# James White / Dr. Gregg Strawbridge Tonight



## PuritanCovenanter

Baptism debate tonight on the web. 

Brethren:

I will be debating Dr. Gregg Strawbridge on the subject of baptism this
evening live on line. Please see my blog at Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White for details and
the link to listen live, 8pm EST.

James




> 11/08/2007
> Baptism Debate: 8pm EST
> James R. White
> Just a reminder that we have worked it out so that we can webcast the baptism debate this evening between myself and Dr. Gregg Strawbridge, editor of The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Some will remember that this was the book noted at the beginning of the baptism debate last year with Pastor Bill Shishko, and it is likewise the book containing the chapter by Pastor Jeff Niell that I interacted with in my Reformed Baptist Theological Review article on Hebrews 8 as well. I think we are scheduled for two hours, as far as I can tell, but I'm not 100% certain yet. In any case, the program will come to us from the folks at Covenant Radio. If the technology functions as it should, the quality should be very high. Of course, evening time is high traffic time in the US on the net, so the Skype factor could be a wildcard. We will see! We are scheduled to begin at 6pm MST, 8pm EST. Remember, this will take the place of our regular Thursday Dividing Line, but will be available at the regular webcasting URL, here. May the Lord be glorified in all that takes place this evening!



Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## tdowns

*Very cool....*

I hope to make it home, and have kids settled in time to be there "live".

Thanks.


----------



## reformedcop

Thanks! I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## reformedcop

Anybody listening?


----------



## Gloria

reformedcop said:


> Anybody listening?



I'm listening


----------



## LadyFlynt

Coming in late...ty...listening.


----------



## LadyFlynt

Dr. White has missed the entire point. And I don't believe he has not had those questions answered. He simply has dismissed the answers.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I thought he answered and gave good responses. I could say the same thing about his opponent sometimes. 

I agreed with him and his answer concerning Show me a verse.


----------



## LadyFlynt

The problem is that they ARE missing eachother. The issue I take with Dr. Strawbridge is that he didn't share the point of the children are participants of the physical covenant community.

A personal shot I had to Dr. White is that there are plenty of Baptist kids that grow, get baptised, then walk away hating God also.

Another Question: Why is he debating Dr. Strawbridge? Isn't Dr. Strawbridge the pastor of the CREC church here in Lancaster County (ie., FV issues)?

Not saying that we should toss out everything he might say...but it may explain the issue I had with him tonight. Someone not connected to FV would have mentioned the above...


----------



## reformedcop

My kids needed parental attention, so I couldn't listen all the way through. Did someone hear where it will be available in the future?


----------



## Iconoclast

LadyFlynt said:


> Dr. White has missed the entire point. And I don't believe he has not had those questions answered. He simply has dismissed the answers.



No, he addressed the points. Each one that was raised. They both put forth what they believe is truth.
Many good points were addressed. It will probably be made available on the Alpha Omega ministries
web site. I will have to listen again,but it seemed as if Dr.Strawbridge did not address several issues raised.
For example all of the Hebrews verses in relation to those in saving union with Christ.
I think that he cannot respond to them and be consistent with the doctrines of grace.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I love Doc to death....but yeah, LadyFlynt is right. Right after Strawbridge explained that his view of what it means to be in the covenant is different, Doc simply went past that and kept arguing as if what *we* (paedos) mean by in the covenant is the same as being *savingly in union* with Christ.

I'd beg to differ heavily on your response, Anthony. The only way one *can* consistently deal with the Hebrews warning passages is from a paedo perspective. Otherwise, all you end up doing is emptying the warning passages of their teeth (and, ironically, Doc ends up arguing like a paedo when he said "well, the same way a minister looks on his congregation and knows that not everyone is saved....") and making their threats imaginary.

But yeah, at some points, they were very heavily missing each other.

I love and respect Doc. He's still my favorite author, although he's slowly getting edged out by John Piper. But I disagree with both of them on this issue.


----------



## Iconoclast

BlackCalvinist said:


> I love Doc to death....but yeah, LadyFlynt is right. Right after Strawbridge explained that his view of what it means to be in the covenant is different, Doc simply went past that and kept arguing as if what *we* (paedos) mean by in the covenant is the same as being *savingly in union* with Christ.
> 
> I'd beg to differ heavily on your response, Anthony. The only way one *can* consistently deal with the Hebrews warning passages is from a paedo perspective. Otherwise, all you end up doing is emptying the warning passages of their teeth (and, ironically, Doc ends up arguing like a paedo when he said "well, the same way a minister looks on his congregation and knows that not everyone is saved....") and making their threats imaginary.
> 
> But yeah, at some points, they were very heavily missing each other.
> 
> I love and respect Doc. He's still my favorite author, although he's slowly getting edged out by John Piper. But I disagree with both of them on this issue.



BC,
I think this is the key to your response,when you said this;




> I'd beg to differ heavily on your response, Anthony. The only way one *can* consistently deal with the Hebrews warning passages is from a paedo perspective. Otherwise, all you end up doing is emptying the warning passages of their teeth (and, ironically, Doc ends up arguing like a paedo when he said "well, the same way a minister looks on his congregation and knows that not everyone is saved....") and making their threats imaginary..


 
The response given was you cannot have NC.believer's losing salvation in light of particular redemption.
Dr.White offered the section in Heb.10 saying you cannot be said to be saved and sanctified ,and then in 15 verses later be said to be losing that salvation.
The warning passages were real to the Hebrews before 70AD. They were in danger of going back to the shadows of The OC. worship,after the reality of NC.worship was revealed.
The whole book is geared to the superiority of Jesus, His person and work,as compared with Moses,Joshua, the tabernacle, priesthood,angels,law giving, law keeping, and all the witnesses of Heb 11 looking forward to Christ.
I have to listen again,but I believe I heard this part of Hebrews 6offered by Dr.White;

9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. 
I tried to tape it,so I will listen to it again if I can later on to seek to clarify this.

Bc, I can understand from reading many padeo-posts how you have this split view of being "In Covenant" ie, being [externally in the covenant,and visible church community] but not necessarily in the body of Christ, [ invisible church]. We do not see the Nc. this way. I am still trying to understand how other christans look at these verses without mis-representing their view.
I think that both men tried to do this to a certain extent. Any attempt to try to twist the words of someone shows a flawed arguement.


----------



## Pilgrim

LadyFlynt said:


> The problem is that they ARE missing eachother. The issue I take with Dr. Strawbridge is that he didn't share the point of the children are participants of the physical covenant community.
> 
> A personal shot I had to Dr. White is that there are plenty of Baptist kids that grow, get baptised, then walk away hating God also.
> 
> Another Question: Why is he debating Dr. Strawbridge? Isn't Dr. Strawbridge the pastor of the CREC church here in Lancaster County (ie., FV issues)?
> 
> Not saying that we should toss out everything he might say...but it may explain the issue I had with him tonight. Someone not connected to FV would have mentioned the above...



The show they were on, Covenant Radio at the very least is highly sympathetic to FV and Jeff and Bill were suspended from this forum for that reason. Apparently no non FV Presbyterian will go on there. I did see that the Baptists Schreiner and Dever will soon appear there discussing baptism. 

I say why not appear when you are given a chance to air your views?


----------



## Pilgrim

Is it just me, or did Dr. Strawbridge never answer why no one besides infants and small children are effectively included in household baptisms?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Pilgrim said:


> Is it just me, or did Dr. Strawbridge never answer why no one besides infants and small children are effectively included in household baptisms?



Hi:

No, it is not you. Dr. Strawbridge never adequately answered the question.

Credo-Baptists miss the idea of representation in Covenant Theology. Because of this they fall into a Dispensational-like view of the Covenants. I think this is where the two views find themselves talking past each other. Covenant. or Federal, Theology is revelation by representation. We call the US government "Federal" because the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court all represent the will of the people.

The Paedo-Baptist understands that when one mentions "Covenant Theology" that representation is presupposed. The Credo-Baptist does not. The members of Abraham's household were circumcized because Abraham was their Covenant (Representative) head. The Baptisims in the Book of Acts followed a similar pattern. The Head of the household was Baptized, and so, the rest of the household.

Now, James White makes a big deal out of the idea that most of the testimonies of these household baptisms had the servants making a form of profession of faith as well. There is a good answer to this as well.

The New Testament Church does not consist of Jews only, but Jews and Gentiles. In the beginning the Church was composed predominately of Jews - the first 3,000 converts to Christianity were mostly Jews (Acts 2). It was the practice of Paul to go into the synagogues "to the Jews first" before preaching to the Gentiles. The "Judaizers" were Jews who brought their ceremonial laws into the Church, and this was a big problem that was causing divisions. Peter would also disseminate from the "unclean" Gentiles, and Paul had to rebuke him for it. If we could transport ourselves back to the first century, then we would see that the complexion of the Church was remarkably Jewish in nature.

What more poignant way could God use to teach the Christian Jews that salvation was for the Gentiles as well? The answer is: Household Baptisms. We see in every single one of these Baptisms that the Head of the Household comes to faith first, and then the rest of the household. Whether the individual members of the household come to faith or not is immaterial. That God (may have) converted all of the members of these households is not the point of the examples. God is showing the First Century Jewish Christians that Salvation is now for the Gentiles as well. He does it by using Covenant, Representative, Theology:



> When they heard these things they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life, Acts 11:18 - upon hearing Peter relate the conversion of Cornelius and his household.


This also militates against James White's citation of Matthew 10:35,36:



> For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.


If we follow White's reasoning, then we should expect that no member of a household will be converted. Obviously, this is a false citation, and Jesus is not referring to Baptism nor to Covenant Theology.

Acts 2:39b is used by Dr. White as a bar to infant baptism, "...for as many as the Lord our God shall call." To this he adduces that "shall call" refers to Election, but this is contrary to the very sense and context of the passage. Peter is near the end of a semon inspired by the Spirit of God calling the Jews to repentance:



> Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, What shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you...


Is this not the outward call to repentance required by God? What do the Scriptures say after Acts 2:39?



> And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation, Acts 2:40.


How are they to save themselves but by laying hold of the "promise which are given to you, your children, and those who are afar off..." Again, the context of Covenant, Representative, Theology is primarily understood. How could the Jews not consider their children as inheritors of the promises applied here in Acts? If the Credo-Baptist Dispensational-like hermeneutic is applied here, then Peter should never have mentioned the children of believers in this context. We should have heard something like: "All who believe the promises will be saved," or something to that effect. Dr. White's attempts to "edit out" the children here does damage to Holy Scripture.

John Calvin:



> But if we listen to their trifles, what will become of that promise by which the Lord in the Second Commandment of his law pledges to his servants that he will be merciful to their offspring even to the thousandth generation [Ex. 20:6]? Shall we here take refuge in allegories? That would be too frivolous an evasion! Shall we say that it is abolished? But thus the law would be destroyed, which Christ came rather to establish [Matt. 5:17], in so far as it benefits our life. Let us accept as incontrovertible that God is so good and generous to his own as to be pleased, for their sake, also to count among his people the children whom they have begotten, _Institutes_ vol 2, pg. 1338 McNeill edition. IV.xvi.15.


Thus, all members of a household are to be baptized.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Thomas2007

Hello,

Can someone please bring me to up speed, because I'm not familiar with this book. I'm knowledgable on the FV issue.

I don't understand, why would a paedobapist be debating another paedobaptist in terms of Baptism, when the issue between Reformed Orthodoxy and Federal Vision Heterodoxy is the latter's inversion of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and not Baptism?

I don't understand, what am I missing?


----------



## ChristianTrader

Thomas2007 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Can someone please bring me to up speed, because I'm not familiar with this book. I'm knowledgable on the FV issue.
> 
> I don't understand, why would a paedobapist be debating another paedobaptist in terms of Baptism, when the issue between Reformed Orthodoxy and Federal Vision Heterodoxy is the latter's inversion of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and not Baptism?
> 
> I don't understand, what am I missing?



James White is a credobaptist.
Strawbridge is a paedobaptist.


----------



## LadyFlynt

It's wasn't two paedobaptists debating. It was a credo debating a paedo. The problem was that the paedo being debated was of the FV variety...they have a different view of children, salvation, and the role of baptism...thus feeding into the misunderstanding that the credo has of paedo-baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Rob for a very good presentation.

I have to say that I consider James White a personal friend but almost thought about calling up his show to express my disappointment and _inconsistency_ in the way that he is usually thoroughgoing. He used some tactics and misrepresented Confessional Reformed theology in a way that undermines the credibility of his own arguments.

For one thing, I feel like reaching through the Internet and grabbing anyone by the throat whenever they use the old saw that Calvin was just too dumb or too cowardly or still too Roman Catholic to be Reformed like they are. "If only someone had challenged Calvin on this..." was said a few times. Why not just have the courage to say: "I don't agree with Calvin on this. I think he was wrong." Why do men feel the need to come up with psychological reasons that cannot be supported by anything except their imaginations?

I find it fascinating that Calvin is the fount of so much Systematic Theology but yet, Covenant theology which runs course throughout his systematics, is all dorked up. Can somebody give me the list of the eminent Reformed Baptist Systematic theological texts that are in wide use? Have the courage to stand apart from Calvin and say he was wrong but don't insult our intelligence by claiming the man lacked your exegetical or intellectual acumen. James is smart but he ain't that smart. I believe Dr. White will be apologizing to Calvin in glory for that remark. I also think it's beneath reasonable dialogue.

Next, I think Dr. Strawbridge made a good point that Dr. White simply would not acknowledge. It's sort of the "Rain Man" approach to Hebrews where, because Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, the _ONLY_ thing Christ is able to mediate to _EVERYONE_ in the New Covenant is forgiveness of sins flowing from Union with Him in His death and resurrection. Challenged on how men can be judged even more severely for neglecting such a great salvation the only reply is a "definitely not in the New Covenant, definitely not in the New Covenant..." because, again, it is read that Christ is the perfect sacrifice of the New Covenant and, therefore, it must mean that anyone in it receives the full benefits of it. James seemed rather shocked that anyone would ever note that Christ would mediate wrath for Covenant breakers but is it not the orthodox teaching that Christ will judge all men on the Last Day? It seems like James wants to hold on to every idea that great judgment will occur for these people who drew near to the means of grace and turned their back on them JUST AS LONG as you don't say they're in or were ever in or part of the New Covenant. This is because New Covenant = Union with Christ.

I agree with Rob that the old saw about using Christ's passage about turning father against son and mother against daughter is a complete perversion of the text in how Christ intended to apply it. No Baptist even lives this way but they find it convenient to argue this way. I could press this very easily into my service and end up making lots of Baptists mad at me whenever I talk this way as if Baptists should consistently live out this line of thinking but I'll spare you all.

Finally, I want you all to note *very carefully* what I've said over and over and over again on this. This is denied over and over again every time I bring this up. Guess what? This wasn't even a debate about baptism. James, not once, created a case for _who_ he would baptize except to fly over it. This was a debate about the Baptist conviction that the New Covenant consists solely of the Elect.

Man, would I love to press James on his "consistency" on this point since that is his favorite word to use. Talk about being blind to a tradition that you don't even realize you haven't even established an argument against the baptism of infants simply by confining the New Covenant to the elect alone. As I've noted, over and over, so much literature and argumentation for the Reformed Baptist is wasted on this point that they think they've built a mountain of evidence for the baptism of professors. They haven't. They haven't even built a mountain of evidence against the baptism of infants. For when it comes time to decide to baptize either a professor or an infant, the regenerate state of the recipient is completely unknown.

Now the "bait and switch" tactic will now come into play and they'll make the argument of "higher probability" or "Apostolic example" but neither of those arguments have a single thing to do with the perfection of the New Covenant.

I want all of you Baptists that get angry at me when I note this point about the bulk of your argumentation to take note of this fact the next time you say: "We don't base it all on the fact that we're trying to baptize the elect". Well, guess what? When all your luminaries continue to use that very argumentation in moderated debates, I think I'm warranted in making that very point. If you don't want me to draw such conclusions then complain to Dr. White for not arguing for the "real reason" you baptize only professors.

Peace.


----------



## Thomas2007

LadyFlynt said:


> It's wasn't two paedobaptists debating. It was a credo debating a paedo. The problem was that the paedo being debated was of the FV variety...they have a different view of children, salvation, and the role of baptism...thus feeding into the misunderstanding that the credo has of paedo-baptism.



I didn't know Mr. White was credobaptist, or come to think of it maybe I did. Now I remember, back in 94 or 95 he and Dr Letis got into a snafu on Theonomy-L. Haven't paid any attention to any of stuff since then, until recently, when a new member of our Church went on his Cruise-Retreat thing a month or so ago. Anyway, thank you, makes sense now.


----------



## Iconoclast

*I did not hear it that way*

Rich, you said the following-For one thing, I feel like reaching through the Internet and grabbing anyone by the throat whenever they use the old saw that Calvin was just too dumb or too cowardly or still too Roman Catholic to be Reformed like they are. "If only someone had challenged Calvin on this..." was said a few times. Why not just have the courage to say: "I don't agree with Calvin on this. I think he was wrong." Why do men feel the need to come up with psychological reasons that cannot be supported by anything except their imaginations?

I did not hear Dr. White say this,the way you heard it.
He did not say Calvin was, dumb,or cowardly,or RC. I think what he was speaking about was out of respect for Calvin with whom he would disagree with on this point,He would have like to see Calvin's response to the baptism issue, if the same verses were being raised today were directly asked of Calvin , too see what his response would be. Calvin ,or Luther or any person in church history are only men however gifted or used by God they were.
If Luther was 100% correct we would all be Lutherans today,yet it seems like many are not following everything Luther taught. The same with Calvin or anyone else.
Again , Dr. White does not need a spokesman . I take his comments to say that it is hard for us today,to understand the thought process of some of the previous saints limited as we are to what they wrote.
Are we reading them correctly,or not fully understanding them?

In Rob's post he quotes Calvin's institutes in closing as if it settled the question ,which it does not:

John Calvin:


Quote:
But if we listen to their trifles, what will become of that promise by which the Lord in the Second Commandment of his law pledges to his servants that he will be merciful to their offspring even to the thousandth generation [Ex. 20:6]? Shall we here take refuge in allegories? That would be too frivolous an evasion! Shall we say that it is abolished? But thus the law would be destroyed, which Christ came rather to establish [Matt. 5:17], in so far as it benefits our life. Let us accept as incontrovertible that God is so good and generous to his own as to be pleased, for their sake, also to count among his people the children whom they have begotten, Institutes vol 2, pg. 1338 McNeill edition. IV.xvi.15. 

Thus, all members of a household are to be baptized

This quote does not prove any such thing. It might to Rob, but it does not at all. Then he does this in reference to the Mt passage:


> If we follow White's reasoning, then we should expect that no member of a household will be converted. Obviously, this is a false citation, and Jesus is not referring to Baptism nor to Covenant Theology.
> 
> 
> 
> It is very clear that either he did not hear the debate,or he did and is not following the point made.It is not "obviously a false citation". It was spoken in context of someone who comes to faith,and get's much resistance from members of His own household. Are you saying that if a roman catholic gets saved today, and speaks to family members about the truth of Christ and the errors of Rome that there will be no resistance!
> It will be just smooth sailing? That is not the pattern I have seen either in my own family, or many friends whom the Lord has called. What happened by God's mercy in Acts is not necessarily a pattern that is taught at all.
> Many of my friends spouses got openly hostile to the mates. Some wanted to divorce. Other's God has had mercy on.
> I did not think Greg Strawbridge presented a consistent case on many of the points at issue. I have seen many of the brethren here on the board give a more formidible presentation. Perhaps the other post's about his interest
> in the Fv ideas have clouded his thinking for a time.
> 
> Rich, I would like to comment more on the Hebrews passages. I think these passages are vital to why and how there is this divide in the padeo-credo discussions. This I think might be better in a seperate thread all to them selves. I know for a fact that there are men who are great theologians who might have missed some of the verses here, whereas I still value their scholarship and am indebted to them for much that I have learned from them.
> This however is like what I was talking to you about before. The best of men are men at best. You or I might like 90% of what someone writes, but we still must be open to the idea that even a great man does not have all truth.
Click to expand...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Thank you Rich and Chris for your kind "Thank You's" 

For the Record:

I think that James White is a Christian. My objections concerning Dr. White's pride have been noted elsewhere. I think his efforts against Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Islam are valuable, but his work defending the Critical Text and Credo-Baptism to be unskillful to say the best. It should be noted that Dr. White's series on the Dividing Line concerning Textual Criticism, which started to air on February 1, 2007, that Dr. White actually laughs at John Calvin in the first program. The first program has been deleted by Alpha and Omega ministeries. One wonders if he is simply using the good name of John Calvin for his own purposes?

Which brings us to Calvin:

I must have missed that part where Dr. White is saying "If Calvin only knew..." the problem is that Calvin knew very well. If Dr. White claims to have read Calvin, then he could not have missed the whole section in the _Institutes_ that Calvin devotes to the subject of Baptism, IV.XV. What is remarkable is that Calvin is arguing against the Anabaptists, but the Anabaptists are using the exact same arguments as Dr. White. In IV.XVI Calvin defends Infant Baptism from the Anabaptists:



> But since in this age certain frantic spirits have grievously disturbed the church over infant baptism, and do not cease their agitation, I cannot refrain from adding an appendix here to restrain their mad ravings ... They attack infant baptism with an argument seemingly quite plausible, by boasting that it is not founded upon any institution of God, but has been introduced only through men's presumption and depraved curiosity, IV.XVI.I


After going though some passages of Scripture Calvin writes:



> Now, everyone may see that infant baptism was by no means fashioned by man, resting as it does on such firm approbation of Scripture. *Nor is their silly objection plausible that there is no evidence of a single infant's ever being baptized by the hands of the apostles!*IV.XVI.8


Next,



> Now let us examine the arguments by which certain mad beasts ceaselessly assail this holy institution of God. First of all, since they feel that they are immoderately cramped and constrained by the likeness between baptism and circumcision, *they strive to set these two signs apart by a wide difference *so there there may seem to be nothing in common between them. IV.XVI.10


Another example:



> In the use of the term "children" they find this difference: those who had their origin from his seed were called the children of Abraham under the Old Testament; now, those who imitate his faith are called by this name. They therefore say that that physical infancy which was engrafted into the fellowship of the covenant through circumcision foreshadowed the spiritual infants of the New Testament, who were regenerated to immortal life by God's Word ... Therefore, the Lord promises Abraham that he will have offspring in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed [Gen. 12:3], and at the same time assures him that He will be his God and the God of his (physical) descendants [Gen. 17:7]. All those who by faith receive Christ as author of the blessing are heirs of this promise, and are therefore called children of Abraham. IV.XVI.12


Who has not heard this next argument from the Ana/Credo-Baptist position?



> They think that they are putting forward a very strong reason why children are to be barred from baptism when they claim that children because of their age are not yet able to understand the mystery signified in it, namely, spiritual regeneration, which cannot take place in earliest infancy. Our opponents therefore conclude that children are to be considered solely as children of Adam until they reach an appropriate age for the second birth, IV.XVI.17


Children are "incapable of faith" and must come to an "Age of Accountability" before they can be baptized?

I did not put down Calvin's defense from Scripture concerning these points, because that was not the scope of this section. What I wanted to show is that Calvin is addressing the very same objections that modern day "Credo" Baptists are objecting to concerning Paedo-Baptism. I have provided the references, and, if you call yourself a "Calvinistic" Baptist, then you should have a copy of the _Institutes_ in your library and you should read if for yourself. If not, shame on you!  You can find an online copy at our website:

Reformed Books and Commentaries

Scroll down a bit for the Beveridge translation.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast said:


> Rich, you said the following-For one thing, I feel like reaching through the Internet and grabbing anyone by the throat whenever they use the old saw that Calvin was just too dumb or too cowardly or still too Roman Catholic to be Reformed like they are. "If only someone had challenged Calvin on this..." was said a few times. Why not just have the courage to say: "I don't agree with Calvin on this. I think he was wrong." Why do men feel the need to come up with psychological reasons that cannot be supported by anything except their imaginations?
> 
> I did not hear Dr. White say this,the way you heard it.
> He did not say Calvin was, dumb,or cowardly,or RC. I think what he was speaking about was out of respect for Calvin with whom he would disagree with on this point,He would have like to see Calvin's response to the baptism issue, if the same verses were being raised today were directly asked of Calvin , too see what his response would be. Calvin ,or Luther or any person in church history are only men however gifted or used by God they were.
> If Luther was 100% correct we would all be Lutherans today,yet it seems like many are not following everything Luther taught. The same with Calvin or anyone else.
> Again , Dr. White does not need a spokesman . I take his comments to say that it is hard for us today,to understand the thought process of some of the previous saints limited as we are to what they wrote.
> Are we reading them correctly,or not fully understanding them?
> 
> In Rob's post he quotes Calvin's institutes in closing as if it settled the question ,which it does not:
> 
> John Calvin:
> 
> 
> Quote:
> But if we listen to their trifles, what will become of that promise by which the Lord in the Second Commandment of his law pledges to his servants that he will be merciful to their offspring even to the thousandth generation [Ex. 20:6]? Shall we here take refuge in allegories? That would be too frivolous an evasion! Shall we say that it is abolished? But thus the law would be destroyed, which Christ came rather to establish [Matt. 5:17], in so far as it benefits our life. Let us accept as incontrovertible that God is so good and generous to his own as to be pleased, for their sake, also to count among his people the children whom they have begotten, Institutes vol 2, pg. 1338 McNeill edition. IV.xvi.15.
> 
> Thus, all members of a household are to be baptized
> 
> This quote does not prove any such thing. It might to Rob, but it does not at all. Then he does this in reference to the Mt passage:
> 
> 
> 
> If we follow White's reasoning, then we should expect that no member of a household will be converted. Obviously, this is a false citation, and Jesus is not referring to Baptism nor to Covenant Theology.
> 
> 
> 
> It is very clear that either he did not hear the debate,or he did and is not following the point made.It is not "obviously a false citation". It was spoken in context of someone who comes to faith,and get's much resistance from members of His own household. Are you saying that if a roman catholic gets saved today, and speaks to family members about the truth of Christ and the errors of Rome that there will be no resistance!
> It will be just smooth sailing? That is not the pattern I have seen either in my own family, or many friends whom the Lord has called. What happened by God's mercy in Acts is not necessarily a pattern that is taught at all.
> Many of my friends spouses got openly hostile to the mates. Some wanted to divorce. Other's God has had mercy on.
> I did not think Greg Strawbridge presented a consistent case on many of the points at issue. I have seen many of the brethren here on the board give a more formidible presentation. Perhaps the other post's about his interest
> in the Fv ideas have clouded his thinking for a time.
> 
> Rich, I would like to comment more on the Hebrews passages. I think these passages are vital to why and how there is this divide in the padeo-credo discussions. This I think might be better in a seperate thread all to them selves. I know for a fact that there are men who are great theologians who might have missed some of the verses here, whereas I still value their scholarship and am indebted to them for much that I have learned from them.
> This however is like what I was talking to you about before. The best of men are men at best. You or I might like 90% of what someone writes, but we still must be open to the idea that even a great man does not have all truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> In the above post I show that Calvin does indeed interract with Dr. White's Ana/Credo Baptist postion.
> 
> As far as my concluding sentence is concerned - it covers the whole post rather than just one quote from Calvin.
> 
> Finally, concerning the Matthew 10 passage - It was James White who agreed that the baptisms in Acts were household baptisms, and it was James White who quoted Matt 10 as relevant to Baptism. Dr. White is contradicting himself.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings Iconoclast:

Having once attended your church as a Credo-Baptist, and listening to the reminiscences of your Pastor's glory days as a detective from the pulpit, I can assure you that I am well acquainted of the postion from which you are coming - and can sympathize with you.

You wrote:



> It is very clear that either he did not hear the debate,or he did and is not following the point made.It is not "obviously a false citation". It was spoken in context of someone who comes to faith,and get's much resistance from members of His own household. Are you saying that if a roman catholic gets saved today, and speaks to family members about the truth of Christ and the errors of Rome that there will be no resistance!
> It will be just smooth sailing? That is not the pattern I have seen either in my own family, or many friends whom the Lord has called. What happened by God's mercy in Acts is not necessarily a pattern that is taught at all.


The error that Dr. White is making is referencing this passage with "household baptisms." It is clear from the Scriptures that one cannot make a correlation between Matt. 10 and the household baptisms in the Book of Acts. I have heard Dr. White use Matthew 10 as a means of denying Covenant Theology:



> For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.


The Father and the Mother are the heads of the household. One should expect problems when an unbelieving father is accosted by a son who has come to faith in Jesus. You, and me, as a child are not the heads of the households. One can expect order in *your* household, because you are the head of it, but, when it comes to an unbelieving parent such is not necessarily the case.

Dr. White, and yourself, are both missing the idea of "promise" here. Abraham was given the exact same promises, but Ishmael, the son of Abraham, was a rebel. The Bible tells us, "In Isaac shall your seed be called." Yet, we see of Isaac's sons, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated." David, "was a man after God's own heart." But look at the disasterous circumstances of his family.

I will borrow a page from the Credo-Baptist position: What we should marvel at is that whole households were Baptized - showing the marvelous power and Grace found in the New Testament Church as opposed to the Old Testament. We should expect the children of believers to become Christians. It does not mean that they will. The children of Believers should be Baptized because the Believer is their Covenant, Representative, Head. You cannot baptize your unbelieving father because he is the one who has authority over you, not you him.

I will end this with that quote from Calvin that you so vociferously objected to:



> Let us accept as incontrovertible that God is so good and generous to his own as to be pleased, for their sake, also to count among his people the children whom they have begotten, Institutes vol 2, pg. 1338 McNeill edition. IV.xvi.15.


Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## lwadkins

The debate on Baptism never holds anything new. Having been baptized as an infant (Lutheran as my family came to the US from Denmark), grown up Methodist, baptized again as a Baptist, and finally found my way to the reformed faith as a Presbyterian, I have been exposed to one or two views of Baptism. I have little patience for the debate any longer as each argument is just a rehash of previous arguments made time and time again.

There is one tactic in the disagreement which I detest. That is the one to one correlation between number of arguments and effectiveness of argument. In other words, if a person can give 6 points that he or she can claim as supporting the affirmative of his argument, and his or her opponent can give but 3, this is taken as proof of said position.

I suggest that the points given in support of a position carry different “weight” and the number of arguments is, for the most part, superfluous. I recommend that participants take the time to weigh the scriptures and realize that some are much more pertinent to the issue than others.

There are a number of arguments given (time and again) that are just simply not weighty!


----------



## Iconoclast

Rob,
Are you saying that there is no difference between the anabaptists that Calvin spoke against and the reformed baptists of today? I do not think the anabaptists would have spoken about Hebrews 10 as Dr.White did in this past debate.
You were non responsive to my comments about the Mt. passage:
You wrote:


Quote:
It is very clear that either he did not hear the debate,or he did and is not following the point made.It is not "obviously a false citation". It was spoken in context of someone who comes to faith,and get's much resistance from members of His own household. Are you saying that if a roman catholic gets saved today, and speaks to family members about the truth of Christ and the errors of Rome that there will be no resistance!
It will be just smooth sailing? That is not the pattern I have seen either in my own family, or many friends whom the Lord has called. What happened by God's mercy in Acts is not necessarily a pattern that is taught at all. 

The error that Dr. White is making is referencing this passage with "household baptisms." It is clear from the Scriptures that one cannot make a correlation between Matt. 10 and the household baptisms in the Book of Acts. I have heard Dr. White use Matthew 10 as a means of denying Covenant Theology:Quote:

Rob, you have posted several times using 1cor 7:14 [as does calvin in volume 2 which you are so keen on using] and I do not believe baptism is the context for that verse either. When Dr.White uses a non baptism section of scripture to get at a point at issue, I do not have trouble with it.
As far as the promise we do not miss it. We understand it different from you. 
Because you visited a reformed baptist church does not mean you necessarily understood the position of it.
I have not seen any real indication in your posts that you really understand the position and just do not agree.
Interestingly enough, you are not the only one who has a copy of Calvin's institutes.
If you re-read pages 1312-1330 I am not sure you would want to defend all of brother Calvin's ideas[then again,maybe you would!]

like here:
12. Paul's inner struggle (Romans ch. 7)

Here we say nothing more than the apostle Paul expounds most clearly in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. He had discoursed of free justification, but as some wicked men thence inferred that they were to live as they listed, because their acceptance with God was not procured by the merit of works (Rom. 6:1,15), he adds, that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, and that we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism (Rom. 6:3f). Hence he exhorts believers not to allow sin to reign in their members (Rom. 6:12). 
I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.

In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.)

or here: 17. Baptism not invalidated by the delay of repentance

Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving, we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true, (Rom. 3: 3, 4 though all were lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it.

or heren page 1320- Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.
Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us
or yet again on page 1329- 
Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us.
I can read Calvin or any other theologian,but all must be tested by the word of God. I am thankful for how God used him and other's to stand for truth against the evil of his day. Nevertheless he was not an infallible apostle.
There are times I can agree with his statements about the anabaptists. There are times that I might be understanding what he wrote. There are times I see what he wrote and think that he was sounding a bit prideful .
Also I do not think it matters in this discussion whether or not a pastor was a detective.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Iconoclast:

Thank you for that kind reply. You wrote:



> Are you saying that there is no difference between the anabaptists that Calvin spoke against and the reformed baptists of today? I do not think the anabaptists would have spoken about Hebrews 10 as Dr.White did in this past debate.
> You were non responsive to my comments about the Mt. passage:
> You wrote:


No. What I am saying is that the Credo-Baptist "movement" is using the very same arguments that the Anabaptists used during the Reformation. If you remember the context of this point, then you will realize that what I was replying to was the statement by Rich of Dr. White's point that "Calvin did not know the Credo-Baptist argument" - or something to that effect. As I understand the history of the "Credo-Baptist movement" they grew out of the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation rather than the Magisterial Reformation. Calvin answered the Ana/Credo argument concerning baptism in the _Institutes_ as I demonstrated above. It is surprising to me that a "scholar" such as Dr. White would make such a blunder. Bias perhaps?

I find it curious that you say that I was non-responsive to your comments concerning Matthew 10, but then you engage in my comments concerning Matt. 10? You wrote:



> Rob, you have posted several times using 1cor 7:14 [as does calvin in volume 2 which you are so keen on using] and I do not believe baptism is the context for that verse either. When Dr.White uses a non baptism section of scripture to get at a point at issue, I do not have trouble with it.
> As far as the promise we do not miss it. We understand it different from you.
> Because you visited a reformed baptist church does not mean you necessarily understood the position of it.
> I have not seen any real indication in your posts that you really understand the position and just do not agree.
> Interestingly enough, you are not the only one who has a copy of Calvin's institutes.
> If you re-read pages 1312-1330 I am not sure you would want to defend all of brother Calvin's ideas[then again,maybe you would!]


Yes, that is very true. But the difference is that I am not contradicting myself. Matthew 10:36 (which I have quoted several times) - especially the way Dr. White uses it - leads one to think that a believer will have trouble in his household:



> For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. *And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household*.


Maybe you can enlighten me as to exactly how Dr. White is using this passage in relation to the household baptisms of the Book of Acts? The logical connection with Baptism in this passage does not seem to fit. If your father or mother is an enemy of the gospel, then how does that give you the authority to baptism them - seeing that they are the authority over you?

In the Book of Acts we have examples of "household baptisms," but, by citing Matthew 10:36the way that Dr. White does, we should expect *no household baptisms*. Either Dr. White's citation of Matthew 10:36 is wrong, or we have a plain contradiction in the Scriptures. Where would your loyalties follow if you are a "Bible Believing" Christian?

As far as 1 Cor. 7:14 is concerned: There is a logical connection between being holy and being Baptized. I have asked several times of the Credo's here that if the Bible declares a person to be holy, then why should we refuse Baptism to him/her? My question goes unanswered. The objections that Credo-Baptists have made have been easily answered in other threads.

As far as the Promises are concerned in Acts 2:36ff I have not seen a decent Credo-Baptistic understanding of it. They usually run roughshod over the passages in order to get at the phrase, "...all whom the Lord God shall call." Since I am so low in understanding of the Credo position, then maybe you can show me how this works in the light of the Scriptures. If Peter is simply talking to the Elect, which is what I imagine what you will say, then he has a strange way of doing so - since he applies the Promises found in Baptism to the whole crowd.

The Promises are given to all who hear the Gospel Call. This is called the Free Offer of the Gospel. There are some who deny this (called hyper-Calvinists today) and claim that the Promises are only given to the Elect - thus we should preach only to the Elect.

I am glad to see that you have a copy of the _Institutes_  The passages you cite are most Orthodox in their teaching. These passages are from chapter XV in which Calvin is expounding what Baptism is exactly. In the very next chapter (XVI) you will find Calvin's presentation of Infant Baptism. (I should note that your citation of Calvin's pgs. 1312-1330 extends into the next chapter on Infant Baptism).

That faith is necessary for the right operation of Baptism is upheld by Infant Baptists - as John Calvin clearly states in these two chapters. In your citing of XV.17 the idea of promise is unfurled:



> God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it.


One can give a promise, and fulfill that promise a long time after. In Genesis 3 we have the protoevangelion wherein the Promise of the Messiah is first mentioned. Yet, the fulfillment of that Promise did not happen until 6,000 years later. The Promises of Baptism can be given to a Believer's child at infancy. Like a flower slowly opening its petals to the sunlight: The child can grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and finally come to faith in Christ.

We even have examples in Scripture of infants being saved in the womb, Jeremiah:



> Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations, Jer. 1:5


And, John the Baptist:



> And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:41.


Finally,

We have the sure understanding of circumcision in the Old Testament. Circumcision signified in the OT what Baptism does in the NT. Especially the New Birth (Deut. 10:16). The sign was given to infants, but, surely the spiritual significance of the sign was not generally consummated until later in life? To say that God does not act in such a fashion is to deny half of the Bible - if not the whole of it.

As far as immersion or sprinkling is concerned I am in agreement with Calvin. Immersion or sprinkling are valid in the Sacrament of Baptism. I would prefer to sprinkle an infant rather than immerse him/her. I would suggest Samuel Miller's excellent treatise on Baptism - especially as he treats of the mode of it in a whole section of the book:

The Mode of Baptism (Samuel Miller)

If I have treated Calvin as an "infallible apostle" then I am most surely incorrect. This whole discussion on Calvin was engendered by Dr. White's comments in the debate.

I agree with you that it is immaterial to this debate as to whether or not your pastor was a detective  I simply wanted you to know that I am most familiar with your church, and that I am sympathetic to your position.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CalvinandHodges said:


> Matthew 10:36 (which I have quoted several times) - especially the way Dr. White uses it - leads one to think that a believer will have trouble in his household.
> 
> Maybe you can enlighten me as to exactly how Dr. White is using this passage in relation to the household baptisms of the Book of Acts? The logical connection with Baptism in this passage does not seem to fit. If your father or mother is an enemy of the gospel, then how does that give you the authority to baptism them - seeing that they are the authority over you?
> 
> In the Book of Acts we have examples of "household baptisms," but, by citing Matthew 10:36the way that Dr. White does, we should expect *no household baptisms*. Either Dr. White's citation of Matthew 10:36 is wrong, or we have a plain contradiction in the Scriptures. Where would your loyalties follow if you are a "Bible Believing" Christian?


This is a very good point and one I wish that some of the Baptists would sit up and take notice of. The fact that I've seen not one but two Baptists use this text in a tactical way undermines the credibility of the position being argued.

I frankly think the Baptist is trying to guard against too much. I sense in the presentation an underlying assumption that the Confessionally Reformed are arguing for a genetic salvation and that, by natural generation, their offspring are saved. This text is brought in and, it must resonate with some because they use it, but it falls completely on its face.

It has been presented both times as if what Christ is teaching is a didactic passage on how we should _expect_ families in the New Covenant to be now. "Ah, see", says the Baptist, "Christ is saying I came to break up families with the Gospel and so we know that salvation doesn't proceed along genetic lines."

First, we would be scratching our heads thinking: "Who ever said that salvation was spread by a Christian sperm and an egg?"

Secondly, when did we ever think that was the case? How would the New Covenant be "New" in that way at all since Romans 9 makes clear salvation was *never* grossly genetic.

At best they're arguing against some sort of gross straw man that cannot be found in any Confession.

So, now that they brought out this "bully" of a prooftext to show, conclusively to them, that we are to *expect* that families will be torn apart by the Gospel and that there's probably only going to be one in the whole family that's elect, do they militantly enforce that idea in their Churches? Do they then presume as follows:

1. I'm united to Christ by faith.
2. Christ came to split up families.
3. I just had a child.
4. He must be unsaved because that's the nature of the New Covenant.

Of course not: 
a. It's absurd. 
b. It's un-Scriptural. 
c. It's gross.

Exactly!

Hence the way the verse is used by Reformed Baptists in these debates is *all of the above*.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> Credo-Baptists miss the idea of representation in Covenant Theology. Because of this they fall into a Dispensational-like view of the Covenants. I think this is where the two views find themselves talking past each other. Covenant. or Federal, Theology is revelation by representation. We call the US government "Federal" because the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court all represent the will of the people.



I am going to state that your premise is incorrect that the credo doesn't understand that theology is revelation by representation. We understand this even in Abraham. We disagree with you on the nature of the Covenants. Abraham as federal head of his people was due to the fact that God made a Covenant with him and his posterity. The thing you Presbyterian's neglect to see is that there are different kinds of promises in this covenant. I have discussed this a few times before to no avail. 

Here you can read a discussion between Rich and I.http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/case-believer-s-only-baptism-23640/index3.html


Then Rev. Matthew Winzer and I discuss the bi-covenantal theme in Abraham and Moses here.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/

I also pursue it here.

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



Anyways we recognize the federal headship and representation. We also understand the different promises in these covenants. Just because the word Covenant is mentioned doesn't mean that we flatten out all covenants to be the same in formula. There are covenants that don't have conditions like others do. And the Children who are justified and of faith are Abraham's children in the New Covenant, which is in Christ's blood.

(Gal 3:8) And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

(Gal 3:9) So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lwadkins said:


> There is one tactic in the disagreement which I detest. That is the one to one correlation between number of arguments and effectiveness of argument. In other words, if a person can give 6 points that he or she can claim as supporting the affirmative of his argument, and his or her opponent can give but 3, this is taken as proof of said position.
> 
> I suggest that the points given in support of a position carry different “weight” and the number of arguments is, for the most part, superfluous. I recommend that participants take the time to weigh the scriptures and realize that some are much more pertinent to the issue than others.
> 
> There are a number of arguments given (time and again) that are just simply not weighty!



I agree Lon. And I also believe that because someone wins a debate doesn't mean that the winner is necessarily the holder of truth. It only means he presented his argument better.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

CalvinandHodges said:


> If you remember the context of this point, then you will realize that what I was replying to was the statement by Rich of Dr. White's point that "Calvin did not know the Credo-Baptist argument" - or something to that effect. As I understand the history of the "Credo-Baptist movement" they grew out of the Anabaptists and the Radical Reformation rather than the Magisterial Reformation. Calvin answered the Ana/Credo argument concerning baptism in the _Institutes_ as I demonstrated above. It is surprising to me that a "scholar" such as Dr. White would make such a blunder. Bias perhaps?



I think we have discussed this before but I am not sure where. The Particular Baptist heritage is Puritan and Continental. It didn't have its foundation in the Mennonite nor anabaptist movement. They find themselves starting to form around 1641 and responding to the charges of anabaptist heresies in 1644. They were Covenantal, Calvinistic, and Congregational. And they were not of the Radical Reformation which advocated all kinds of anarchy, debauchery, or pacifism. They also were not separatist and considered the Church of England to still be a Church of Christ unlike the Radical Reformation.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

PuritanCovenanter said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Credo-Baptists miss the idea of representation in Covenant Theology. Because of this they fall into a Dispensational-like view of the Covenants. I think this is where the two views find themselves talking past each other. Covenant. or Federal, Theology is revelation by representation. We call the US government "Federal" because the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court all represent the will of the people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to state that your premise is incorrect that the credo doesn't understand that theology is revelation by representation. We understand this even in Abraham. We disagree with you on the nature of the Covenants. Abraham as federal head of his people was due to the fact that God made a Covenant with him and his posterity. The thing you Presbyterian's neglect to see is that there are different kinds of promises in this covenant. I have discussed this a few times before to no avail.
> 
> Here you can read a discussion between Rich and I.http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/case-believer-s-only-baptism-23640/index3.html
> 
> 
> Then Rev. Matthew Winzer and I discuss the bi-covenantal theme in Abraham and Moses here.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/works-within-mosaic-covenant-24649/
> 
> I also pursue it here.
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/covenant-grace-children-24488/
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways we recognize the federal headship and representation. We also understand the different promises in these covenants. Just because the word Covenant is mentioned doesn't mean that we flatten out all covenants to be the same in formula. There are covenants that don't have conditions like others do. And the Children who are justified and of faith are Abraham's children in the New Covenant, which is in Christ's blood.
> 
> (Gal 3:8) And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
> 
> (Gal 3:9) So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Click to expand...


Hey:

Quite frankly what you said above does not appear to me to make much sense. Sometimes when I am writing I "know" what I am saying, but I forget that another may not have the same thoughts, and my words become confusing to them.

Pardon me if I have missed your point. The context of the above statements by me were concerning Acts 2:36ff, and Matthew 10:35,36. Since you seem to agree that Covenant Theology presupposes representative (Federa) headship, then how would you apply such in the passages above?

I am sure you are familiar with Baptists and the Bible a history of the Baptist movement by Southern Baptists L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles:



> Anabaptists should not be simplistically identified with modern Baptists. Some significant points of difference exist. However, Anabaptists set forth many ideas that influenced the eventual development of Baptist life and gave living proof that the principle of _sola scriptura_ could lead to determined efforts to reestablish the New Testament pattern of the church ... What eventually became the first modern Baptist church was establsihed in Amsterdam in 1609 as a result of the meeting of a group of English Separatists with the Dutch Anabaptists, the Mennonites, pg. 12.


These are your own historians speaking. They argue that "Modern Day" Baptists grew out of the Anabaptist movement as well as English Separatists. The question as to what distinguishes "Modern Day" Baptists from Reformed Congregationalists or Presbyterians can only be found in the Anabaptist movement - Specifically, Baptism and Church Government.

I understand why "Modern Day" Baptists would like to steer clear of their roots in the Radical Reformation, but it is because of the Radical Reformation that their distinctives are derived from in their denomination.

I have to go to class now - will pick it up later Lord willing,

-CH


----------



## Iconoclast

*The promise/what do you think?*



CalvinandHodges said:


> Iconoclast:
> Rob thanks for reading and responding to my post. I would like to offer a response to some of your concerns:
> you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the Promises are concerned in Acts 2:36ff I have not seen a decent Credo-Baptistic understanding of it. They usually run roughshod over the passages in order to get at the phrase, "...all whom the Lord God shall call." Since I am so low in understanding of the Credo position, then maybe you can show me how this works in the light of the Scriptures. If Peter is simply talking to the Elect, which is what I imagine what you will say, then he has a strange way of doing so - since he applies the Promises found in Baptism to the whole crowd.
> 
> The Promises are given to all who hear the Gospel Call. This is called the Free Offer of the Gospel. There are some who deny this (called hyper-Calvinists today) and claim that the Promises are only given to the Elect - thus we should preach only to the Elect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, I would like to approach it this way. Although there are many great and precious promises in the word of God even as you noted correctly starting in Gen.3:15, I would like to focus on two sections of scripture that I believe address our Acts 2:39 passage.
> 1] The promise of the Spirit given before the cross in the gospel of John 14:16-21, 15:26,27 16:7-13,25-28
> 2] Acts 2:17-39, Acts3:13-26, Acts13:32-41,45-48
> 
> In the Gospel of John the promise of the Comforter is given,and said to be sent by the Father.Jn14:16,26 15:26
> [I actually like to read Jn 14-17 as one unit and meditate on the promise of the Spirit, promise of the life and union He gives to the elect, ]
> Okay.In Acts 1:4 They are told to "wait for the promise of The Father" which you have heard of me.
> 
> When we move into Acts 2:21-39 we are given an expanded explanation of The promise of the Father.
> Obviously the cross is central as God's determinate counsel, but in verse 24 the sermon moves to the resurrection of The Lord Jesus Christ, as psalm 16 is quoted
> 22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
> 
> 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
> 
> 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
> 
> 25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
> 
> 26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
> 
> 27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
> 
> 28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance
> 
> In verse 29-33 It is said that Jesus received of The Father the promise of the Holy Ghost: as from psalm 16
> quoted again in vs.31-33.
> 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
> 
> 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
> 
> 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
> 
> 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
> 
> 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
> 
> The promise of the Father here was identified with the promise of psalm 16 of the body of Jesus.
> The events of pentecost are described in 33b "he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
> 
> Are you with me at this point? Remember in Jn. 14:17-21 when Jesus said I will not leave you orphans[comfortless].He then described the saving union with Christ that actually will take place in that day.
> as follows; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
> 
> 18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. NKJ;18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
> 
> 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
> 
> 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
> 
> There is no greater promise! Saving union with The Lord Jesus Christ, because he lives as our Great High Priest, Interceding or all that the Father has given to Him. Jn 6;37-44 Hebrews 2:9-17
> Christ, the firstfruits , and us In Him.
> 
> So back to Acts 2:36-38 "what shall we do"?
> 
> 38Then 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.
> 
> 39For 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.
> 
> The promise all along here was made by the Father , to the Son, and to all who believe;
> 1] YOU- IF YOU ALSO BELIEVE
> 2]YOUR CHILDREN- IF THEY ALSO BELIEVE
> 3]AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF- IF THEY BELIEVE
> 4]AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL-IF THEY BELIEVE
> 
> The promise is of Resurrection because of actual Saving Union with Christ.[20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.]
> 
> It is only Spirit Baptism that does this, not water baptism. it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. Calvin speaks of romans 6:3 as water baptism,as a sign rather than Spirit baptism providing the reality of real actual life from the dead.
> 
> 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
> 
> 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
> 
> 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
> 
> 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
> 
> In my understanding Romans 6 is actual ,in time . not something we grow into. It is actual and accomplished. Where as the padeo position sees it this way following the circumcision teaching from the Ot. which looked forward .Romans 6 looks back on an actual work of the Spirit in regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That faith is necessary for the right operation of Baptism is upheld by Infant Baptists - as John Calvin clearly states in these two chapters. In your citing of XV.17 the idea of promise is unfurled:
> 
> 
> One can give a promise, and fulfill that promise a long time after. In Genesis 3 we have the protoevangelion wherein the Promise of the Messiah is first mentioned. Yet, the fulfillment of that Promise did not happen until 6,000 years later. The Promises of Baptism can be given to a Believer's child at infancy. Like a flower slowly opening its petals to the sunlight: The child can grow in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and finally come to faith in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We even have examples in Scripture of infants being saved in the womb, Jeremiah:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations, Jer. 1:5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, John the Baptist:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:41.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would that all our children were saved from the womb. But when all the Ot texts are used speaking of a promise to our descendants, or your childrens children etc, are used it seems to me that the way the padeo side uses it all the children would have to be saved. If you understand it as all your descendants are promised salvation God could not brake His promise. This usually leads to alot of double speak ,like an arminian trying to say world means every person without exception. { I know you are not arminian,lol]
> 
> Acts 3 and Acts 13 The promise of Resurrection is again central.;
> 29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
> 
> 30But God raised him from the dead:
> 
> 31And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
> 
> 32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
> 
> 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
> 
> 34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
> 
> 35Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
> 
> 36For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
> 
> 37But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
> 
> 38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
> 
> 39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
> 
> This is what I see at this point in my life. The idea of promise "laying dormant" as Calvin put it, does not seem to be what I am reading in Acts. I am sure there is much here that we can agree on
> 
> To say that the NC. is breakable is not correct.That is where Dr.White went into Hebrews 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have the sure understanding of circumcision in the Old Testament. Circumcision signified in the OT what Baptism does in the NT. Especially the New Birth (Deut. 10:16). The sign was given to infants, but, surely the spiritual significance of the sign was not generally consummated until later in life? To say that God does not act in such a fashion is to deny half of the Bible - if not the whole of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can see by what I have written that I do not see water baptism as an exact match to Ot circumcision
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I have treated Calvin as an "infallible apostle" then I am most surely incorrect. This whole discussion on Calvin was engendered by Dr. White's comments in the debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rob, I do not think you are guilty of this. It is just sometimes I get somewhat nervous that we all have trusted guides in books or sermons. I treat my books like friends. I agree when I can, but do not always just follow all their suggestions. If you have time ,let me know what you think on this idea of the "promise".
> Do you agree in part? Do you reject it totally? Have you had a chance to consider these verses this way?
> Can you or anyone else help me improve my understanding here? hope I did not ramble on too long,
Click to expand...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Iconoclast:

I thank you for that very useful reply - even though I do not agree with most of it.

Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians  to you to have expounded upon this. I wish more Christians would refer to their union with Christ as they post - including myself.

Dr. White claims that he is not "reading into" the passages concerning baptism. However, I beg to differ. The Credo-Baptist has to read into the text in order to come up with their interpretation. Specifically,



> The promise all along here was made by the Father , to the Son, and to all who believe;
> 1] YOU- IF YOU ALSO BELIEVE
> 2]YOUR CHILDREN- IF THEY ALSO BELIEVE
> 3]AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF- IF THEY BELIEVE
> 4]AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL-IF THEY BELIEVE


You are reading, "If you believe" into the text where such a statement is nowhere found. We are told later that it was only those who received the Word who were baptized, vs. 41. So, what do we have?

We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: "You" and "Your children" and "Those who are afar off..." and, "as many as the Lord God shall call." As I mentioned before this is the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises are given to both the Elect and the Non-Elect in the Call to repentance.

If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation *Peter should have said*:

"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."

Such a statement would include "Believers, their Believing children, and all those who will Believe as well."

This is why I say this is where Paedo's and Credo's are talking past each other, because whenever you mention Covenant Theology you are talking about the Theology of representation. That Peter mentions the children of believers here is good Covenant Theology. There is no other reason for him to do so. Peter was a Jew, and he was talking to a Jewish crowd. The mentioning of "your children" here would instantly have them thinking of the promises to Abraham and the circumcision of their children - which Baptism has now replaced.

The more closely one looks at the text the more firmly one is persuaded of Infant Baptism.

You also wrote:



> I would that all our children were saved from the womb. But when all the Ot texts are used speaking of a promise to our descendants, or your childrens children etc, are used it seems to me that the way the padeo side uses it all the children would have to be saved. If you understand it as all your descendants are promised salvation God could not brake His promise. This usually leads to alot of double speak ,like an arminian trying to say world means every person without exception. { I know you are not arminian,lol]


Thank you for the vote of confidence that I am not an arminian!  Lord keep me from such.

I think that the Promises in the Bible gives us hope to expect our children to become believers. That the norm in the New Covenant is that when you bring a child up in the way he/she should go - that they will not depart from it. We are commanded by Jesus to make disciples (learners) of all nations, and to baptize them. Are we not to disciple our children? We can with all confidence apply the Promises of Baptism to our infant children because we covenant to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

This is sooooo much different than the Ana/Credo-Baptist position, as Rich so eloquently put it:



> So, now that they brought out this "bully" of a prooftext to show, conclusively to them, that we are to *expect* that families will be torn apart by the Gospel and that there's probably only going to be one in the whole family that's elect, do they militantly enforce that idea in their Churches? Do they then presume as follows:
> 
> 1. I'm united to Christ by faith.
> 2. Christ came to split up families.
> 3. I just had a child.
> 4. He must be unsaved because that's the nature of the New Covenant.
> 
> Of course not:
> a. It's absurd.
> b. It's un-Scriptural.
> c. It's gross.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Hence the way the verse is used by Reformed Baptists in these debates is *all of the above*.


Why is it so repugnant to Baptists to apply the Promises found in Baptism to the children of Believers when Peter himself applies these Promises to perfect strangers, "those who are afar off"? Even applying these Promises to the Jews who murdered and crucified Jesus Himself? Acts 2:23.

I think that Calvin's statement is beautiful:



> Let us accept as incontrovertible that God is so good and generous to his own as to be pleased, for their sake, also to count among his people the children whom they have begotten, Institutes vol 2, pg. 1338 McNeill edition. IV.xvi.15.


Grace and Peace,

-Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi Iconoclast:
> 
> I thank you for that very useful reply - even though I do not agree with most of it.


 I'm sorry but it was so gracious and to the point at the same time.



> Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians  to you to have expounded upon this. I wish more Christians would refer to their union with Christ as they post - including myself.


Exactly! This is the interesting thing as I was reading Anthony's post.

It's almost as if they never have read what we're trying to say and I can understand a bit of confusion here because the Reformed Baptist will naturally assume that when we baptize a person we are claiming that we believe a person has vital union with Christ. This, of course, is a mistake.

It's also a mistake to say that this is what Peter was _promising_ if they were baptized that day. The promise is on the condition of _faith_ and not baptism. I know that sound simplistic but it is oft missed by Baptists who seem to think that the reason the Baptism is applied is _because_ the person has saving faith. Again, we've got an issue here because nobody, except God, knows this.

Thus, all the passages about the benefits of Christ's union with His elect can be quoted and quoted and re-quoted and then re-quoted and I'll yell: "Amen Brother!"

But I won't then assume that every time the _sign_ of that union that _promises_ the benefits of union with Christ is applied that the _reality_ of that promise is conferred necessarily. I also won't make the mistake of assuming that the _reason_ we are applying the sign is that we _know_ that the recipient is united to Christ by faith.


----------



## Iconoclast

SemperFideles said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Iconoclast:
> 
> I thank you for that very useful reply - even though I do not agree with most of it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but it was so gracious and to the point at the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians  to you to have expounded upon this. I wish more Christians would refer to their union with Christ as they post - including myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! This is the interesting thing as I was reading Anthony's post.
> 
> It's almost as if they never have read what we're trying to say and I can understand a bit of confusion here because the Reformed Baptist will naturally assume that when we baptize a person we are claiming that we believe a person has vital union with Christ. This, of course, is a mistake.
> 
> It's also a mistake to say that this is what Peter was _promising_ if they were baptized that day. The promise is on the condition of _faith_ and not baptism. I know that sound simplistic but it is oft missed by Baptists who seem to think that the reason the Baptism is applied is _because_ the person has saving faith. Again, we've got an issue here because nobody, except God, knows this.
> 
> Thus, all the passages about the benefits of Christ's union with His elect can be quoted and quoted and re-quoted and then re-quoted and I'll yell: "Amen Brother!"
> 
> But I won't then assume that every time the _sign_ of that union that _promises_ the benefits of union with Christ is applied that the _reality_ of that promise is conferred necessarily. I also won't make the mistake of assuming that the _reason_ we are applying the sign is that we _know_ that the recipient is united to Christ by faith.
Click to expand...


Rich, This is getting to the heart of the matter here,both where we can find agreement,and where we do not agree In your post you say this: 


> It's almost as if they never have read what we're trying to say and I can understand a bit of confusion here because the Reformed Baptist will naturally assume that when we baptize a person we are claiming that we believe a person has vital union with Christ. This, of course, is a mistake


 I maintain that Romans 6 is speaking about actual salvation,that a person has. Not a sign of what he might have.
You might look at it as conferring a sign of the salvation,that might happen in the future,[ because you believe you are obeying God in the baptism of the infant] However, considering the context of Romans , I do not understand how you could say Romans 6 does not apply to believrs only. 
I mean to say, I know you believe the believing parent being in covenant with God sort of covers the child. I believe the reformed baptist parent is also glad for all the verses that speak of God being the God of our descendants also. That is our hearts prayer also and the end of what we instruct them. 
You cannot accurately say that all of the descriptive elements in this chapter are in anyway speaking of a promise. They are indeed a reality. Must get ready for work,will respond later on to some more of your last posts.

Romans 6 1,2
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 

2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 

We baptize someone who. tells us openly confessing that this is true of him,or her that Christ has by THe Spirit done a work of salvation in there life,and they are no longer under the power of sin. This is not an assumption as the person tells us that once the were willing bondslaves to sin,but now have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered unto them. 
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 

17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 

18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness

This is actual and true of them. He does not at all refer to a sign. He is calling them to understand there actual condition.

Rob, and Rich [ and any other lurking reader] What do you think about my explanation of the promise?
Is this a place where we are in agreement? Do you see the promise initally fulfilled in Jesus, and Us in Union with Him? later on brethren.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SemperFideles said:


> Thus, all the passages about the benefits of Christ's union with His elect can be quoted and quoted and re-quoted and then re-quoted and I'll yell: "Amen Brother!"





Iconoclast said:


> I maintain that Romans 6 is speaking about actual salvation,that a person has. Not a sign of what he might have.
> You might look at it as conferring a sign of the salvation,that might happen in the future,[ because you believe you are obeying God in the baptism of the infant] However, considering the context of Romans , I do not understand how you could say Romans 6 does not apply to believrs only.
> 
> Romans 6 1,2
> 1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
> 
> 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?


This just proved my very point Anthony. Romans 5, Romans 6, Romans 7, _and_ Romans 8 are *all* speaking about the benefits the flow from union with Christ. Full stop. Only the elect receive those benefits. It's almost as if you read what I wrote that you were missing the point of the Reformed Confessions and then you missed the point as plain as day.

You have trouble seeing how you cannot immediately turn from a passage where Paul is talking about the elect in Christ and then realize that this is not _true_ of each and every person that you dunk into a baptistry. This is why the Scriptures can talk about our baptism or burial with Christ and be speaking of union with Christ and yet even the Baptist *must* admit that this _reality_ is not conferred on each and every person baptized.

In fact, this is the irony of James White and the debate. Again, it was supposedly about who ought to be baptized but, instead, it was about the fact that he believed the nature of the New Covenant was with the Elect alone - those that actually possess union with Christ. At one point, he had to acknowledge, so as not to be guilty of an obvious fallacy, that his Church wasn't baptizing merely the elect. This was when he distinguished between the visible Church as possessing the visibly baptized but that they weren't necessarily in the New Covenant.

Did you get that? Baptists don't even believe a person is in the New Covenant if he has been baptized - simply a member of the visible Church. Hence, from an external standpoint, a Baptist minister has no way of knowing who among the baptized is or is not in the New Covenant. This is the irony of the debate in the very end since baptism itself does not confer membership to the New Covenant in the Reformed Baptist schema.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

You both are talking around each other. And Rich the New Covenant Member is regenerate. We Baptist agree with you that the church has those in it who crawl over the wall and are not a part of the church. But we also know that confession leads to union with Christ. And it seems like the Church that is addressed in the New Testament has this union and forgiveness of Sin. If you are not indwelt by the spirit of Christ you are not one of his. And he is the husband of the Church. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that addresses anyone who is unconverted as belonging to the Church or Christ. So to knowingly violate this would be wrong in our opinion. 



> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.



Belief and confession are necessary. So we don't short cut this step as the Paedo does. 

I will contribute more to the thread this weekend. But I admit I will be offline quite a bit because of all the things I have going on. Most likely I will be able to contribute more on Saturday. I have to respond CH still. We both agreed that we would post when we have more time.

I guess I need to consider who truly is a member of Christ's body.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You both are talking around each other. And Rich the New Covenant Member is regenerate.


I am not talking around this at all Randy. I'm agreeing that this is exactly what you say.



> We Baptist agree with you that the church has those in it who crawl over the wall and are not a part of the church.


Well, call it what you want. They didn't just "crawl over the wall". *You* (the Church) baptized and admitted them into the Church on the basis of a credible profession. As long as they are in the Church (even some till they die) they may be indistinguishable from those that are truly united to Christ by faith.

I think I heard Calvin quoted recently who made a good observation that there are those that can seem to be pillars in the Church, with what seems to be the faith of a mountain, and then their faith proves to be false in the end. On the other hand, there are those that struggle mightily, seem to be smoldering wicks, but, in the end, the mettle of their faith proves genuine.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are those that are "truly of Him" by being united to truly in faith but, in this life, the best you can make of that is that this surely is the case on the basis of His Word.

How you treat individual brothers, either seemingly weak or seemingly strong, is the same. You surely do not walk to someone weak in the faith and say to him: "I'll bet you are one that crawled over the wall. We administed the ordinance of baptism on you but I'll bet your faith wasn't true." Likewise, you don't walk to the strong and say: "Your faith is _strong_, surely when we baptized you it was of the nature of faith that had a vital union with Christ."

You might find that scenario strange but, listen to what you're saying, when you talk about "crawling over the wall" and tell me, existentially, _who_ is it that you're talking about in your Church. Is it one of your sons? Did one of _them_ crawl over the wall? I don't mean to wound you with that brother but think about what you're saying because it's most terrible to think about those in the visible Church in that way. If you would never say the above about one of your sons then why would you say that about anyone else in the visible Church? I don't immediately think of children when those kind of statements are made but the faces of dozens of struggling believers that I love in my Church flash across my mind that I love and I think: "How could I ever address one of them as one who 'crawled over the wall'?" That's just not the way we think of each other in the Church.

In fact, John seems to reserve that judgment for the very worst apostasy - perhaps a rank heretic. Most excommunications, however, are we not holding out hope and praying that they be restored? We hope for all that they are of us and leave the hidden counsel of God to Him.




> But we also know that confession leads to union with Christ.


You've got that backwards Randy. True confession is a _fruit_ of union with Christ but it is not the only fruit.


> And it seems like the Church that is addressed in the New Testament has this union and forgiveness of Sin.


It doesn't just seem that way to me. This is precisely what I've been saying is that the Church _is_ addressed as if it has union with Christ and forgiveness of sins. It's one of the reasons I'm not in favor of the language you just used.

The apostles don't seem to be as careful with their modes of address as some would like them to be. They speak in positive terms. They always address what Christians have been called to and what Christ has done. It's understood by them that the unregenerate will not respond to this but they do it anyway. It's also understood, at least implicitly by them, that when they speak of the saving benefits that extend from union with Christ, that a reprobate heart is going to likely twist that truth like any other and be self-deceived by it. Try reading Romans 5-8 again. Paul doesn't even take a breath to stop and guard against how a reprobate mind might think he's talking about them.

In fact, isn't this precisely what the problem with the Federal Vision is? Don't they say exactly what you're saying by noting that the Church is addressed by Paul, without distinction, and that all of what is said _must_ be true of them? Now, then they'll qualify and say that it's only "in some sense" for the reprobate.

What we say, though, is that you can still preserve the unique and saving benefits that flow from union with Christ _and_ the manner of address in such passages since the apostles themselves note a visible component of the administration of the New Covenant that includes those that are not really *of Him*. Their solution for this is not to become so overly concerned, however, that the Church be purified if the self-deceived are not disruptive. The analogies abound regarding bruised reeds and the like where we don't seek to go on "house cleaning" missions in the Church to figure out who's really elect and who isn't. Only the visibly rebellious are put out. All the other "smoldering wicks" we are very clearly supposed to bear with and hope for. If we start snuffing out "smoldering wicks" then what we're really saying is that we know whose faith is genuine and whose isn't and we become overconfident about our own faith. We're always beggars Randy. Always.



> If you are not indwelt by the spirit of Christ you are not one of his. And he is the husband of the Church. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that addresses anyone who is unconverted as belonging to the Church or Christ. So to knowingly violate this would be wrong in our opinion.


Well, I agree with you about the fact that if you are not united to Christ then you will never have faith and you do not participate in any saving benefits but, as I've noted, that's different than saying they have no place in the Church or that they are never addressed as those in the Church. I'd like to challenge you on this point to let me know who, among your own family, I am warranted to address as truly converted and upon what basis would you have this infallible confidence. Rather, the Church is a place where we are to be gentle and hopeful for *all* who we find within it lest we destroy the Gospel itself by making it about the strength of the faith of those we find within it. That's the real danger in trying to move from what we know about saving union with Christ and then trying to divine who it is that _really_ possesses it. We're not warranted in trying to do so for the very reason that it would actually undermine how we treat the Gospel as a promise. The promise is for the weak and the strong, for the bruised reed and the smoldering wick. We hold out Christ and Him crucified and fervently plead with all in our Church, treating them like brothers, and hopeful that they lay hold of that promise in even the most simple of ways.



> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


Amen and amen.


----------



## Iconoclast

*believe*

Rob,you said this in your response:
Quote:
The promise all along here was made by the Father , to the Son, and to all who believe;
1] YOU- IF YOU ALSO BELIEVE
2]YOUR CHILDREN- IF THEY ALSO BELIEVE
3]AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF- IF THEY BELIEVE
4]AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL-IF THEY BELIEVE 



> You are reading, "If you believe" into the text where such a statement is nowhere found. We are told later that it was only those who received the Word who were baptized, vs. 41. So, what do we have?


 Rob, I found the if you believe. Look at verse 44,
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common

I found it again here, Acts 4: 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. 

3And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide. 

4Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Again linked to the promise of resurrection., and again later on in Acts 4;
32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:

I think you can see that this is the pattern of Apostolic preaching,and of faith coming by hearing. I am not reading into the passage-"if they also believe". It is clearly implied if you understand the context of the [promise of the Father] in my opinion. 
Of course the promise would be to you and your children ,and all who are afar off.{as many as the Lord shall call]
What believing parent would not obey the commands to instruct the children in the way of life?

your next response was Quote:So, [/QUOTE]what do we have?

We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: "You" and "Your children" and "Those who are afar off..." and, "as many as the Lord God shall call." As I mentioned before this is the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises are given to both the Elect and the Non-Elect in the Call to repentance.

If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:

"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."[[QUOTE/]

You say as a padeo baptist-So, what do we have?
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: 

I do not believe the promises are found in water baptism[as a sign] I believe they are found in Christ alone being offered to the whole world in gospel preaching as you would when seeking an adult to convert.
If you as a padeo would not give the sign to a child in a household [ let us say for example a widow professes faith,and has an 8yr old, an 11 , and a 14 who openly say they do not believe,]
If baptism only represents a promise [ as Calvin said that might remain dormant for a long time] why not give it to the unbelieving child as well,if it is promised to the believing parent? 1 cor 7:14
If your view of the promise is not the same as mine what difference would it make if an infant receives water baptism, but the promise remains "dormant" until they are 23yrs.old/ or the unbelieving 11 yr .old gets baptism,and it remains dormant until he is 15. 
I believe Pastor Shishko said the unbelieving child would not be baptized in the OPC. I raise this point although I am not looking to press it. I think the issue is better addressed scripturally and covenantally rather than me trying to think of extreme hypothetical situations to try to "win" a point. 
If I do not have truth on this,in time I would believe God would not keep it from me Or you either Rob/Rich, and any other brother in here. I am still confident that we are all still in a learning mode.

Your next contention was that If Peter were a Reformed Baptist he would say it this way:
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:

"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."

Such a statement would include "Believers, their Believing children, and all those who will Believe as well

Rob,certainly it would not say to you who believe, and your unbelieving children,and all unbelieving reprobates as well? I gave a few examples from Acts about believing. It is not a bad word.In fact if is necessary.

16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 
None of us think that the promise is to unbeliever's do we?


Then there was the part where you quoted Rich,like this
Quote:
So, now that they brought out this "bully" of a prooftext to show, conclusively to them, that we are to *expect* that families will be torn apart by the Gospel and that there's probably only going to be one in the whole family that's elect, do they militantly enforce that idea in their Churches? Do they then presume as follows:

1. I'm united to Christ by faith.
2. Christ came to split up families.
3. I just had a child.
4. He must be unsaved because that's the nature of the New Covenant.

Of course not: 
a. It's absurd. 
b. It's un-Scriptural. 
c. It's gross.

Exactly!

Hence the way the verse is used by Reformed Baptists in these debates is *all of the above*. 


I would say this to that-
1] I am united to Christ and the promises by Spirit Baptism applied to me when the Spirit quicked me. Through repentance and faith which is the gift of God, I am able to believe.
2] The truth of Christ and His cross can sometimes cause division in a household as natural men do not understand the things of God. Even 1 cor 7 adresses this issue,should I stay married to an unbeliever or not!
If God is merciful to a family and many or all come to faith,that is to the praise of His glory. If not, that is also to the praise of His glory.
3] We have just had a child/what is His condition? Was he concieved in sin,and dead in Adam?Does he or she have a sin nature? I see in both testaments that God does work in households,and clearly state that there are advantages to the child who is born into a Household containing saints. They will be prayed for and brought under the hearing of the word, instructed about the God who is in complete control who has said that he would save a multitude in His Son.
4] He must be born again to enter the kingdom. His dead spirit must be quickened by The Holy Spirit even as His parents were, as we each individually will give account of ourselves to God. His parents cannot save Him, neither the church, or baptism , or communion. The promise of the Father given to the Son,and all the covenant children who were given Him -Hebrews 2:13-16 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. 

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 

16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 


This is not gross or absurd, but very scriptural. It is not that we hope or "expect" household strife, but when it happens we are not to count it a strange thing. As we gather for a thanksgiving meal with family and friends, I bet there are more than a few who have unsaved members of households carving up the turkey.
We might have caused strife with a brother because we no longer play softball on the Lord's day. Or with a sister who does not like you discussing the role of a wife in submission to here husband. Perhaps you have pointed out that unrepentant sodomites shall not enter heaven, even though a relative has "come out".
I do not know of many situations were God has saved whole households in a day, or in one sermon since apostolic times, or maybe, the great awakening.

In all this interaction I am glad we can rejoice in our Lord and Saviour and find hope in His word. Thank's to the Lord, we are not bowing before a statue,or lighting candles to a saint, or seeking to enter heaven by our own righteousness. Enjoy a thankful Thanksgiving. 
PS. Rich, will get to your post in a day or 2, Glad we are in agreement on many things, and still learning on other's. I am thankful for you, Rob and other's who patiently,[and sometimes not so patiently] take the time to read through the posts and offer a heart felt response. On many of the other issues [ are there any other issues?]
we are often thinking identically, so let's remember to include each member of the board in prayer, even as we contend for truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now that they brought out this "bully" of a prooftext to show, conclusively to them, that we are to *expect* that families will be torn apart by the Gospel and that there's probably only going to be one in the whole family that's elect, do they militantly enforce that idea in their Churches? Do they then presume as follows:
> 
> 1. I'm united to Christ by faith.
> 2. Christ came to split up families.
> 3. I just had a child.
> 4. He must be unsaved because that's the nature of the New Covenant.
> 
> Of course not:
> a. It's absurd.
> b. It's un-Scriptural.
> c. It's gross.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> Hence the way the verse is used by Reformed Baptists in these debates is *all of the above*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this to that-
> 1] I am united to Christ and the promises by Spirit Baptism applied to me when the Spirit quicked me. Through repentance and faith which is the gift of God, I am able to believe.
> 2] The truth of Christ and His cross can sometimes cause division in a household as natural men do not understand the things of God. Even 1 cor 7 adresses this issue,should I stay married to an unbeliever or not!
> If God is merciful to a family and many or all come to faith,that is to the praise of His glory. If not, that is also to the praise of His glory.
> 3] We have just had a child/what is His condition? Was he concieved in sin,and dead in Adam?Does he or she have a sin nature? I see in both testaments that God does work in households,and clearly state that there are advantages to the child who is born into a Household containing saints. They will be prayed for and brought under the hearing of the word, instructed about the God who is in complete control who has said that he would save a multitude in His Son.
> 4] He must be born again to enter the kingdom. His dead spirit must be quickened by The Holy Spirit even as His parents were, as we each individually will give account of ourselves to God. His parents cannot save Him, neither the church, or baptism , or communion. The promise of the Father given to the Son,and all the covenant children who were given Him -Hebrews 2:13-16 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Click to expand...

You realize, Anthony, that you just refuted the very point that Dr. White was trying to press into service. My reductio ad absurdum was designed to note the folly of the argument.

You did not reproduce it but "tempered" the point. My point was not to note that every child in a household is elect but to show that Dr. White cannot abuse a text by Christ to "promise" that the New Covenant will _inexorably_ cause division within the household. In fact, whole households can be saved and, interestingly enough as Rob notes, Dr. White _admits_ that the *examples* of the New Covenant texts include household salvation.

In fact, Dr. White's use of Matt 10:36 would directly refute that "....both testaments that God does work in households,and clearly state that there are advantages to the child who is born into a Household containing saints." Nay, says the use of Matt 10:36, Christ has *promised* that He will only *divide* households by the use of the text in the argument.

Thus, the point is established that Dr. White's abuse of the text cannot stand either exegetically or by example in the New Testament.

And, as I noted, folks ought to be careful the way they press certain ideas into service so they aren't caught on the horns of a "consistency" dilemna when somebody starts calling them on it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Iconoclast:

Forgive me I will need to take your post up a little at a time. You wrote:



> Rob, I found the if you believe. Look at verse 44,
> 44And all that believed were together, and had all things common
> 
> I found it again here, Acts 4: 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
> 
> 3And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
> 
> 4Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
> Again linked to the promise of resurrection., and again later on in Acts 4;
> 32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:
> 
> I think you can see that this is the pattern of Apostolic preaching,and of faith coming by hearing. I am not reading into the passage-"if they also believe". It is clearly implied if you understand the context of the [promise of the Father] in my opinion.
> Of course the promise would be to you and your children ,and all who are afar off.{as many as the Lord shall call]
> What believing parent would not obey the commands to instruct the children in the way of life?


The passages you are citing are after-the-fact. That is, the people are responding to the Preaching of the Word. In Acts 2:36ff Peter is not using the term "if you believe" because he is applying the Promises found in water Baptism to the whole crowd. He does not know who the Elect are and who are not. Thus he makes a generic call to everyone to repent and be baptized. To add the statement, "if you believe" here would be a denial of the Free Offer of the Gospel. It would be a step in the direction of hyper-calvinism. Mind you I did not say it was hyper-calvinism, but a step in that direction.

[To argue that the Promises given in Baptism apply only to the Elect would be a presupposition that may cause a misstep in theology. The misstep would be something like this: If the Promises are only for the Elect, then we should Preach only to the Elect, and this second step is hyper-calvinism.]

What the Paedo-Baptist says is that the Gospel Promises are *applied* to all who hear the Word of God preached. These Promises are only *effective* to those who are given True Faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, according to a gracious condescension on the part of God, we apply water baptism to our children in the hope that they will grow in Grace and the Salvation of their souls.

Thus, in verse 39 we have Peter preaching to the whole crowd and applying the Promises of Baptism to all of them, and we have in verses 41-44 the response of the crowd. The children of all those who "with joy received the Word of God" would be Baptized as well seeing that their Covenantal Representatives - their parents - were so baptized.

Now, I may be accused of "reading into" the passages in 41-44, but I believe that it is consitent with the tenor of Peter's preaching, Covenant (Federal) Theology, and is agreeable with the Holy Spirit who speaks by and with the Word of God in our hearts.

Next, I numbered your points here so I can refer to them easier:



> (1)I do not believe the promises are found in water baptism[as a sign] I believe they are found in Christ alone being offered to the whole world in gospel preaching as you would when seeking an adult to convert.
> (2)If you as a padeo would not give the sign to a child in a household [ let us say for example a widow professes faith,and has an 8yr old, an 11 , and a 14 who openly say they do not believe,]
> If baptism only represents a promise [ as Calvin said that might remain dormant for a long time] why not give it to the unbelieving child as well,if it is promised to the believing parent? 1 cor 7:14
> (3)If your view of the promise is not the same as mine what difference would it make if an infant receives water baptism, but the promise remains "dormant" until they are 23yrs.old/ or the unbelieving 11 yr .old gets baptism,and it remains dormant until he is 15.
> (4)I believe Pastor Shishko said the unbelieving child would not be baptized in the OPC. I raise this point although I am not looking to press it. I think the issue is better addressed scripturally and covenantally rather than me trying to think of extreme hypothetical situations to try to "win" a point.


(1) We are referring to Peter's preaching in Acts 2. He in this passage ties the Promises of Baptism to his call for repentance. I see nothing wrong with such a thing. And, further, it shows that he is preaching to a Jewish crowd. The ceremonial washing found in Baptism would be lost on a Gentile audience.

(2) I would give the sign to these children if the widow desired me to do so. However, I would talk with the widow first and ask her to consider the wishes of her children. There were laws in the OT for stubborn children. I don't think the death penalty applies any longer, but spanking and depriving the child of certain pleasures are certainly effective.

(3) First, it would be a fulfilling of the parent's covenantal responsibilities before the Lord. God pursued Moses to kill Moses because he had not circumcized his first-born son. Second, it acknowledges the representative authority that the parent has over the child. Finally, it places the child of a believer into a covenantal relationship with God that the child of an unbeliever does not possess. It sets them forth and makes them "holy."

(4) Pastor Shishko is more wise than me. I think, though, that one has to look on it in a case by case basis. I certainly agree with you here:



> I think the issue is better addressed scripturally and covenantally rather than me trying to think of extreme hypothetical situations to try to "win" a point.




I think your next point was answered above. And I think Rich answered the rest.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------

