMariytho said:


> Whatever happened to the idea of catechumens? Walk into any Presbyterian church, find an adult unbeliever who is not yet ready for baptism, but is earnestly learning the faith, and call him a "pagan". See if the pastor gives you dirty looks. I predict he will.


And adult “earnestly” learning the faith, but who hasn’t put their trust in Christ is a pagan and I don’t I would get a dirty look from my Pastor for saying. In actuality we had a person is that position in our church and we did consider her a pagan even though there was no occasion to specifically use that term. Once she expressed faith in Christ is when that term no longer applied.


TsonMariytho said:


> Whether the children of Baptists like it or not, they are in a position of catechumens. If they rebel against their instruction, or more to the point, if their instruction does not coincide with God's invisible working, then baptism may not follow instruction as we would like it to.


Catechumen is not even a valid concept for what Reformed Baptist believes. They are not preparing their children for Baptism. They may instruct them, but it is not with a view toward Baptism. They instruct them out of obedience to God and Baptism comes whenever they feel God has regenerated them.


TsonMariytho said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [*]Instead of the New Covenant becoming more inclusive the Credos make it more exclusive in one sense. Children who were in the Old Covenant and their parents embrace Jesus Christ are cast out and now considered pagans and out of the covenant. I find this unbelievable without some discussion/debate taking place in the New Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the NT/NC is more inclusive. I am not Jewish. One of the Christian missionaries my church supports is Jewish. The dividing wall of hostility has been taken down. The limited, outward covenant succession set up in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis has been abolished. Now all are invited to believe in Christ, i.e. exercise faith, which should now be the only criterion for recognition of covenant membership.
Click to expand...

It is more inclusive in that sense that it is open to Jews and Gentile, but it is definitely more exclusive in that children which were covenant members one day were kicked out of the covenant the next day if their parents embraced Christ. 


TsonMariytho said:


> So if you know anyone who feels excluded from the promises of the gospel, send them to any Baptist or paedobaptist minister on this forum, and I have full confidence they will be introduced to the free offer of the gospel of Christ.


No one is talking about the free offer of the Gospel. The free offer of the Gospel goes out to everyone regardless of how we consider they stand with God. However, in reference to the covenant and being members of the covenant family every person who you don’t consider has been regenerated is excluded even if their parents are believers.


TsonMariytho said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [*]No concept of a visible New Covenant church. They have visible churches but they are not New Covenant churches since that concept is only invisible.
> 
> 
> 
> This objection sounds stronger than it really is. God hasn't charged the church with knowing what he alone can know. So of course we must admit to the idea of a "visible church". (Why wouldn't we?)
Click to expand...

If you are charged with knowing what God alone can know then why are you attempting to make judgments about who is regenerated?


TsonMariytho said:


> We follow the principles given in the New Testament for the administration of baptism, and that is quite sufficient. It has the effect of culling out those who either do not know the basic doctrine of the gospel, do not believe it, or do not personally pledge to follow Christ. Those who are left are disciples, and are proper subjects of baptism according to the NT.


Of course this is the issue under and debate and my points attempt to show that you do not really follow the principles of the NT or the Scriptures it toto. You position in reference to the children of believers is anything but a principle in the NT.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Manley Beasley writes:



> The commands of baptism in the Great Commission which follow the making of disciples and all the examples we have of baptism are of believers.


But, where does it say "only"? Can you cite your references?

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Manley Beasley writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The commands of baptism in the Great Commission which follow the making of disciples and all the examples we have of baptism are of believers.
> 
> 
> 
> But, where does it say "only"? Can you cite your references?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...

I don't think it has to say "only". It says "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." (Matt. 28:19a) The "them" referred to is those who have been made "disciples". The examples we have of baptism are never infants. Without the argument from the covenants (OC to NC congruency) there isn't a solid basis for infant baptism (numerous paedos have admitted as much). I believe Jeremiah 31 shows that the NC is not a covenant of both regenerate and unregenerate mixed together as the OC was so I believe credo baptism is the correct NC practice.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

ManleyBeasley said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Manley Beasley writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The commands of baptism in the Great Commission which follow the making of disciples and all the examples we have of baptism are of believers.
> 
> 
> 
> But, where does it say "only"? Can you cite your references?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think it has to say "only". It says "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." (Matt. 28:19a) The "them" referred to is those who have been made "disciples". The examples we have of baptism are never infants. Without the argument from the covenants (OC to NC congruency) there isn't a solid basis for infant baptism (numerous paedos have admitted as much). I believe Jeremiah 31 shows that the NC is not a covenant of both regenerate and unregenerate mixed together as the OC was so I believe credo baptism is the correct NC practice.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Do you mean that we are not to disciple our children?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TsonMariytho

Ronnie said:


> No, this is not a problem for Presbyterians. It was and is OK to say that God loved Esau. Do you believe Issac and Rebekah never told their Son of God’s covenantal love for him? Of course they told him that, because God said the same thing to all His covenant people. Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated is speaking in reference to election, not covenantal love which is different.



Well, you still haven't addressed the propriety of so-called "covenant children" today singing hymns asserting that their own sins have been forgiven. To assert such is to assert one's election to salvation, not just inclusion in an external covenant with conditional blessings and curses.



Ronnie said:


> We avoid it just how the Scriptures avoid it, we communicate God’s covenantal love for those in covenant with Him, while at the same time warn them of the danger of not putting their faith in the Messiah and suffering the covenant curses.



OK... well, Baptists communicate God's covenantal love to all those who have not yet made a profession of faith, reminding them of their obligation to believe in the name of Jesus Christ, and warning them about "the danger of not putting their faith in the Messiah and suffering the covenant curses".



Ronnie said:


> Well what does it mean that the child of a believer is not unclean, but instead holy? Baptist constantly try to tell us what the passage doesn’t mean, but never explains what it means from the text. One thing can be certain, there is a distinction between a child of a believer and a child of a non-believer. However from the Reformed Baptist position there is no difference between our children and the pagans. This is a concept nowhere supported in Scripture, and on the contrary it is explicitly refuted.



This has already been explained, at least from my point of view. But since you ask for more, here is an expansion and practical example:

When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was dealing with multiple issues that faced this young church. Apparently one of those issues was the unfortunate unequal yokes that were present in the group. We can imagine some men and women of Corinth receiving the gospel with joy, and taking the good news home only to find that their spouses wanted to have nothing to do with it. This put the young Christians in a quandary. It was clear from their instruction as Christians that they were to turn away from every sin of their old life, and be 100% devoted / sanctified / set apart to God.

Some issues are pretty straightforward in that regard. Anyone who was stealing was to steal no longer. Anyone working in a pagan temple should find another line of business.

But what about unbelieving spouses? Should a Christian separate from them, too? Doesn't the spouse reject everything about God? Isn't the spouse sinful and unclean, such that he contaminates the Christian spouse? One can imagine the new Christians asking their elders questions like this, and perhaps some contradictory answers flying back and forth. Perhaps someone invoked the teachings from Ezra, wherein the Israelite men were commanded to send away the idolatrous foreign wives along with the children.

Never fear, the Apostle Paul is here, to provide timely instruction to this young Christian church at Corinth.

"Relax," says the apostle. Your unbelieving spouse has been sanctified. Instead of worrying that your marriage partner will contaminate you, you should be praying and working toward the conversion of your spouse. Who is greater, Christ or Belial? Some of the rules of strict separation in the Old Covenant were ceremonial in nature. Living in the full light of the gospel you are to stay with your spouse to whom you have vowed faithfulness (except in certain exceptional conditions).

And the children? Should they be sent away? Nope, they're "sanctified" too, just like the pagan spouse.

One of the best examples of 1 Corinthians 7:12-17 working itself out in real life is that of Monica, the mother of Augustine. Monica's husband was a pagan. And yet she remained faithful to him and stayed as his wife, in obedience to the Apostle Paul. And was her son "holy". Yes, in a 1st Corinthians 7 sense. Was her son "holy" in the sense of "a Christian"? Absolutely not. As it happens, Monica had reason from a fleshly point of view to despair of hope for her family, because young Augustine initially grew up in the mold of his father -- seemingly embarking on the life of a debauched intellectual.

But as we know, the tears and prayers of Monica were remembered by the Lord, and we all know the rest of the story. God not only converted the young non-Christian Augustine, but made him a doctor of the Church who faithfully taught perhaps more than anyone up to that point the ideas of original sin and the doctrines of grace.

1Co 7:12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
1Co 7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
1Co 7:16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
1Co 7:17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.​


Ronnie said:


> And adult “earnestly” learning the faith, but who hasn’t put their trust in Christ is a pagan and I don’t I would get a dirty look from my Pastor for saying. In actuality we had a person is that position in our church and we did consider her a pagan even though there was no occasion to specifically use that term. Once she expressed faith in Christ is when that term no longer applied.



*shrug* I have very little interest in debating this particular point, because it seems like just an argument over the meaning of a word.

For what it's worth, in Reformed Baptist circles I've run in, it's been the practice to say that so-and-so "has not made a [public] profession of faith", rather than calling the person a "pagan", "unbeliever", etc. I think this way of describing it is optimal for someone who is receptively learning the faith, because it can be said without prejudice to their actual spiritual state, which we don't really know.



Ronnie said:


> It is more inclusive in that sense that it is open to Jews and Gentile, but it is definitely more exclusive in that children which were covenant members one day were kicked out of the covenant the next day if their parents embraced Christ.



If you believe that everyone who was circumcised was automatically entitled to baptism with no questions asked, then you are simply wrong. Baptism doesn't mean exactly what circumcision meant, and the church is responsible to withhold baptism in certain circumstances. There was no prerequisite to circumcision that I'm aware of the OT.

To put it in a form that I think you will be forced to agree with -- a first century Jew who was God-fearing would have to be instructed about Jesus Christ before he could be baptized. A Jew must become a Christian just as a pagan must become a Christian. Of course, in one case we have a man "bringing out new treasures as well as old", whereas in the other case we have a conversion from death to life. But my point remains. Merely being circumcised didn't entitle anybody to baptism with no questions asked / no further instruction.



Ronnie said:


> No one is talking about the free offer of the Gospel. The free offer of the Gospel goes out to everyone regardless of how we consider they stand with God. However, in reference to the covenant and being members of the covenant family every person who you don’t consider has been regenerated is excluded even if their parents are believers.



We can't divorce this discussion from the actual covenants of scripture. To put it another way, the use of the word "covenant" doesn't make your point above correct. We would have to examine exactly what covenant you are talking about above. We would have to see what the promises/curses are, and to whom the promises/curses are offered, etc.



Ronnie said:


> Of course this is the issue under and debate and my points attempt to show that you do not really follow the principles of the NT or the Scriptures it toto. You position in reference to the children of believers is anything but a principle in the NT.



By all means, show me a scripture I am not treating correctly. Hopefully 1st Corinthians 7 is now clearer per the explanation above.


----------



## Ronnie

ManleyBeasley said:


> 1.	I believe it is an either/or issue. This is proven by the fact that Jeremiah 31 clearly identifies those in the NC; the regenerate (exclusively elect). This is the proclaimed difference between the 2 covenants.


Jeremiah 31 is speaking of the consummated New Covenant, that is at the return of Christ. It is not talking about the inaugurated New Covenant which is in between Pentecost and Christ’s 2nd coming. And this is no isolated way of speaking in reference our redemption. For example the Scriptures speak of us being “redeemed”, but yet we are not fully redeemed until Christ returns. We are “holy”, but yet not fully saved sanctified until Christ returns. We are justified “free from the power of sin”,but yet not fully “free from the power of sin” until Christ returns. Likewise, we are in the New Covenant but all aspects of the New Covenant are fully realized until Christ returns. This is shown by the fact that in the book of Hebrews it quotes Jeremiah 31. An important verse is this one:

Hebrews 8:11
None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them​
So let me ask you this if you are in the New Covenant. Do you teach your neighbors or your brothers to ‘Know the LORD’? I know of no Reformed Baptist that does not attempt to teach neighbors or brothers to ‘Know the LORD’, because no one can know with absolute certainty in this age if one is truly their brother or a false professor. 
But this is not all of the story. If the book of Hebrews agreed that your understanding of the New Covenant was true then it would not go on to say the following in a couple of chapters later:

Hebrews 10:28-30 
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[says the Lord.[And again, “The LORD will judge His people.”​
In verse 29 it speaks of punishment for those who _“… trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing…”_. It not only calls these individuals were “sanctified” by “the blood of the covenant”, which is hard to understand if they were never part of the covenant in any sense, but it also goes on to say in this context, “The LORD will judge *His people*! In context who are the Lord’s “people” that will be judge and in what sense are they His “people”? Clearly it seems to be his covenantal people as shown by the reference to the Mosaic Law and the language of them being sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Well this makes no sense in the Reformed Baptist paradigm of this perfect New Covenant where there are only regenerate members that even need to be taught to know the Lord.


ManleyBeasley said:


> 2.	No offense but all you are saying presupposes your view. It never says they are included in the covenant but you presume that's what its saying because they would have been in the OC.


No, not all I said presupposed my view. I pointed out how you practiced eisogesis in reference to what the children of believers being holy and clean mean. You stated it was talking about how you instruct your kids, but that is nowhere to be found or hinted at in the text. Regardless of what you teach your children they are holy and clean because they are a child of a believer is the point of the passage. They are holy and clean from birth! So you still have explained based on the text in what sense are they kids holy and clean from birth? Here is hint. It is in the same sense that Hebrews 10:29 speaks of individuals being sanctified, but yet not saved.



ManleyBeasley said:


> I agree that the NT says all of those things about children of one believing parent. I don't believe this is inclusion into the NC. If it was it would mean that all children with a believing parent are saved because all in the NC are regenerate (Jeremiah 31). You have not dealt with Jeremiah 31 at all. Its one of the clearest NC texts in the OT resulting in its quotation in Hebrews.


I’m glad you agree with all those things that are said about children with one believing parent, however you missed the point of why I stated all those things. I was not stating them to prove kids are included in the NC at this point, but instead stating them to show the Reformed Baptist position treat children of believers as something totally different than how the New Testament references them. From your perspective children of believers are just pagans, however where does the NT speak of pagans in the way we it speaks of children of believers? It doesn’t! Obviously there is a big distinction between the two, and the only objective distinction is their being covenant members. Maybe you can explain the distinction some other way without it being necessitated based on your subjective raising of your kids, otherwise all these things may not be true of some children because their parent don’t carry out the correct formula of raising them to make them clean and holy. Let me hear it?


ManleyBeasley said:


> There is another inconsistency in your interpretation of the- children being made holy=covenant membership. The passage also says the spouse is sanctified. Why are they not included in the NC?


They are not included in the New Covenant because they openly deny the Lord, which is why they are called unbelievers in the same context. Even children of believing parents that openly deny Christ are no longer considered covenant members. 


ManleyBeasley said:


> Its not a straw man to bring up election. I know you believe in election. I am pointing out that election means baptizing infants cannot make them more likely to be saved. If you respond that it benefits the elect children because they are discipled then I respond, "Baptists teach their children too."


It is not about making them more likely or less likely to be saved. I’ve only said that those in the covenant are more likely to be saved. Baptism does not make a child a covenant member, they are a covenant member by birth right. Baptism is giving them the sign they rightly deserve. Therefore, the Reformed Baptist problem is not that their kids are not part of the New Covenant, they are by birth right, but instead they refused to give them the covenant sign and treat them as covenant members.


ManleyBeasley said:


> 4. Yes, my position means that children in the OC who had not professed Christ would not be included in the NC. So what?


More accurately your position is that infants which were members of the covenant with God were kicked out of covenant with God when the parents embraced the more gracious New Covenant. And you ask “so what?”? Can’t you see the incongruity with that?


ManleyBeasley said:


> If they are elect and they believe then they are included. If they are unelect and never come to believe their inclusion would be no help to them but only condemnation.


Here again is an example of the unbiblical way in which some Reformed Baptist view covenant membership. You claim inclusion in the covenant without election is of no help. However, the Apostle Paul says it has much benefit(cf. Romans 3:1 ) 


ManleyBeasley said:


> The reason I keep harping on election is that it points out an inconsistency in your view. You treat paedo-baptism as though it brings comfort to parents of baptized infants. What comfort? You don't believe that they are certainly elect. We RB have as much comfort in God's election as you guys do and His election is the only determination of who is saved; credo or paedo.


There is no inconsistency in my view, but it demonstrates the reductionistic view you have relating to God’s dealing with His people. It all boils down to election. If there is no election, you cannot be in the covenant. If there is no election, you cannot have any comfort in this life pertaining to your children relationship with God. That is not true. There is much comfort to have by knowing God cares and love for your children in a way that is different from how He feels about Muslims and Hindus. God poured out this comfort and hope over and over to all the Israelites even though many of them were not elect. 
Our children being in covenant with God should give us greater hope that God will bring them to salvation than just any Joe Blow walking the street. I’m not saying it will always happen, but it does give us greater hope. And you have greater hope for your children than the typical Muslim in Iran, whether you will admit it or not. However, if that hope is based on a inscrutable random election that is no way generally related to God’s covenant promises then you have no reason for that greater hope. You have no more ground to comfort a faithful grieving family of believers over the death of their child than you have to comfort a god-hating Bill Maher over the death of his child. To both you can only say the same thing, may be your child is one of the elect. 


ManleyBeasley said:


> My point is believe what you believe because of what scripture teaches and do what you do out of obedience. Your or my comfort about our children is no basis for determining what we believe.


But it is based on Scripture. I have quoted and referenced more Scripture to support my beliefs than you have. It is Scripture that teaches God loves His covenant, even though they may not all be elect. It is Scripture that teaches God has special covenant love that is not one-to-one with His electing love.


ManleyBeasley said:


> 5. You are confused on this point so maybe I wasn't clear. I believe we become members of the NC church (invisible only) by regeneration. I believe we become members of the visible church by profession of faith. The NC church is only invisible.



So one can only become a member of the visible church by regeneration and profession as far as you can tell, right? Do you consider every member of your church a New Covenant member, if so why isn’t it a visible New Covenant Church?


----------



## Hilasmos

Heres a question from my ignorance.

Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your _children_, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?

In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to _their_ children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> Heres a question from my ignorance.
> 
> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your _children_, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?
> 
> In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to _their_ children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?



Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?

It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.

Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.


----------



## TsonMariytho

An excellent question. When God restored his people back to himself after generations of apostasy, he restored them as children of Abraham. That their immediate parents happened to be Baal worshippers didn't change their unique covenantal obligations under the Abrahamic Covenant. While we can only strictly claim the godly Israelites as being in good covenant standing, and must call the others covenant-breakers, yet there remained on the physical line of Israel a covenantal obligation that is quite simply derived from Genesis 17, and is just as clearly obsolete today.


----------



## Hilasmos

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres a question from my ignorance.
> 
> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your _children_, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?
> 
> In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to _their_ children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?
> 
> It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.
> 
> Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.
Click to expand...


Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres a question from my ignorance.
> 
> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your _children_, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?
> 
> In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to _their_ children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?
> 
> It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.
> 
> Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.
Click to expand...


If you would like to withdraw from the conversation then do so if you are so easily insulted.

Did you really read hundreds of posts and conclude that circumcision was based on mere physical descent from Abraham? Would you point to the post that caused you to draw that conclusion? It might help me understand how you formed that question because I honestly can't see how the question is relevant to the paedobaptist position.


----------



## TsonMariytho

I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers. I think this is an aspect of Old Testament covenantal succession that is not sufficiently discussed by some theologians who follow in Zwingli and Calvin's tradition.

Of course, forsaking his sins was important for a spiritually awakening, apostate Israelite too. But if he was uncircumcised, addressing that was a good first step.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:03:22 EST-----

Question:



Semper Fidelis said:


> Were Esau's sons circumcised?



Answer: Maybe?

Jer 9:25 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will punish all those who are circumcised merely in the flesh-- 
Jer 9:26 Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart."​
There is controversy over the meaning of the verse, and historical evidence suggests that Edom at least didn't practice circumcision at the time of Christ (see K&D commentary). Beyond that, this is probably just an academic question since it's clear as time went on that Edom as a nation didn't worship the true God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

TsonMariytho said:


> I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers.


False and un-Biblical. You really have no business trying to argue any issue of Covenant theology if you are so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures to present the above point.

The reason Calvin was "under-developed" is that he understood the Scriptures much better.


----------



## Hilasmos

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were Esau's sons circumcised? Are you literate in the OT Scriptures in the asking of that question?
> 
> It seems you must have jumped into the middle of this thread and not read a single thing in order to ask the question that you did.
> 
> Paedo-baptism (or paedo-circumcision for that matter) is not based solely on physical lineage. That is not to make the error that there is no relationship between father and son and to divorce them from one another spiritually but it is to note that the faith of the household is meaningful in this ordinance. Those who are cut off from the people of God for their apostasy have not only cut themselves off from the place where God's grace is manifest in Word and Sacrament but it affects their progeny as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you would like to withdraw from the conversation then do so if you are so easily insulted.
> 
> Did you really read hundreds of posts and conclude that circumcision was based on mere physical descent from Abraham? Would you point to the post that caused you to draw that conclusion? It might help me understand how you formed that question because I honestly can't see how the question is relevant to the paedobaptist position.
Click to expand...


And I would invite you to withdraw from answering any question of mine if you find yourself unable to do so without saying I am stupid for formulating such a question. If its too unworthy of you, just let is pass brother. 

Perhaps my question isn't as clear as you would like it, but I was drawing from Gen 17:10, apparently in a wrong way, when I made the statement about circumcision in relation to physical descent.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Hilasmos said:


> Heres a question from my ignorance.
> 
> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your _children_, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?
> 
> In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to _their_ children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?



This is not a bad question. Even Moses neglected this and his wife had to do it while she rebuked Moses. Also I believe there were many who needed to be circumcised before they entered the Promised Land because it had been neglected in their generation also.



> (Exo 4:25) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
> 
> (Exo 4:26) So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
> 
> (Jos 5:7) And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.



We have also discussed this topic in relation to an unbelieving spouse. 

I contend that it would definitely be unbiblical in relation to what the New Covenant calls a child of God. Anything else is outside of the New Covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its nice to know that I can read hundreds of posts and ask an honest question only to have my intelligence insulted because I didn't draw your conclusion naturally from this thread. Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you would like to withdraw from the conversation then do so if you are so easily insulted.
> 
> Did you really read hundreds of posts and conclude that circumcision was based on mere physical descent from Abraham? Would you point to the post that caused you to draw that conclusion? It might help me understand how you formed that question because I honestly can't see how the question is relevant to the paedobaptist position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I would invite you to withdraw from answering any question of mine if you find yourself unable to do so without saying I am stupid for formulating such a question. If its too unworthy of you, just let is pass brother.
> 
> Perhaps my question isn't as clear as you would like it, but I was drawing from Gen 17:10, apparently in a wrong way, when I made the statement about circumcision in relation to physical descent.
Click to expand...


Invitation is denied. Again, which post did you draw the conclusion from that the paedobaptist position believes that the children of apostates are to be circumcised? This is not a request. Part of moderation is keeping threads on track.

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:15:16 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heres a question from my ignorance.
> 
> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever? That is, if the promise is for you and your _children_, how far does children extend? If this person's parents didn't baptize him because they were unbelievers, what if this person's grandparents were believers, part of the covenant, and therefore this "promise" extends to their children?
> 
> In the old covenant wouldn't "adult circumcision" (apart from proselytizing) be justified based on one being a son of Abraham? He is a child of the covenant people, despite that his parents, or for whatever other reason, hadn't followed the mandate of circumcision in infancy? In the same way, why shouldn't paedo baptists encourage the baptism of currently unbelieving adults based on the faith of their grandparents, great grand parents, right on down the line...? Does the promise not extend to _their_ children? To deny this wouldn't it be like saying a 5th generation son of Abraham doesn't have a right to be circumcised because his immediate parents rejected the covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a bad question. Even Moses neglected this and his wife had to do it while she rebuked Moses. Also I believe there were many who needed to be circumcised before they entered the Promised Land because it had been neglected in their generation also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Exo 4:25) Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.
> 
> (Exo 4:26) So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.
> 
> (Jos 5:7) And their children, whom he raised up in their stead, them Joshua circumcised: for they were uncircumcised, because they had not circumcised them by the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have also discussed this topic in relation to an unbelieving spouse.
> 
> I contend that it would definitely be unbiblical in relation to what the New Covenant calls a child of God. Anything else is outside of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...

These situations were unequivalent unless you wish to argue that Moses was apostate or that the generation in the wilderness were not in the Ekklesia of God (which the Word says they were).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would prefer to think that God was long suffering. He was pretty upset with Moses if you look at the text. Zipporah's action actually thwarted God's judgment against Moses if I am not mistaken.



> (Exo 4:24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.



Check out some commentaries


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would prefer to think that God was long suffering. He was pretty upset with Moses if you look at the text. Zipporah's action actually thwarted God's judgment against Moses if I am not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Exo 4:24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out some commentaries
Click to expand...


Randy,

Was Moses a believer or not? The question posed was that the children of complete apostates would still be circumcised.

I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

What do folks think it meant to be cut off from the people of God? There are also several sins that would lead to the death penalty and Baal worship was certainly one of them.


----------



## Hilasmos

Rich,

The "posts" that stimulated my question had to do with the paedo emphasis on the promise being extended to one's children. The heart of my question, even though I asked or stated a lot of things in my paragraph, was "how far does children extend." And if that is an inappropriate question in relation to paedo baptism, then I withdraw it, you can delete it, and ban me while your at it for all I care.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Your not addressing the passages I mentioned Rich. Did God consider His nation Isreal to be his old covenant people even when they were disobedient and idolatrous, thus calling them to repent? He is long suffering. 

We are discussing continuity between the Old and New.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Semper Fidelis said:


> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers.
> 
> 
> 
> False and un-Biblical. You really have no business trying to argue any issue of Covenant theology if you are so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures to present the above point.
Click to expand...


Here is where God lays this obligation on Abraham's progeny:

Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, ​
Here God clarifies that it is "through Isaac that your offspring shall be reckoned". In other words, God's peculiar national election follows the line of Isaac and not Ishmael.

Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" 
Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.​
God's covenantal favor was renewed yet again with Jacob, but not with "godless" Esau:

Gen 32:28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." 
Gen 32:29 Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. ​
Here is the basic scope of God's covenantal operations at the time of the Exodus:

Exo 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.​
It is fair to say that God's outward election of his covenant nation settles on the progeny of Jacob.

Eze 20:5 and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob, making myself known to them in the land of Egypt; I swore to them, saying, I am the LORD your God. ​
Reading the above passages, I would have to regard any physical descendant of Abraham through the line of Israel as very wicked indeed, who would refuse to undergo circumcision in obedience to the covenantal obligation God laid on his entire race. If his immediate parents were Baal worshippers, that's too bad; but it wouldn't change his personal covenantal obligation.

That this peculiar obligation spanned generations is the point being made above, and in my view, it stands unless you can provide some scripture showing otherwise.




Semper Fidelis said:


> The reason Calvin was "under-developed" is that he understood the Scriptures much better.



I did not say Calvin was "under-developed".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In relation to his question I would also add this passage.


> Jacob said to Joseph...
> (Gen 48:5) And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would prefer to think that God was long suffering. He was pretty upset with Moses if you look at the text. Zipporah's action actually thwarted God's judgment against Moses if I am not mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Exo 4:24) And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out some commentaries
Click to expand...


Randy, Rich's point is that Moses' son was still a child and still a part of his household, and Moses and Zipporah certainly weren't apostate. So obviously it was sinful for Moses (a believer) not to circumcise his son. The question Hilasmos posed is different in that it deals with an adult unbeliever or a believer of apostate parents. I don't see how either relates to Moses not circumcising his son.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Semper Fidelis said:


> What do folks think it meant to be cut off from the people of God? There are also several sins that would lead to the death penalty and Baal worship was certainly one of them.



It's true that proselytizing for Baal had a capital punishment in the Torah.

Sin complicates any picture. But as PuritanCovenanter (Randy?) pointed out above, God is merciful, and he frequently called the physical descendants of Abraham back to him, commanded them to repent of the backsliding, unbelief, and, yes, the idolatry of their fathers. The point I'm making here is that they were called back as the physical descendants of Abraham. They were called back as covenant-breakers, but they were called back to a restoration of the union their natural forefather enjoyed. This is a very important element of Old Covenant succession that is obsolete today.

For what it's worth, Calvin recognized the ethnic restrictiveness of God's covenantal dealings in the OT, and also appreciated the explosive and new nature of the Great Commission, not to mention the breaking down of that "dividing wall of hostility" between Jew and Gentile.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let me step in here and ask that:
1) everyone go back and re-read some of the thread, and try to untangle some of this;

2) try to see where you misunderstood what someone else was saying;

3) try to see where you said something unwarranted, by reading too much into a comment.


----------



## Ronnie

TsonMariytho said:


> Well, you still haven't addressed the propriety of so-called "covenant children" today singing hymns asserting that their own sins have been forgiven. To assert such is to assert one's election to salvation, not just inclusion in an external covenant with conditional blessings and curses.


Well, I didn’t address it because you didn’t ask it  However, this is pretty simple. Think about it. Did the old covenant non-elect children sing the Psalms that spoke of God forgiving their sins? Do you have visiting non-believers that visit your church which sing hymns that asserts their sins have been forgiven? If so was any of this asserting their election to salvation? 
But here is my question to you. Do you believe there is no distinction between God’s love for children of believers and every pagan walking around? If you do, then what is the difference based on?



TsonMariytho said:


> OK... well, Baptists communicate God's covenantal love to all those who have not yet made a profession of faith, reminding them of their obligation to believe in the name of Jesus Christ, and warning them about "the danger of not putting their faith in the Messiah and suffering the covenant curses".


Huh? You don’t believe those who have not yet made a profession are part of the covenant so why would Baptist communicate God’s covenantal love to them? 



TsonMariytho said:


> This has already been explained, at least from my point of view. But since you ask for more, here is an expansion and practical example:
> When Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he was dealing with multiple issues that faced this young church. Apparently one of those issues was the unfortunate unequal yokes that were present in the group. We can imagine some men and women of Corinth receiving the gospel with joy, and taking the good news home only to find that their spouses wanted to have nothing to do with it. This put the young Christians in a quandary. It was clear from their instruction as Christians that they were to turn away from every sin of their old life, and be 100% devoted / sanctified / set apart to God.
> Some issues are pretty straightforward in that regard. Anyone who was stealing was to steal no longer. Anyone working in a pagan temple should find another line of business.
> But what about unbelieving spouses? Should a Christian separate from them, too? Doesn't the spouse reject everything about God? Isn't the spouse sinful and unclean, such that he contaminates the Christian spouse? One can imagine the new Christians asking their elders questions like this, and perhaps some contradictory answers flying back and forth. Perhaps someone invoked the teachings from Ezra, wherein the Israelite men were commanded to send away the idolatrous foreign wives along with the children.
> Never fear, the Apostle Paul is here, to provide timely instruction to this young Christian church at Corinth.
> "Relax," says the apostle. Your unbelieving spouse has been sanctified. Instead of worrying that your marriage partner will contaminate you, you should be praying and working toward the conversion of your spouse. Who is greater, Christ or Belial? Some of the rules of strict separation in the Old Covenant were ceremonial in nature. Living in the full light of the gospel you are to stay with your spouse to whom you have vowed faithfulness (except in certain exceptional conditions).
> And the children? Should they be sent away? Nope, they're "sanctified" too, just like the pagan spouse.


Huh? Should they send away their children? Nope sure where you get that from, I can grant much of what you say in reference to the spouse, but there was no debate about the children. Notice Paul makes that point that “*Otherwise* your children would be unclean” , this wording suggest it was an agreed upon fact that the children was clean. There is nothing in the text about the thought of having to send them away. But still you haven’t told me in what way they are sanctified. You just stated that they are sanctified. But in what way are they sanctified and clean?


TsonMariytho said:


> One of the best examples of 1 Corinthians 7:12-17 working itself out in real life is that of Monica, the mother of Augustine. Monica's husband was a pagan. And yet she remained faithful to him and stayed as his wife, in obedience to the Apostle Paul. And was her son "holy". Yes, in a 1st Corinthians 7 sense. Was her son "holy" in the sense of "a Christian"? Absolutely not. As it happens, Monica had reason from a fleshly point of view to despair of hope for her family, because young Augustine initially grew up in the mold of his father -- seemingly embarking on the life of a debauched intellectual.
> But as we know, the tears and prayers of Monica were remembered by the Lord, and we all know the rest of the story. God not only converted the young non-Christian Augustine, but made him a doctor of the Church who faithfully taught perhaps more than anyone up to that point the ideas of original sin and the doctrines of grace.


I don’t see how this deals with the issue. Of course her son was holy because she was a Christian. You state that he wasn’t holy in the sense of a Christian, but you have explained what the difference senses are. I think I understand what you mean by a Christian being holy, but in what way was the child holy and clean?


TsonMariytho said:


> For what it's worth, in Reformed Baptist circles I've run in, it's been the practice to say that so-and-so "has not made a [public] profession of faith", rather than calling the person a "pagan", "unbeliever", etc. I think this way of describing it is optimal for someone who is receptively learning the faith, because it can be said without prejudice to their actual spiritual state, which we don't really know.


But in Reformed Baptist circles one who “has not made a [public] profession of faith” is not considered regenerate. One who is not regenerate is a pagan/unbeliever. If the Baptist wants to rest the foundation of their belief on one being regenerate and making profession of faith for being a member of the New Covenant then they need to be consistent and confess with the Scriptures that anyone who does not do those things is a pagan/unbeliever until things change. Furthermore, I’m not just talking about someone who is receptively learning the faith but your infant children.


TsonMariytho said:


> If you believe that everyone who was circumcised was automatically entitled to baptism with no questions asked, then you are simply wrong. Baptism doesn't mean exactly what circumcision meant, and the church is responsible to withhold baptism in certain circumstances. There was no prerequisite to circumcision that I'm aware of the OT.


An infant of a believing parent(s) is entitled to baptism, no questions asked of them( kind of hard to ask an infant questions). This is true for circumcision also. 


TsonMariytho said:


> To put it in a form that I think you will be forced to agree with -- a first century Jew who was God-fearing would have to be instructed about Jesus Christ before he could be baptized. A Jew must become a Christian just as a pagan must become a Christian. Of course, in one case we have a man "bringing out new treasures as well as old", whereas in the other case we have a conversion from death to life. But my point remains. Merely being circumcised didn't entitle anybody to baptism with no questions asked / no further instruction.


Of course in the case of adults, but we are not talking about adults. We are discussing paedo vs credo baptism, and the distinction between the two is in regards to infants.



TsonMariytho said:


> We can't divorce this discussion from the actual covenants of scripture. To put it another way, the use of the word "covenant" doesn't make your point above correct. We would have to examine exactly what covenant you are talking about above. We would have to see what the promises/curses are, and to whom the promises/curses are offered, etc.


I’m talking about the one Covenant of Grace which was administered under the Abraham, Mosaic, and New Covenant. Now there can be only one way of salvation unless you are Dispensationalist, which means there must be one covenant of salvation(i.e. Covenant of Grace ), right?



> By all means, show me a scripture I am not treating correctly. Hopefully 1st Corinthians 7 is now clearer per the explanation above.


Well, you gave an answer but of course I don’t think you answered my main point, which is in what way are they children holy and clean. Furthermore, you mentioned that God has covenantal love for children of unbelievers which I’m glad you admitted, but I’m not sure how it really fits in Reformed Baptist theology.


----------



## TsonMariytho

Ronnie said:


> But here is my question to you. Do you believe there is no distinction between God’s love for children of believers and every pagan walking around? If you do, then what is the difference based on?



God's salvific love is only for his elect. God's free invitation of the gospel is given both to children of believers (at least most of the time) and to unbelievers. I can't see any particular non-salvific love of God given to children of believers that isn't equally extended to "Gentiles" who hear the gospel and come under the influence of the Church community.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'd like to pursue the precipitating questions, in this latter-portion (that led to some disagreements)


> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever?


This question is then followed by two more questions, which seem meant to clarify, however I'm not sure they really do. "What about grandchildren, etc?" is the way the further questions come out, however you can see there is commingling of questions here.

Is this a question about adults, or about children?? I have heard of believing grandparents presenting their grandchildren for baptism, in place of their unbelieving children, however this practice is not common in our churches. I think Rev.Winzer has brought up historic examples of this practice, and may have defended it. And the history of Puritan New England contains record of "half-way" covenant practice, which is along these lines.

But whatever the merits or demerits of this practice, _I am not sure what this would have to do with the marking with covenant-sign upon an adult, *who doesn't profess to believe*._

Presenting of the child--whether for circumcision in the OT, or baptism in the new--was/is supposed to be an act of faith in God. It is supposed to be an act of obedience to the command of God who promised blessing to the obedient and curse to the disobedient.

Why should a "son of Abraham" by descendency, not circumcised as a youth, want circumcision as an adult? *Hilasmos*, you said this was not a prostelyte or a convert. So why does he want this identification--whether by circumcision or baptism?

Perhaps you say, "because he has a right to it?" If he claims the right to have his p---- cut, based on the fact that he is a son of Abraham, and that's it... wh, wha- why?!?! I mean, what's he after? What does he want, if he doesn't believe in the promises to Abraham? Why does this NT age fellow want to be baptized? He comes in the church and says: "My great-grandparents were members here, so I'd like to be baptized next week--I haven't gotten it yet"?

Would the priest have done that for the OT alien that walked in off the street? This seems to be your assumption, that someone during the OT age would have had to deal with this problem. Why?? I don't think that a "no questions asked" policy was in place at all. An adult jumping the "circumcision hurdle" seems like a huge step of commitment to me. Doesn't it seem that way to you? It implies joining the covenant people for the "right" reasons.

And even if it wasn't for the "right" reasons (what would those other reasons be?), people ask for and receive baptism from credo- and paedo- practicing churches all the time, who are either wrong about their motives, or lying.

And even if so, you seem to be saying that, well, he would have that right, no questions asked. No asking "do you know the law?" Really? Just because he's a son of Abraham. Just genetics.

I have a right as an American citizen not to testify against myself in a court of law. So, should I break the law so I can have that opportunity to exercise that right? I don't "care" that I have that right, in this sense (only): I'm not a law-breaker I'm not planning on marching into the D.A.'s office, and asking them to "work me over" and extract an inadmissible "confession" from me, obtained by torture.

Back to the top, what is the rationale behind this question?


----------



## Ronnie

TsonMariytho said:


> Ronnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But here is my question to you. Do you believe there is no distinction between God’s love for children of believers and every pagan walking around? If you do, then what is the difference based on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's salvific love is only for his elect. God's free invitation of the gospel is given both to children of believers (at least most of the time) and to unbelievers. I can't see any particular non-salvific love of God given to children of believers that isn't equally extended to "Gentiles" who hear the gospel and come under the influence of the Church community.
Click to expand...


OK, but I'm not talking about salvific love, nor am I talking about the free invitation of the gospel. So based on the rest of your answer do you believe there is a type of love given to children of believers and those who "come under the influence of the Church community" that is not shown to those who never come under this influence?

Oh, one more question. If you believe the children of believers are loved in no way different by God than what he loves " 'Gentiles' who hear the gospel and come under the influence of the Church community" then why are the gentiles in this condition not called holy, clean( 1 Cor. 7:14), and said to be brought to the Lord for blessing( Mark 10:14), given instruction to obey in the Lord( Eph. 6:1)? Isn't it obvious that there is some distinction here, even if you don't believe they are in the New Covenant?


----------



## Hilasmos

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'd like to pursue the precipitating questions, in this latter-portion (that led to some disagreements)
> 
> 
> 
> Under the paedo view why is it unwarranted for the church to baptize an adult unbeliever?
> 
> 
> 
> This question is then followed by two more questions, which seem meant to clarify, however I'm not sure they really do. "What about grandchildren, etc?" is the way the further questions come out, however you can see there is commingling of questions here.
> 
> Is this a question about adults, or about children?? I have heard of believing grandparents presenting their grandchildren for baptism, in place of their unbelieving children, however this practice is not common in our churches. I think Rev.Winzer has brought up historic examples of this practice, and may have defended it. And the history of Puritan New England contains record of "half-way" covenant practice, which is along these lines.
> 
> But whatever the merits or demerits of this practice, _I am not sure what this would have to do with the marking with covenant-sign upon an adult, *who doesn't profess to believe*._
> 
> Presenting of the child--whether for circumcision in the OT, or baptism in the new--was/is supposed to be an act of faith in God. It is supposed to be an act of obedience to the command of God who promised blessing to the obedient and curse to the disobedient.
> 
> Why should a "son of Abraham" by descendency, not circumcised as a youth, want circumcision as an adult? *Hilasmos*, you said this was not a prostelyte or a convert. So why does he want this identification--whether by circumcision or baptism?
> 
> Perhaps you say, "because he has a right to it?" If he claims the right to have his p---- cut, based on the fact that he is a son of Abraham, and that's it... wh, wha- why?!?! I mean, what's he after? What does he want, if he doesn't believe in the promises to Abraham? Why does this NT age fellow want to be baptized? He comes in the church and says: "My great-grandparents were members here, so I'd like to be baptized next week--I haven't gotten it yet"?
> 
> Would the priest have done that for the OT alien that walked in off the street? This seems to be your assumption, that someone during the OT age would have had to deal with this problem. Why?? I don't think that a "no questions asked" policy was in place at all. An adult jumping the "circumcision hurdle" seems like a huge step of commitment to me. Doesn't it seem that way to you? It implies joining the covenant people for the "right" reasons.
> 
> And even if it wasn't for the "right" reasons (what would those other reasons be?), people ask for and receive baptism from credo- and paedo- practicing churches all the time, who are either wrong about their motives, or lying.
> 
> And even if so, you seem to be saying that, well, he would have that right, no questions asked. No asking "do you know the law?" Really? Just because he's a son of Abraham. Just genetics.
> 
> I have a right as an American citizen not to testify against myself in a court of law. So, should I break the law so I can have that opportunity to exercise that right? I don't "care" that I have that right, in this sense (only): I'm not a law-breaker I'm not planning on marching into the D.A.'s office, and asking them to "work me over" and extract an inadmissible "confession" from me, obtained by torture.
> 
> Back to the top, what is the rationale behind this question?
Click to expand...


Rev,

Thanks for the comments. My question wasn't asking if the unbeliever should seek circumcision just to excercise his right, which brings up the question of why in the world would he even want to do that. It was along the lines of, would the "church", or the Jew's extended "parents," have an obligation to seek his circumcision based on the fact that he meets the requirments of being part of the Jewish seed and is in fact their "child" - despite that his immediate parents, for whatever reason, had not had him circumcised. 

Rather the person does it or not wasn't my point, and I understand your questions concerning the potential absurdity of that. Sorry if I don't know enough to explain my point better. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hilasmos,
I would just say "no." The uncircumcised, who should have been, "has broken my covenant." The church then or now had no obligations to hunt such a person down and force inclusion on him.

So, unless that person, as a grown up, wants to "repent" of that--even if he didn't know he was a "lawbreaker" until later (and isn't that the way we all are, prior to knowledge of the law and conversion?)--there is no reason for him to seek circumcision in the religious sense. And no reason, other than to seek his conversion, his reintegration into the covenant life, that a circumcised Israelite (such as his grandparent) would call such a person back to his Israelite heritage.

Has this furthered the discussion at all?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Manley Beasley writes:
> 
> 
> But, where does it say "only"? Can you cite your references?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it has to say "only". It says "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." (Matt. 28:19a) The "them" referred to is those who have been made "disciples". The examples we have of baptism are never infants. Without the argument from the covenants (OC to NC congruency) there isn't a solid basis for infant baptism (numerous paedos have admitted as much). I believe Jeremiah 31 shows that the NC is not a covenant of both regenerate and unregenerate mixed together as the OC was so I believe credo baptism is the correct NC practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Do you mean that we are not to disciple our children?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


No, we should definitely teach them. Read the earlier discussion and I believe it explains how we view that. We teach them with a desire to evangelize them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Your not addressing the passages I mentioned Rich. Did God consider His nation Isreal to be his old covenant people even when they were disobedient and idolatrous, thus calling them to repent? He is long suffering.
> 
> We are discussing continuity between the Old and New.


Yes, of course God is longsuffering. The point of Israel's continuity in the Covenant, however, is not that they may serve other Gods as if they should sin all the more so that grace may abound. God's preservation is in spite of rebellion and misapprehension of what they were called to. Nevertheless, the substance of their circumcision was that He would be their God and they would be His people. When a person apostasized from the faith, if their children happened to return to the Lord generations down the road then that was extraordinary. The Law, however, cut apostates off (and in some cases killed them). You couldn't just walk into a doctor's office and have your child circumcised. Much like Presbyterial form of government, local synagogues watched over the people in the villages and Rabbis administered the circumcision. It was a religious and not a medical act.


TsonMariytho said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TsonMariytho said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was a strange question. Physical descent from Abraham by the covenantally elect lines of Isaac and Jacob(=Israel) was absolutely a sufficient condition to make circumcision mandatory. This obligation (of circumcision plus the rest of the Law) would be present regardless of whether one's immediate parents were Baal worshippers.
> 
> 
> 
> False and un-Biblical. You really have no business trying to argue any issue of Covenant theology if you are so woefully ignorant of the Scriptures to present the above point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is where God lays this obligation on Abraham's progeny:
> 
> Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, ​
> Here God clarifies that it is "through Isaac that your offspring shall be reckoned". In other words, God's peculiar national election follows the line of Isaac and not Ishmael.
> 
> Gen 17:18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"
> Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.​
> God's covenantal favor was renewed yet again with Jacob, but not with "godless" Esau:
> 
> Gen 32:28 Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed."
> Gen 32:29 Then Jacob asked him, "Please tell me your name." But he said, "Why is it that you ask my name?" And there he blessed him. ​
> Here is the basic scope of God's covenantal operations at the time of the Exodus:
> 
> Exo 2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.​
> It is fair to say that God's outward election of his covenant nation settles on the progeny of Jacob.
> 
> Eze 20:5 and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: On the day when I chose Israel, I swore to the offspring of the house of Jacob, making myself known to them in the land of Egypt; I swore to them, saying, I am the LORD your God. ​
> Reading the above passages, I would have to regard any physical descendant of Abraham through the line of Israel as very wicked indeed, who would refuse to undergo circumcision in obedience to the covenantal obligation God laid on his entire race. If his immediate parents were Baal worshippers, that's too bad; but it wouldn't change his personal covenantal obligation.
> 
> That this peculiar obligation spanned generations is the point being made above, and in my view, it stands unless you can provide some scripture showing otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason Calvin was "under-developed" is that he understood the Scriptures much better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not say Calvin was "under-developed".
Click to expand...


I'm drawing the line here. I want none of this here. It is interesting that, just today, I was reading something where Calvin was outright condemning your carnal thinking and he was thinking of Servetus when he was doing it.

You've established nothing above but the fact that you can provide a group of quotes from Scripture and establish that you don't know how to properly put them together Systematically and understand the nature of the Law or how the Abrahamic Covenant operated substantively. You're done arguing for this on a Reformed board.


----------



## Hilasmos

Yes, thanks. I guess my confusing mess of questions were steming, in part, from the comments concerning Israel being circumcised as adults prior to entering the promised land after the wonderings. Further, in my mind, I wasn't really mingling the concept of unbeliever = apostate or pagan, but rather, unbeliever = non-saving faith, one who could be, for all practical purposes, in good standing with the covenant community. 

Anyways, thanks. I will have to formulate my thoughts more.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks for the clarification Bruce.

Let me apologize for coming on strong but it is very frustrating to have a thread repeat the refrain: "This is not carnal" only to have the popular Baptist headline of what they think Presbyterians are doing and ask why the child of unbelieving parents isn't baptized. In other words, making baptism carnal.

I'll just apologize for being frustrated and leave it at that. I will, however, still insist that respect be shown our forbears in the Covenant and any suggestion that the Abrahamic Covenant was some sort of genetic right independent of belief is simply something I cannot stomach. Those who think otherwise will simply have to chalk it up to the crazy Marine who has no patience for a certain thing but I consider such thinking to go against the very nature of the Covenant of Grace. It throws our forebears in the faith under the bus and is completely antithetical to the tone of the Scriptures - especially highlighted in Hebrews 11. Never, never, never does God for a moment stomach simple outward obedience to a physical act. I urge all to read Calvin on this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This Thread is done.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Using my powers as an Admin to talk after a thread is closed I'd like to openly apologize to Hilasmos and TsonMariytho. I was impatient with both and was personally insulting in the process instead of trying to be helpful.


----------

