# Children that have the sign of the covenant



## Mocha

Hello everyone!

This is my first step in trying to seriously understand the baptism issue. I was surprised and delighted to see that there is a discussion place where baptism can be discussed among those in the Reformed faith (from people on both sides of the fence). I'm looking forward to having some good discusions with all of you.

I became a Christian in '77, became Reformed in my theology in '90 (from a baptistic perspective), and have now attended a paedobaptist church for the past two months.

My family and I were driving 50 minutes to a Reformed Baptist church several times a week for various church and ministry activities, but we found the driving time, fuel costs, and the long distance to our church family as being too much. So we dicided to look for a local church. 

Well, we found a really good church. The preaching and fellowship were fantastic. It holds to all the same doctrines of grace that I was use to, but...it's a paeobaptist church. Since there are no Reformed Baptist churches around, we decided to ask for membership. On Tuesday night, three elders came over and we had a really good talk, but the baptism question was a concern. So, over the next few months, I'm going to try and challenge myself, being as objective and biblical as possible, and try and come to a conclusion one way or the other.

When the elders were here, one thing I said was that I believed that all 'children are children of wrath' until they are justified. The pastor disagreed. He didn't see a child that was in the covenant as a child of wrath. I was wondering, what do you guys thaink? Can a child that is not justified not be a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?


----------



## Scott Bushey

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


Hmm. So the unbelieving husband/wife is to be baptized also?

Hello Mocha, 
you wrote:-


> When the elders were here, one thing I said was that I believed that all 'children are children of wrath' until they are justified. The pastor disagreed. He didn't see a child that was in the covenant as a child of wrath. I was wondering, what do you guys think? Can a child that is not justified not be a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?



What strange third realm does the pastor think these children are in?
David wrote: * 'Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me' *(Psalm 51:5 ), and the Lord Jesus said, *'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.'* Our children are a constant reminder of that. We have to teach them everything- except how to be naughty and disobedient. Those things they learn all by themselves!

You will do your children a grave disservice if you allow them to think that they are in some sort of covenant with God if in fact they are dead in trespasses and sin.

Every blessing,

Martin


----------



## DTK

I think Calvin understood it correctly, that even children of the covenant are by nature children of wrath.



> *Calvin:*_And were by nature children of wrath._ All men without exception, whether Jews or Gentiles, (Galatians 2:15,16,) are here pronounced to be guilty, until they are redeemed by Christ; so that out of Christ there is no righteousness, no salvation, and, in short, no excellence. _Children of wrath_ are those who are lost, and who deserve eternal death. _Wrath_ means the judgment of God; so that the _children of wrath_ are those who are condemned before God. *Such, the apostle tells us, had been the Jews, "” such had been all the excellent men that were now in the Church; and they were so by nature, that is, from their very commencement, and from their mother´s womb.*



DTK


----------



## Mocha

> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.



Scott,

In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?

Mocha

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Mocha]


----------



## Mocha

I would be interested in your responses (especially from paedobaptists) on the following excerpt.

"The paedobaptist use of the apostasy passages is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they admit that the apostates are described in these passages as "sanctified" and "in Christ" because of what they professed and claimed, then it must take the position that infants may be admitted to the New Covenant only on the supposition that they are regenerate...

But on the other horn of the dilemma for paedobaptists is to argue that the language of "sanctified" and "in Christ" as used in the apostasy passages has nothing to do with the profession of regeneration. These paedobaptists argue that it merely speaks of some "covenantal" blessing really possessed by the apostates, but makes no reference to regeneration. The problem with this approach are manifold. In the first place, it must attribute two completely different meanings to the same words used in the same chapters. For instance, in Heb. 10 "sanctified" must mean something completely different in vv. 10 and 14 than it does in v. 29. It must also invent a merely covenantal and non-saving meaning for "in Christ" in Jn. 15 and "by faith" in Rom. 11.

But in the second place, since paedobaptists argue that this merely covenantal (but non-saving) connection to Christ is given to people through their participation in the ordinances of the New Covenant (through baptism and the Lord's Supper), they must change the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Now baptism and the Lord's Supper do not claim or profess or signify repentance and the forgiveness of sin, but only some non-saving covenantal connection to Christ. The problem, of course, with this position is that it defies the plain teaching of the entire NT about the meaning of the ordinances."
(Samuel Waldron, A Brief Response To Richard L. Pratt's "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant", Reformed Baptist Theological Review (Vol. 2 No. 1), pgs. 107-108)

I have a question (especially for the paedobaptists):

Can anyone have a non-saving connection to Christ?

or

Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?

Mocha


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> 
> In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?
> 
> Mocha
> 
> [Edited on 11-11-2005 by Mocha]
Click to expand...


No.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I would be interested in your responses (especially from paedobaptists) on the following excerpt.
> 
> "The paedobaptist use of the apostasy passages is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they admit that the apostates are described in these passages as "sanctified" and "in Christ" because of what they professed and claimed, then it must take the position that infants may be admitted to the New Covenant only on the supposition that they are regenerate...




The key is 'presumption'. The paedo presumes that those whom outwardly confess Christ are "sanctified" and "in Christ". As far as our infants go, yes we presume that they are regnerate.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7300#pid108503

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7269#pid107023

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6566#pid76041

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6173#pid73216

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5831#pid69971

In lines with the WCF and the historic reformed, here is a clearer view of what the WCF actually states on infant baptism:



A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant
by C. Matthew McMahon, et. al. 


Question 1. Are Infants of believers included in the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: Yes, children are included in the Covenant of Grace, and the visible church.[1]



1. Genesis 17:1-14; Matthew 19:14; 1 Corinthians 7:14



Question 2. Upon what Grounds are children part of the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: By two reasons: the promises of God [2] and the command of God.[3]



2. Genesis 15:1; 17:7; Acts 2:39; Galatians 3:18; 2 Peter 1:4

3. Gen. 17:10-12; Acts 21:21; Matthew 28:19



Question 3: What is the promise of God?

Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]



4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.

5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13



Question 4: What is the command of God?

Answer: The command of God compels all believing parents to have the sign of the covenant of God placed on their children.[6]



6. Gen. 17:23; Joshua 5:3; Luke 2:21; Acts 21:20; Matthew 3:6; Acts 16:15; 16:33; 1 Corinthians 10:2



Question 5: How are the promises of God applicable to children since they are born sinful and depraved?

Answer: The promises of God are applicable to the children of believers since Christian parents presumptively believe their children are regenerate based on the Word of God and the command of God.[7]



7. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; Ezekiel 36:24



Question 6: Does this presumption (that the children of believers are regenerate) negate the reality that these children are conceived in sin, or demonstrate an inconsistency with Total Depravity?

Answer: No. Children of believing parents are conceived in sin, corrupt, depraved and in need of salvation, [8] but their parents presume them to be regenerate, yet are actually regenerate by sovereign election at a time only God knows, if at all; [9] they are to be considered Christians by their parents based on the promise God has made to them, that God will in fact save them and be a God to them; [10] and this view is not inconsistent with Total Depravity since sovereign grace is the means by which God will regenerate and save a child. [11]



8. Genesis 6:5; Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:10-18

9. Luke 1:15; Ephesians 1:9

10. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 16:33.

11. Romans 4:16; Ephesians 1:3-10; 2:8-10.



Question 7: Are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Yes. 



Question 8: Why are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Based on the command and promise of God, they are to be distinguished from the visible world,[12] and are united with believers inthechurch,[13] being federally holy before God [14] and marked by the covenant sign of circumcision [15] (as in the case of the patriarchs and Israelites) or of baptism [16] (as in the case of the covenant realized in Christ).



12. Genesis 3:15; Ezekiel 16:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:12;

13. Ephesians 2:19; 3:15.

14. Malachi 2:15; 1 Corinthians 7:14

15. Genesis 17:10; Leviticus 12:3

16. Ezekiel 36:25; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:39; 16:33



Question 9: Are infants of believing parents to be considered as members of the invisible church or the visible church or both?

Answer: Infants of believing parents are presumed to be in the invisible church [17] and are actually part of the visible church. [18]



17. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39

18. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48; Gen. 34:14; Acts 21:21



Question 10: Are all children of believing parents infallibly saved?

Answer: No. They are presumed saved by the parents based on the promises, but may in fact demonstrate their apostasy after the age of discretion, [19]showing themselves in need of saving faith. [20]



19. Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 10:29

20. John 1:12; 5:47; 6:29; Romans 1:17



Question 11: Is this contradictory?

Answer: No. Christian parents presume the regeneration of their children based on the precepts of the Word of God and do not have prior information concerning the decreed eternal destiny of any fellow human being, much less their own children.



Question 12: Is the account of when Abraham circumcised Ishmael inconsistent with the view that infants of believing parents should be presumed regenerate (though he knew that God told him Ishmael would be cast out)?

Answer: No. The sign is administered by way of promise and command. Though the promise would be realized in Isaac, [21] the command still rendered Abraham duty-bound to administer the sign of the covenant on Ishmael, [22] sealing the curses of the covenant upon him as a reprobate. [23]



21. Genesis 21:12

22. Genesis 17:12

23. Deuteronomy 11:26-28



Question 13: In presuming that infants of believing parents are regenerate, does this mean they have an active and actual faith whereby they do good works, understand the Word of God, and meditate on it?

Answer: Infants do not have actual faith, but habitual faith, or faith of habit; for as an acorn possesses in it all the properties of a giant oak tree, so infants possess all the properties necessary for faith as "seed faith" (a faith implanted in them by God and dormant until they reach an age in which they are able to rationally think); infants are unable to discern between their left hand and right hand, [24] not capable of actsoffaith, [25] and not capable of hearing or meditating on the Word. [26]



24. Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:16; Jonah 4:11

25. Romans 12:1-2

26. Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:16



Question 14: Are infants of believing parents part of the Kingdom of God?

Answer: Yes. Christ says the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them, [27] which demonstrates that a real "seed faith" is in them since no one is abletoenter the Kingdom of heaven without it [28].



27. Matthew 19:14

28. John 3:3, 5



Question 15: Why does God desire Christian parents to presume their infants are regenerate?

Answer: God desires that Christian parents rely on his revealed Word [29] which includes the children of believing parents in the Covenant of Grace



29. Psalm 119:105; John 17:17



Question 16: May a child of believing parents, after the age of discretion, ultimately be lost?

Answer: God may, by an eternal decree of reprobation, account them lost forever (which is different than His will of precept that Christians are to obey) such as in the case of Ishmael, Esau or others, who outwardly demonstrated their rebellion and reprobation. [30]



30. Exodus 19:5; Leviticus 26:14-16; Deuteronomy 11:13; Ezekiel 20:39; Zechariah 6:15; Romans 9:13; Hebrews 12:16; Galatians 4:24-25.



Question 17: Has God said that His will of precept concerning covenant children is equal to His will of decree concerning covenant children?

Answer: No. At no time has God said that His will of precept (the Word of God given to us in the Bible) is always the same or equal to His will of decree. [31]



31. Deuteronomy 29:29; Daniel 2:22



Question 18: If God's will of decree is different at times than His will of precept, which shall Christians follow?

Answer: Christians are to obey God at His Word, and by His promises, and continue diligently in a constant state of considering whether they truly believe the promises of God or not, [32] which prompts them to sanctifying holiness, [33] and to diligence in teaching their children the Word ofGodas faithful parents. [34]



32. 2 Corinthians 13:5; John 5:38; 6:29

33. 1 Thessalonians 4:3

34. Proverbs 22:6; Deuteronomy 4:10, 6:7; Ephesians 6:4.



Question 19: Is the doctrine of the inclusion of infants in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore presuming their regeneration, new or novel, unknown to history?

Answer: No. The Early Church, the Reformers, the Confessions, English Puritanism, and Protestant Presbyterianism teach this up and through our present day. [35]



35. The following are a few selected quotes from church history:



John Calvin, "We ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)



John Calvin, "It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)



The French Confession, "We confess only two sacraments common to the whole Church, of which the first, baptism, is given as a pledge of our adoption; for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit.[1] We hold, also, that although we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to ourdeath,so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.[2] Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized."



Ulrich Zwingli, "The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" (Huldreich Zwingli's Werke, Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich, 1830), Page 245.)



Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, "...baptism signified regeneration; that the children of believers are baptized because it is wrong to keep them from the fellowship and company of God's people those who should be truly considered His people." (Lewis Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, Page 28)



Theodore Beza, "It cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed or germ of faith." (Confessio Chrsitanae Fidei, Book 4, Page 48)



Henrie Bullinger, "Since the young babes and infants of the faithful are in the number of reckoning of God's people, and partakers of the promise touching the purification through Christ; it followeth of necessity, that they are as well to be baptized, as they that be of perfect age which professes the Christian faith," (Fifty Godly and Learned Sermons (London, 1587) Page 382.



The Second Helvetic Confession, "We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)



Francis Turretin, "The orthodox occupy the middle ground between Anabaptism and the Lutherans. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or Christians and the covenanted. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Page 583.)



Peter Martyr Vermigli, "We assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them." (Loci Communes, 4:8:7, cf. Robert Reymond's, A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Page 946.)



The Belgic Confession, "Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." (Article 34)



The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)



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



The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (Article XXVI, Of Baptism)



Zacharias Ursinus, "First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be bapÂ­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of reÂ­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore, they ought to be baptized." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)



William Ames, "The infants of believers are not to be forbidden this sacrament. First, because, if they are partakers of any grace, it is by virtue of the covenant of grace and so both the covenant and the first seal of the covenant belong to them. Second, the covenant in which the faithful are now included is clearly the same as the covenant made with AbraÂ­ham, Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7-9-and this expressly applied to infants. Third, the covenant as now administered to believers brings greater and fuller consolation than it once could, before the coming of Christ. But if it pertained only to them and not to their infants, the grace of God and their consolation would be narrower and more conÂ­tracted after Christ's appearing than before. Fourth, baptism supÂ­plants circumcision, Col. 2:11, 12; it belongs as much to the children of believers as circumcision once did. Fifth, in the very beginning of regeneration, whereof baptism is a seal, man is merely passive. ThereÂ­fore, no outward action is required of a man when he is baptized or circumcised (unlike other sacraments); but only a passive receiving. Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults." (The Marrow of Theology, Page 211.)



John Bradford, "In baptism is required God's election, if the child be an infant, or faith, if he be of age." (The Writings of John Bradford, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1979, Volume 2, Page 290) 



Herman Witsius, "Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom, as it were, into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom;...that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, (London, 1868) Volume 3, Book 4, Chapter 18, Page 1219.)



John Owen, "The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be "blessed with faithful Abraham," or that "the blessing of Abraham," promised in the covenant, "might come upon them," Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5...Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves...In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?" (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)



Samuel Rutherford, "It is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all..." (The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)



Richard Sibbes, "Therefore God, intending a comfortable enlargement of the covenant of grace to Abraham, extends it to his seed: "I will be the God of thy seed." It is a great blessing for God to he the God of our seed. It is alluded to by St Peter in the New Testament, "The promise is made to you and to your children," Acts ii. 39. But what if they have not baptism, the seal of the covenant? That doth not prejudice their salvation. God hath appointed the sacraÂ­ments to be seals for us, not for himself. He himself keepeth his covenant, whether we have the seal or no, so long as we neglect it not. Therefore we must not think if a child die before the sacrament of baptism, that God will not keep his covenant. They have the sanctity, the holiness of the covenant. You know what David said of his child, "I shall go to it, but it shall not return to me;" and yet it died before it was circumcised. Yon know they were forty years in the wilderness, and were not circumcised. Therefore the sacrament is not of absolute necessity to salvation. So he is the God of our children from the conception and birth." (Works of Richard Sibbes, Volume 6, Banner of Truth Trust, (Carlisle 1983), Page 22)



Ezekiel Hopkins, "Certainly, since they [infants of believing parents] are in covenant with God; since they are the members of Christ, being members of His body, the Church; since they are sanctified and regenerated, so far forth as their natures are ordinarily capable of, without a miracle; we have all the reason in the world conformably to conclude, that all such die in the Lord, and are forever happy and blessed with Him." (Works, Volume 2 page 326.)



Thomas Goodwin, "The children of godly parents are called the inheritance of the Lord, because he is the owner of them as his elect and chosen, among whom his possession and his peculiar people lie...The children of believing parents, at least their next and immediate seed, even of us Gentiles now under the Gospel, are included by God within the covenant of Grace, as well as Abraham's or David's seed within that covenant of theirs." (Works, Volume 9, Page 426-427)



Thomas Manton, "If they die before they come to the use of reason, you have no cause to doubt of their salvation. God is their God. Gen. 17:7, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;" compared with Gal. 3:14, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And they never lived to disinherit themselves. As we judge of the slip according to the stock, till it live to bring forth fruit of its own, so here. (Manton's Complete Works, Volume 18, Page 91)



John Brown of Haddington, "None but regenerated persons have a right to baptism before God...None but such as appear truly regenerated have a right to baptism before men...The infants of parents, one or both visible saints, have a right to baptism before the church...The children of believers are in covenant with God...Infants, such as Christ could carry in his arms, are members of the Kingdom of God. And if members, why deny them the primary seal of membership?" (Systematic Theology, Page 538.)



Alexander Whyte, "Baptism does not effect our engrafting into Christ, it only signifies and seals it." (Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Page 181.) [Note, there is no distinction between adults and children, or infants, in the Westminster Confession at all on this issue, except by age,andthe Directory of Public Worship makes it abundantly clear what they mean by the institution and how it should be administered..]



Robert Shaw, "...for infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of church membership." (An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 1845, Page 285.)



J. W. Alexander, "But O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating children in the Church, just as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, "You are Christian children, you are Christ's, you ought to think and feel and act as such! And on this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and join the church? I am distressed with long harbored misgivings on this point." (Forty Years' Familiar Letters, Volume 2, Page 25.) 



Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" (Children of the covenant and their part in the Lord, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Volume 35, No. 4 (October, 1863), Page 622)



Lewis Schenck, "The Reformed Church has always believed, on the basis of God's immutable promise, that all children of believers dying in infancy were saved...in other words, all admission to the visible church was on the basis, not of an infallible evidence of regeneration, since no one could read the heart, but on the basis of presumption that those admitted were the true children of God." (The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, (Phillipsburg, 2003) Page 118.



Benjamin Warfield, "All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption and if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body." (The Polemics of Infant Baptism, The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1899), Page 313.



Henry Van Dyke, "If the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "regeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, we have no right to administer it to infants." (The Church: Her Ministry and Sacraments, Page 74)



Abraham Kuyper, "That children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of disÂ­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or abÂ­sence of spiritual life in infants. They only stated how God would have us consider such infants, and this consideration based on the divine word made it imperative to look upon their infant children as elect and saved, and to treat them accordingly." (Abraham Kuyper, "Calvinism and Confessional Review," The Presbyterian Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 18 (October, 1891), Art. I, pp. 602-503; cf. 604.) 



Charles Hodge, "The historic Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of John Calvin was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)



Lewis Berkhof and the Conclusions of Utrecht, "It may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: "And, finally, as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned. Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine; that it is, however, less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of their presumptive regeneration, since the ground of baptism is the command and the promise of God; and that further the judgment of charity, with which the Church presumes the seed of the covenant to be regenerated, by no means intends to say that therefore each child is really regenerated, since the Word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, and it is said of Isaac: in him shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6,7), so that in preaching it is' always necessary to insist on serious self-examination, since only those who shall have believed and have been baptized will be saved." (Systematic Theology, Page 640)



A. A. Hodge, "But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)



John Murray, "Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.)



Robert Booth, "If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism." (Children of the Promise, P&R Publishing, Page 29)



Robert Reymond, "I think I have shown that infants of believing parents are to be viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ's church and should be treated as such...Accordingly, all present at any and every infant baptism are admonished to "look back to their baptism," to repent of their sins against the covenant, and to "improve and make right use of their baptism...the Directory [of Public Worship] envisions, as Jones rightly states, "a dynamic, life-long relationship between the infants saving faith and Christian walk, on the one hand, and his baptism on the other." (A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pages 948-49)



In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "presumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "we have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches." (Bushnell's discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)




> Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?
> 
> Mocha



Joh 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 
Joh 15:2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 
Joh 15:3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. 
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. 
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 

The Greek word used here:

G3306
Î¼ÎµÌÎ½Ï‰
menoÌ„
men'-o
A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): - abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

*Stay, abide, continue.............If someone does not stay, does not abide or continue, they prove themselves to be apostates.



[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## refbaptdude

*Children of Wrath*

Mike,

You are correct by using biblical language to describe the natural state of your children such as "œchildren of wrath." 

We are to tell our children that they have great and awesome privileges by being raised in a Christian home and in the life of the church, but privileges do not mean possession. We should evangelize our children by teaching them God´s Word and the Gospel, use the Law of God to drive them to Christ and catechize them (Gal. 3:24). 

But the Bible is clear that our children ARE born IN ADAM (Rom. 5:12). We should not tell our children that they are Christians or baptize them until they express faith/repentance toward Christ and give evidence that they are born again (John 1:12-13, 3:3-8; Matthew 7:20; 12:33; Acts 2:38-41). 

Until they profess Christ and give evidence that they are the "œseed of Christ", are IN Christ, we should tell them that they are "œin Adam", "œchildren of the devil", "œdead in their sins", "œseparate from Christ, excluded from covenant people of God, have no hope and without God in the world" and "œon their way to hell" (Eph. 2:1-12).

See Jonathan Edwards Evangelist by John H. Gerstner chapter 4 "œPreaching to Young Vipers."

Grace and Peace,
Steve 

Heb 2:13
13	And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
(KJV)

Isa 53:10
10	Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(KJV)

John 1:12-13
12	But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13	Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(KJV)

Rom 9:8
8	That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(KJV)

Gal 4:28-29
28	Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29	But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
(KJV)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

My understanding about the covenant of circumcision is twofold. It was given in light of two kinds of promises and Abrahams belief that the LORD would perform what he said he would do. One was concerning the seed of Abraham (Jesus) and the other was concerning his descendents and their national posterity. They are two different kinds of promises and may or may not have anything to do with the other.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> My understanding about the covenant of circumcision is twofold. It was given in light of two kinds of promises and Abrahams belief that the LORD would perform what he said he would do. One was concerning the seed of Abraham (Jesus) and the other was concerning his descendents and their national posterity. They are two different kinds of promises and may or may not have anything to do with the other.
> 
> [Edited on 11-11-2005 by puritancovenanter]



Randy,
Have you read into the promise? Is that what God said?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by refbaptdude_
> Mike,
> 
> You are correct by using biblical language to describe the natural state of your children such as "œchildren of wrath."
> 
> We are to tell our children that they have great and awesome privileges by being raised in a Christian home and in the life of the church, but privileges do not mean possession. We should evangelize our children by teaching them God´s Word and the Gospel, use the Law of God to drive them to Christ and catechize them (Gal. 3:24).
> 
> But the Bible is clear that our children ARE born IN ADAM (Rom. 5:12). We should not tell our children that they are Christians or baptize them until they express faith/repentance toward Christ and give evidence that they are born again (John 1:12-13, 3:3-8; Matthew 7:20; 12:33; Acts 2:38-41).
> 
> Until they profess Christ and give evidence that they are the "œseed of Christ", are IN Christ, we should tell them that they are "œin Adam", "œchildren of the devil", "œdead in their sins", "œseparate from Christ, excluded from covenant people of God, have no hope and without God in the world" and "œon their way to hell" (Eph. 2:1-12).
> 
> See Jonathan Edwards Evangelist by John H. Gerstner chapter 4 "œPreaching to Young Vipers."
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> Steve
> 
> Heb 2:13
> 13	And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
> (KJV)
> 
> Isa 53:10
> 10	Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
> (KJV)
> 
> John 1:12-13
> 12	But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
> 13	Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
> (KJV)
> 
> Rom 9:8
> 8	That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
> (KJV)
> 
> Gal 4:28-29
> 28	Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
> 29	But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
> (KJV)



Steve,
Do you teach your children to pray? Do you direct them to call God, "Father" or do you to tell them, "DO NOT call God father; your father is the devil!!!"


----------



## Joseph Ringling

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.



So why isn't the unbelieving spouse baptised?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Joseph Ringling_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why isn't the unbelieving spouse baptised?
Click to expand...


Because, the unbeliever is generally not willing to submit to the sacrament. If they were willing, and even confess, this does not guarantee conversion or faith, but if they were willing, they would be welcome. Many people submit to baptism and are only getting wet.

Placing the sacrament upon infant or adult is based upon obedience to Gods command to place the sign. It does not guarantee conversion and never did.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> I have a question (especially for the paedobaptists):
> 
> Can anyone have a non-saving connection to Christ?
> 
> or
> 
> Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?
> 
> Mocha



Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.


----------



## kceaster

I keep going back to the fact that there will be a man at the wedding feast of the lamb who is not clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He is thrown out. But who let him in?

There will be those who will say, "Lord, Lord." There will be those who will say, "When did we see you...?"

As long as these people exist, will be as long as we ask the question, "Who is, and who ain't." This is an illegitimate question, since God has not given us the sight for this.

We must trust Christ not only for our salvation, but for the salvation of all those who are in the external (read earthly) body of Christ. The only way we may do this is to apply the sign of the covenant to all those who wish to be a part of it. We, as heads of households, desire that our children be in the covenant. Therefore, we apply the sign. But we don't need proof, BECAUSE IT IS CLEAR WE'LL NEVER GET IT. God doesn't have to prove He can save someone. We know He does, and that should be enough for us.

Trust in the Lord with your whole heart and do not lean on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make straight your paths.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

I asked:

In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?

You responded with:

No.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

Me:

But, are not unjustified people cut off from God anyway? What's the difference between an unjustified infant that has been baptized and an unjustified infant that has not been baptized? Both are unjustified and separated from God. 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just having a hard time understanding how anyone can have a favourable standing before God when all are considered 'children of wath' (Eph. 2:3) until they are justified. Having said that, I realize that God's people in the Old Testament were a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate, so I guess in some sense it's possible to be unregenerate and unjustified and yet be a part of God's people. That's the part that I find really confusing and that's the part I really need to work on.

BTW, is there any place on this forum that explains how to use the 'quotes', 'underlining', etc.

One more thing, do we sign off with our user name or with our real name?

Mocha (Mike)


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

Thank you for threads and info on presumption! I will start reading them later on tonight. But for now I will respond to the last part of your post.

I had asked:

Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?

You responsed with John 15:1-7 and then added:

The Greek word used here:

G3306
Î¼ÎµÌÎ½Ï‰
menoÌ„
men'-o
A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): - abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

*Stay, abide, continue.............If someone does not stay, does not abide or continue, they prove themselves to be apostates.

Me:

Wayne Grudem says the following about John 15:

"The imagery of the vine used in this parable is limited in how much detail it can teach. In fact, if Jesus had wanted to teach that there were true and false believers associated with him, and if he wanted to use the analogy of a vine and brances, then the only way he could refer to people who do not have genuine life in themselves would be to speak of branches that bear no fruit (somewhat after the anology of the seeds that fell on rocky ground and had "no root in themselves" in Mark 4:17). Here in John 15 the branches that do not bear fruit, though they are in some way connected to Jesus and give an outward appearance of being genuine branches, nonetheless give indication of their true state by the fact that they bear no fruit. This is similarly indicated by the fact that the person "does not abide" in Christ (John 15:6) and is cast off as a branch and withers. If we try and press the analogy any further, by saying, for example, that all branches on a vine really are alive or they would not be there in the first place, then we are simply trying to press the imagery beyond what it is able to teach - and in that case there would be nothing in the analogy that could represent false believers in any case. The point of the imagery is simply that those who bear fruit thereby give evidence that they are abiding in Christ; those who do not, are not abiding in him."
(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pgs. 795-796)

I tend to agree with Wayne Grudem. However, I believe one's presuppositions have a major influence on interpreting this passage. It may be that when I challenge my presuppositions I may have a change of view. But for now, I see "in Christ" in terms of being justified and not in terms of possibly being unsaved in the covenant. 

Mocha


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

You asked steve this question:

Steve,
Do you teach your children to pray? Do you direct them to call God, "Father" or do you to tell them, "DO NOT call God father; your father is the devil!!!" 

Me: Doesn't someone have to be adopted into the family of God before they can legitimately call God "Father"?

As for praying with our children and saying "Our Father", I think it has more to do with modelling the faith and showing how one should live and relate to God.

Mocha


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Scott,
> 
> You asked steve this question:
> 
> Steve,
> Do you teach your children to pray? Do you direct them to call God, "Father" or do you to tell them, "DO NOT call God father; your father is the devil!!!"
> 
> Me: Doesn't someone have to be adopted into the family of God before they can legitimately call God "Father"?
> 
> As for praying with our children and saying "Our Father", I think it has more to do with modelling the faith and showing how one should live and relate to God.
> 
> Mocha



I am not refering to *you* praying with your children and *you* claiming God as your father. I am asking specifically if you give your children on the one hand that God is their father and then on another, He is not? Are you consistant?

Modeling is one thing, being accurate and consistant is another.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Scott,
> 
> I asked:
> 
> In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?
> 
> You responded with:
> 
> No.
> 
> Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
> 
> Me:
> 
> But, are not unjustified people cut off from God anyway? What's the difference between an unjustified infant that has been baptized and an unjustified infant that has not been baptized? Both are unjustified and separated from God.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just having a hard time understanding how anyone can have a favourable standing before God when all are considered 'children of wath' (Eph. 2:3) until they are justified. Having said that, I realize that God's people in the Old Testament were a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate, so I guess in some sense it's possible to be unregenerate and unjustified and yet be a part of God's people. That's the part that I find really confusing and that's the part I really need to work on.



Mike, essentially all of these issues are rooted in Covenant Theology, and our understanding of the nature and extent of God's various covenants, especially regarding the invisible and visible aspects of those covenants. I would recommend getting Dr. Matthew McMahon's (webmaster) short book, _A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology_. Also, the first three sections of Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith give a helpful summary of that distinction:



> CHAP. XXV. - Of the Church.
> 
> 1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.
> 
> 2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
> 
> 3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.



As that expresses, we see the Covenant of Grace through which God saves His Church throughout all of redemptive history as possessing an invisible and a visible aspect, both of which are very real in terms of God's dealings with His people, and both of which have real meaning for who those people are. And as you noted above with regard to God's people in the Covenant of Grace under the Old Testament, and as Genesis 17:14, the warning passages, the olive tree and the vine parable all illustrate, some true members of God's people are non-elect and hence get cut off. But because of Perseverance of the Saints, we know that such does not happen with the elect or the invisible Church - hence the biblical notion of the visible Church, or the visible aspect of the Covenant of Grace. (Sometimes you will hear people referring to the "Covenant of Redemption," which is simply another way of talking about the invisible aspect of the Covenant of Grace.)

Here is an excerpt from a post of mine in a thread awhile back that expresses much of my thought on this concept, as I can certainly relate to you in having found it confusing:



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Lon, neither the historic Reformed faith, its confessions, or contemporary paedobaptists teach that all believers' children are definitely elect. As you rightly said, we simply believe and acknowledge that they are in covenant with God. When we say they are "in covenant" with God, that is referring to the _external_ covenant, or the _visible_ church, which parellels national, ethnic Israel under the Old Covenant. The difference between the external covenant and the elect (which is the internal covenant, or the invisible church) is that the former is God's primary revealed means of making and growing people in the latter, but it does not _ensure_ membership in the latter.
> 
> Similarly, an external profession of faith does not necessarily ensure that a person is elect (within the internal covenant), either. A seemingly credible profession of faith does not _definitely_ mean that its professor is elect. Nonetheless, it _does_ definitely mean that they are part of the external church, and is a biblical grounds on which to _presume_ that they are also part of the internal church. In the same way, God's general, universal promises to the children of believers (see Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14) do not _definitely_ mean that the children receiving the promises are elect. Nonetheless, they _do_ definitely mean that they are part of the external church, and are a biblical grounds on which to _presume_ that they are also part of the internal church.



I hope that may at least begin to help you see where we are coming from on this. Let me know if you'd ever like to discuss it further on AIM or something.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> BTW, is there any place on this forum that explains how to use the 'quotes', 'underlining', etc.



See this thread.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> One more thing, do we sign off with our user name or with our real name?
> 
> Mocha (Mike)



If by "signing off" you are referring to typing your name at the bottom of every post, it doesn't matter which one, if any. You have to have your real name in your signature anyway, so it doesn't really matter if you type anything at the bottom of your posts or not.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Joseph Ringling_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
> 
> 
> 
> So why isn't the unbelieving spouse baptised?
Click to expand...

This has been addressed in other threads, but to restate: paedobaptists (those who baptize infant children) do not (or should not) use the text of 1 Cor. 7:14 to _establish_ whether children of believers or their spouses should be baptized. What this text tells us is _not_ what to do with the individuals identified, but rather that they are "holy". They are _sanctified_--set apart in some way--and distinguished from the world at large. The question of what, if anything, should be done to persons GOD has declared "HOLY" is established from other texts, and upon other grounds.

An infant, coming into the world _de novo,_ has only the "rights" granted to him by God, by virtue of his individual humanity--life, first of all. Otherwise, he has virtually no "rights" at all. He _belongs_ to his parents. They will see to his rearing and education, preparing him for emancipation and majority. He is NOT their property in the sense that they may do with him as it suits them. They will answer to GOD for their conduct toward him. Generally this takes the form of new liberties and new responsibilities as time passes. But he will become his own man one day, barring some development or defect that makes him their life-long ward.

That this is a religious and not purely natural duty, is unmistakable from the Scriptures (e.g. Deut. 6:7; Mt. 7:9-11). A parent has one relationship to his child (and a mutable one at that), and a different sort of relationship to his wife (permanent), and still other relations to the rest of his household. The passing of the Old Covenant age has not changed this natural reality.

God instructed Abraham to circumcise every male of his household. Any that refused (and think about what accepting the rite meant!) were turned out, Gen 17:14. The rest obviously made a self-conscious chioce to follow the God of Abraham, at least externally. Remember the deception and murder of Jacob's sons who persuaded the Shechemites to submit to the external rite on non-religious grounds? Simeon and Levi profaned and perverted the ordinance.

The Passover was only for the circumcised. Note the saying in Ex. 12:44 "But every man's slave that is bought for money, *when you have circumcised him, then* shall he eat therof." So, evidently it was possible to have male household members who had not yet submitted to the rite of circumcision. The situation remained an unresolved one until either the one submitted or the master sent him out.

Thus, I think it is obvious that no grown man was ever coerced under the knife (legitimately) under the Old Covenant scheme. Persons of an age and capable of making an adult, rational decision would have to submit willingly to the rite. The same holds true under the New Covenant. Wives (or husbands) of believers should be mature and capable of making a rational decision to follow the Lord.

Therefore, I would never baptize a wife (or husband) based upon their spouse's profession, and I do not think the Bible calls for it under any circumstances, and certainly not by an appeal to 1 Cor. 7:14. Likewise, I do believe the Bible commands the baptism of infants of believers, up through any age that parents and session recognize sufficient parental authority and responsibility adheres in the relationship, justifying such baptism. This may, in some cases, be a "wisdom" issue, but God calls us in our positions of responsibility to exercise wisdom. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (Jas. 1:5).


----------



## Mocha

> Mike, essentially all of these issues are rooted in Covenant Theology, and our understanding of the nature and extent of God's various covenants, especially regarding the invisible and visible aspects of those covenants. I would recommend getting Dr. Matthew McMahon's (webmaster) short book, A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology.



Chris, I know I am weak on my understanding of the covenants. I know I'm going to have to do some study on this to work out some of the confusion. Do you happen to know anything that might be on the www that could help me out?



> I hope that may at least begin to help you see where we are coming from on this. Let me know if you'd ever like to discuss it further on AIM or something.



Thanks Chris! I just may take you up on that offer some time.

Mike


----------



## Mocha

There is one thing the paedobaptists say that has me scratching my head. There doesn't seem to be an actual command in the NT to stop giving children the sign of the covenant. I know the NT has many examples of people first believing (and/or repenting) and then being baptized, but can we depend on this alone to convince us that the other is obsolete?

One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?

I'm not saying that this is what I believe right now, but I do find myself wondering if this might be a possibility.

Any thoughts on this?

Mike

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by Mocha]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Mike,

I've been in your shoes, even the driving part, 65 miles for us.

One of the first big changes is understanding what and whose sign baptism is and specifically what it communicates and what it is not. The sign is primarily a promise, a Gospel promise and not a duty or work performed. It is dutifully done but that is not its purpose. It's primary basis is rooted in the Gospel as a sign of salvation and this is what it "points too". That's what it means to be baptized into the death of Christ and risen with Him - Gospel! It is God's sign which finds its meaning in the Gospel which is promise. Otherwise, without the Word, it is just so much water. 

To argue that the sign is not given to infants because they have not the cognitive ability to express faith is to miss entirely the point of the sign and to make it something it is not, a sign of "my faith" and this applies to adults as well. Fundamentally, it is given to children of believers for the same reason the Gospel is declared to them, it points to the same thing. Conversely, just like in the hearing of the Gospel, to turn away from it, not believe unto final apostacy carries with it more wrath - because Good News came your way and you denied it.

To make it a sign of "my faith" distorts it and true saving faith from a declarative work of God, just like the Gospel, to a work of man. The believer's child is not baptized because of "their faith" (the child´s) but because of God's promise. If I as a parent do not believe in God's promise (the only way a promise can be received- trust/faith), then fundamentally we have to be honest and admit that I do not have the same faith in the same sense that the father of our faith Abraham had.

Some would say that the promise is only to those who have faith. But that too misses entirely what a promise is and puts the cart in front of the horse.

But you are purchased with the blood of Christ and thus the Father looks upon you for Christ´s sake and He sees your children as your children and he cares for them just as you must. You are a child of God for Christ´s sake and precious blood and because of this your children do indeed have a special position on this earth not afforded to others. This is not arrogance but rather true humility! Do not disdain the gift of God by pretend humility.
A demonstration of another type of earthly sign may clarify. It´s the best I a layman can do, so bear with me:

A compass is an instrument that by means of magnetism and the earth's poles points out from all locations on the earth magnetic north. As such it serves as a sign pointing to the reality of north (technically magnetic north). Where ever on the globe one finds one's self it will always point out north and orient its pointing to the north. Whoever holds it the compass signs north even if one turns around it still points north. Even if one travels accidentally or by design tangentially (degrees east and west of a north south line), orthogonally (directly 90 degree east or west) or in opposition of north (180 degrees south) - the compass will point to and signify for the pilgrim north. Hence, the compass depends not on location or the holder for its significance or what it functions as, but the objective reality of magnetic north (like baptism objectively pointing out the Father's election, the Son's redemption and the Holy Spirit's regeneration). 

We may liken baptism to the compass, both signs pointing to a reality yet fully realized and not contained but pointed to by the sign itself. The holders of baptism and the compass are travelers or pilgrims in this life trusting in their final destiny but yet traveling to it unrealized (such is faith and trust). North may be likened to the Gospel, Christ and final eternal life. Along the way of travel or pilgrimage they will meet many trials and struggles within and without. In the dark of night (or dark night of the soul) they will struggle with knowing of north (Christ) but not sure if they themselves are on the correct path and this is where the compass (baptism) can come in to objectively re-ground and re-point and re-assure them back to true north (Gospel). These inward battles may come due to sin struggles, accusations and misdirection from the enemy or a general battle with some form or another of doubt and unbelief about their journey or pilgrimage, for they are traveling and pilgrimaging by faith and trust of a Word of truth but yet see the reality. To this their compass (or baptism) may reorient them to north (or the Gospel) afresh. Such help can this be that in these dark trials and though much around them looks like the wrong direction and the wrong path that by looking to their compass and trusting in what it is pointing to (yet realized), much like baptism, they can be encouraged to not give up but move on - that is refreshed by the Gospel in the sign (baptism).

It is crucial to understand that like a compass, baptism is a help to our faith and a condescension to our own inability and weakness, not a thing "œwe do"œ. This is the same fundamental purpose of a compass for we do not naturally detect north but rely on true signs to show us this north reality. It is a well known fact that left to ourselves, our own internal sense of direction and no objective signs pointing out directions, that over the length of a long journey and without reorientation by objective signs we will travel in circles. This is not unlike the Christian life in which without fresh Gospel, and the signs that point to the Gospel (holy Baptism and the Lord's Table), we begin to travel in circles over the length of time in the journey. For as in travel we become disoriented and lost, all things begin to either look the same or unrecognizable or even wrong and pretty soon if left in a woods or desert we panic and begin to wander aimlessly. This is truly walking by faith. Without a compass which points objectively for us this is how we wander. Likewise the Christian left to himself he will wander aimlessly wondering and panicking, "am I saved" and the devil and the world will be more than obliging in misguiding the Christian pilgrim as well. To this we have the wonderful gift of holy baptism (and the Lord's Supper). We have and His Word is primary without which baptism would be just water, just like a compass without markings of North, South, East and West would just be some needle floating in a fluid - none-the-less holy Baptism with the Word is a gracious condescension to our weakness of faith and need.

Since the compass sign rests not in the holder but the objective reality of magnetic north it may be given to one professing to be a traveler (adult convert) to the north (north may be analogous to the Christian pilgrim, Gospel and Christ here). However, if the professing traveler or pilgrim is really being deceptive and really never seeks north, only professing such and in reality seeks some other direction (his/her own salvation way/works), then when in the end (like to final judgment) he will not be able to claim ignorance. Why? For the maker of the compass can justly say, "My flawless compass pointed north for you, you took it and you openly chose to go south in spite of it. You have no excuse." Or conversely if the traveler or pilgrim be real, yet under disorienting duress, trial and battle by deceivers or his own weakness of determining direction looses his/her direction and way, he can quickly look at the sign (the compass) again and even though he may have erred greatly over a great distance off of the mark he can cease despairing and turn for the compass still points north and thus he may continue onward home to the north (salvation/Christ) in spite of his surroundings appearance and his life.

To the later case; it would make no sense to give "another" compass as if the first made by the Perfect compass Maker does not point north already. For it is a true and unbreakable compass, this compass, (God's baptism) cannot nor ever fails - even though the some false possessors of the compass may ignore it to his or her eternal detriment. Furthermore, it would make no sense to give a different kind of compass other than the perfect and true compass - one that functions like a watch that must first have its north hand held and calibrated to point to the carrier who in turn should be pointing north themselves. This type of "compass" (like baptism pointing primarily to one's "œown" faith) is only viewed as a valid compass and pointing "north" when it is pointing to a valid carrier and resting on the hope that the carrier is flawlessly correct and unshakeable under trials and temptations. Thus, when trials and tribulations come and the pilgrim struggles in the darkness as to where north is, this "compass" (the one pointing to self), is as useless as a stone in his pocket. This person would indeed be in danger of and ultimately left to seeking his/her own way and traveling in circles on their pilgrimage for his sign and aid depends on him and if it depends on him then it is no sign or aid at all to him but rather the other way around. In this case he will always seek another compass (rebaptism).

And is this not EXACTLY what we see with poor souls who become locked into "was I truly regenerate/saved" when I was baptized. For trial and darkness has come to them and they are struggling with whether or not they are or ever where true pilgrims going north (to Christ, the Gospel). Their poor eyes and erroneous sense of self direction roams and haunts the land seeking north (salvation/Christ) but with no true north pointing compass and only a compass they are told pointing to their own person who should be pointing north (to Christ), they endlessly struggle for they don't know if they themselves can detect the correct direction of north (their sin struggles or weak faith disorients their seeking of Christ). Some wander and wander, panicking in misery they cry out and roam the land aimlessly. Some throwing away each compass for a new one that they are told functions the same way as the previous self pointing compass, then another when another trial hits, then another when another trial hits, etc"¦ Never does their compass point north (to Christ) that they might have peace and faith for the arduous pilgrimage of the Christian faith. Thus, they know of the existence of north, that it is the true way but have lost it in the since that they are not certain of the very footsteps they themselves take. So, they circle and circle seeking either a new compass or some other sign. They hear the word of "north", they believe its reality and truth, but they subjectively wonder their own path staring at a compass that serves for nothing.

Finally, if my family and I are pilgrims and travelers together such as a family must be while we are one unit - it makes perfect sense that I would have the true treasure of the true compass bequeathed and given to my infant children to be theirs as an inheritance. This treasure and inheritance IS the Gospel and baptism IS its sign to in this life lead me and my family and their families to eternal life. I can leave no greater treasure to them and for them to give to their children well after I am gone. Why? For "me and my household shall server the Lord" (go north). And I would carefully teach them of the compasses pointing and north (salvation/home) and the danger of just sitting and not traveling north and only putting the compass in one's pocket traveling one's own way. Rather than pilgrimaging to the north (trusting Christ alone). And that this compass is for them so that if they ever despair or in dark hours of the night (of the soul) find themselves lost that this true compass, their inheritance, may reorient them. Or if the enemy should attack them confuse them that this treasure the true compass may point them afresh to north (Christ/Gospel). All of this so that they too when they reach adulthood continue on the pilgrimage that we began as a family and they too may have children pilgrims to the north (godly seed unto Christ) and pass this on to them and so on and so on as long as the Lord is pleased to have godly seed from this family. 

Yet, if a child rebels and falls away for a while going east, west or south seeking their own way (works or self salvation of another form), then later come to realize their folly - then they have their compass given them graciously by providentially being in the family of pilgrims/travelers and can then repent and turn north afresh from where they are. They may one day be traveling their own way in rebellion and trial hits them. Thus, there bones are broken and they cry out to the Lord, reaching in their pocket they pull forth their compass (their baptism as infants) and they remember as they ponder it and what they have been taught what it means. Then they have a compass and can repent and turn back unto Christ being reminded afresh and redirected north again where their family before them have gone. It matters not how far off of the north path they have gone for north remains north and the compass points north. 

If they remain in rebellion and continue on their own way of false north, a north of their own invention (false/works/other salvation) that is in reality and truth west, east or south or some variation thereof, then at the end of the journey (life to death to eternal) they find themselves in their direction, they have no one to blame, not the true compass (baptism) not the compass maker (God) and not their family who gave them the true compass or their fellow pilgrims (the church) for all pointed out true north. The compass pointed out north and much to their accusing consciences they must realize too late that they ignored willfully the true compass and warnings and chose their own way and will now never arrive at north (Christ and heaven).

Thus, by this analogy we can see that baptism must never be repeated, even upon infants, for it rest in an objective reality of Christ alone. It depends not the least upon the holder of it and it should and must be given to family members children as a gift to their souls. Like the compass one would not willy nilly just give away the true compass to one in adulthood who manifestly despises its direction pointing and seeks his own ability and way. These are manifest strangers to us, we can and do and should say where true north is "would you like to go north and have a compass". But to a family member a child it is wrong, yes even sinful, to not leave unto them who are under your very own teaching this compass for they are your family as opposed to a complete stranger. To the stranger you offer the word of truth for him/her and their family. But to your own family you pass on the inheritance. How wrong it is to not teach one's children true north and how to rightly use their true compass (baptism), either way. How wrong it is to not give one's children the true compass even and especially before they may understand it! 

For you do not know when you may be separated from your children in this life and then what will they have? If they have not baptism then they ultimately will realize within themselves, like I did, that they have no connection to the church. And they will go their own way even more rebelliously. If they have baptism it will at least be a gnawing reality they must have in the back of their mind. They may, dreadfully, never come to faith, but the sign is still on them and their in lies hope.

Larry


----------



## Larry Hughes

Mike,

New Covenant Theology = wrong on that issue. The Sermon on the Mound is the decalog to the 10th power. How about the Great Commandment?


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> There is one thing the paedobaptists say that has me scratching my head. There doesn't seem to be an actual command in the NT to stop giving children the sign of the covenant. I know the NT has many examples of people first believing (and/or repenting) and then being baptized, but can we depend on this alone to convince us that the other is obsolete?



Hi Mike,
First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the _Regulative Principle_ on this as on other things. 

Secondly, Reformed Baptists note that according to Jer 31:31ff and Heb 8:8-11, the New Covenant is not like the Old. Specifically, in the New Covenant everyone knows the Lord. Therefore we cannot bring anyone into the New covenant by circumcising or baptizing them. People come into the NC by faith. Therefore only those who profess faith are suitable for the ordinance of baptism.


> One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?



New Covenant theology is not the same as Reformed Baptist theology. God's moral law is eternal. Baptism is not; it is not mentioned until the NT (1Cor 10:2 notwithstanding).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Hi Mike,
> First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the _Regulative Principle_ on this as on other things.



Looks like a command to me:

Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 
Gen 17:14 *Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."*

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? 

Mal 3:6 "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

It is not circumcision that is important. It is that a _sign_ is placed. 




> Secondly, Reformed Baptists note that according to Jer 31:31ff and Heb 8:8-11, the New Covenant is not like the Old. Specifically, in the New Covenant everyone knows the Lord. Therefore we cannot bring anyone into the New covenant by circumcising or baptizing them. People come into the NC by faith. Therefore only those who profess faith are suitable for the ordinance of baptism.



How is this any different today from the time of Jeremiah?




> One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?



Exactly. That is what baptism is.

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> There is one thing the paedobaptists say that has me scratching my head. There doesn't seem to be an actual command in the NT to stop giving children the sign of the covenant. I know the NT has many examples of people first believing (and/or repenting) and then being baptized, but can we depend on this alone to convince us that the other is obsolete?



As people on both sides should acknowledge, treating those examples as positive evidence against the biblical validity of paedobaptism would not itself be sufficient, as it would be begging the question - for under both the credobaptist _and_ paedobaptist views, people in that time would not have been baptized when they were infants simply because baptism had not even been instated yet; so _of course_ there are going to be many adult baptisms at the time it is instated, in light of the paedobaptist view just as well as the credobaptist.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?



While, as Martin pointed out, New Covenant Theology is drastically different from the view of Covenant Theology that Reformed, Particular Baptists believe, the principle you mention here is indeed at the heart of the paedobaptist understanding, in the continuation-unless-explicitly-declared-obsolete hermeneutic specifically applied to the issue of the sign, as Scott noted. A case most Particular Baptists seeem to make against that argument is that God's promises to believers' children (such as the Scriptures I included in my previous post) were never spiritual and covenantal in nature in the first place, but either purely civil in nature or else only applicable to believers themselves as children of the nation, which seems to me like a very stretched and forced interpretations of those texts that are most simply and directly interpreted as speaking of _spiritual_ blessings to the _children_ of believers.


----------



## Steve Owen

Larry,
I know from our private conversation that you profoundly believe what you wrote above, but I have to point out that you were not able to append a single verse of Scripture to such a long post. It sounds great but it simply isn't right.

Part of your problem is that you don't understand Reformed Baptist theology. I would recommend you and others to read the RBTR, if only on the basis of 'Know your enemy'. Then you wouldn't be bringing up all the straw men that you do.

Reformed Baptists do not make baptism a 'sign of "my faith". Read the 1689 Confession. According to that, it is, _'A sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.'_

However, it remains the fact that *'without faith it is impossible to please God' * (Heb 11:6 ), and it was those who *'gladly received' * the Gospel who were baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41 ). No one else.

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

> Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."



Scott,
At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that's circumcision, not baptism.
There is no command in the Bible to baptize infants.


> How is this any different today from the time of Jeremiah?



The Holy Spirit foretold the coming of the New Covenant through Jeremiah. It was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20 ).

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott,
> At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that's circumcision, not baptism.
> There is no command in the Bible to baptize infants.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this any different today from the time of Jeremiah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Holy Spirit foretold the coming of the New Covenant through Jeremiah. It was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20 ).
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Martin,
The command is to place the sign; that sign then was circumcision, today it is baptism.

Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and _it_ *shall be a sign of the covenant* between me and you.

As far as your understanding of the Jer passage:
Inaugerated or consumated?

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Steve Owen

> Martin,
> The command is to place the sign; that sign then was circumcision, today it is baptism.


So show me the command to baptize infants *today*.


> Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.


Well, you'd better carry on circumcising infants then because there's no command to do anything else to them.


> As far as your understanding of the Jer passage:
> Inaugerated or consumated?



Inaugurated. Jer 31:31ff is clearly placed in the future.

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey

> So show me the command to baptize infants *today*.



The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.





> Inaugurated. Jer 31:31ff is clearly placed in the future.
> 
> Martin



and I guess the OT saint did not have the efficacy in their time???




[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon




----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Martin_
> First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.



Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?



> Malone denies the arguments supportive of infant baptism repeatedly because each relies on "good and necessary consequence" (13, 45, 46, 55). He reasons in this way, "The precepts of confessors' baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). *To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors' baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship"*. This is the heart of Malone's argument. It depends on the following: (a) that the biblical commands for the ordinance exegetically require that only believers be baptized (per his understanding of Mat 28:19-20). And/or at least (b) a precept, command or example which teaches that a confessor ("believer") is to be baptized hermeneutically requires a denial of infant baptism - regardless of necessary inferences supporting infant baptism.
> 
> In response to (a), that the biblical commands for the ordinance require that only believers be baptized, Malone does not exegetically demonstrate this. He interprets Matthew 28:19 to require that only individual professing disciples are to be baptized, though he does not provide any exegetical rationale for his interpretive conclusion. *Unwittingly in this, he draws what he takes to be a necessary inference to support his cause* (though he is unhesitating in chiding paedobaptists for "good and necessary inferences").Article by Gregg Strawbridge.



Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant. 

I'm not saying I agree with the paedo's, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased. 

Maybe Jer. 31 or an understanding of the sacraments/ordinances can shed more light on the subject.

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mike,
Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin_
> First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malone denies the arguments supportive of infant baptism repeatedly because each relies on "good and necessary consequence" (13, 45, 46, 55). He reasons in this way, "The precepts of confessors' baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). *To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors' baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship"*. This is the heart of Malone's argument. It depends on the following: (a) that the biblical commands for the ordinance exegetically require that only believers be baptized (per his understanding of Mat 28:19-20). And/or at least (b) a precept, command or example which teaches that a confessor ("believer") is to be baptized hermeneutically requires a denial of infant baptism - regardless of necessary inferences supporting infant baptism.
> 
> In response to (a), that the biblical commands for the ordinance require that only believers be baptized, Malone does not exegetically demonstrate this. He interprets Matthew 28:19 to require that only individual professing disciples are to be baptized, though he does not provide any exegetical rationale for his interpretive conclusion. *Unwittingly in this, he draws what he takes to be a necessary inference to support his cause* (though he is unhesitating in chiding paedobaptists for "good and necessary inferences").Article by Gregg Strawbridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with the paedo's, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.
> 
> Maybe Jer. 31 or an understanding of the sacraments/ordinances can shed more light on the subject.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...

Refreshing to see somebody finds some challenges here and wants to address them.

I've honestly never encountered a credo-Baptist that approached this issue from the regulative principle. It actually shocked me and I'm not easily shocked.

Frankly, the silence on the subject would lead, in covenantal terms, to the conclusion that baptism of infants would occur unless Christ and His Apostles took positive steps to prevent the "abuse".

Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)

Later, we read letters of Apostles dealing with all sorts of abuses including what? Circumcision! The dang Judaizers are trying to get Gentiles circumcized. One would suppose that Paul would have to deal with the perversion that these dang Judaizers are telling the Gentiles to baptize and circumcize their children and Paul would correct that. Oh, but wait, perhaps none of the Galatian households had children. That would explain that problem after all.

Leaving that heresy aside, why wouldn't the Apostles have to write an Epistle to "fix" the Jews understanding of Covenant? After all, for 2000 years they've gotten used to this silly idea of family solidarity in belief - that God saves them and their children. The sign of the Covenant expands to include not only Jews but Gentiles, not only men but women, but wait! It contracts to not include children! Hold on Jewish believers! Don't baptize your children!

Come on folks. Can't you feel the folly in this regulative principle argument? It reminds me of the Church of Christ that doesn't allow instrumental music because it's not reiterated by some Apostle in the New Testament.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin_
> First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Malone denies the arguments supportive of infant baptism repeatedly because each relies on "good and necessary consequence" (13, 45, 46, 55). He reasons in this way, "The precepts of confessors' baptism expressly prohibit infants from the covenant sign by their positive delineation of confessing subjects (Mt. 28:18-20). *To let silence concerning infant baptism overpower the clear precepts of confessors' baptism is a dangerous hermeneutical method and a clear violation of the regulative principle of worship"*. This is the heart of Malone's argument. It depends on the following: (a) that the biblical commands for the ordinance exegetically require that only believers be baptized (per his understanding of Mat 28:19-20). And/or at least (b) a precept, command or example which teaches that a confessor ("believer") is to be baptized hermeneutically requires a denial of infant baptism - regardless of necessary inferences supporting infant baptism.
> 
> In response to (a), that the biblical commands for the ordinance require that only believers be baptized, Malone does not exegetically demonstrate this. He interprets Matthew 28:19 to require that only individual professing disciples are to be baptized, though he does not provide any exegetical rationale for his interpretive conclusion. *Unwittingly in this, he draws what he takes to be a necessary inference to support his cause* (though he is unhesitating in chiding paedobaptists for "good and necessary inferences").Article by Gregg Strawbridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.
> 
> I'm not saying I agree with the paedo's, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.
> 
> Maybe Jer. 31 or an understanding of the sacraments/ordinances can shed more light on the subject.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Refreshing to see somebody finds some challenges here and wants to address them.
> 
> I've honestly never encountered a credo-Baptist that approached this issue from the regulative principle. It actually shocked me and I'm not easily shocked.
> 
> Frankly, the silence on the subject would lead, in covenantal terms, to the conclusion that baptism of infants would occur unless Christ and His Apostles took positive steps to prevent the "abuse".
> 
> Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)
> 
> Later, we read letters of Apostles dealing with all sorts of abuses including what? Circumcision! The dang Judaizers are trying to get Gentiles circumcized. One would suppose that Paul would have to deal with the perversion that these dang Judaizers are telling the Gentiles to baptize and circumcize their children and Paul would correct that. Oh, but wait, perhaps none of the Galatian households had children. That would explain that problem after all.
> 
> Leaving that heresy aside, why wouldn't the Apostles have to write an Epistle to "fix" the Jews understanding of Covenant? After all, for 2000 years they've gotten used to this silly idea of family solidarity in belief - that God saves them and their children. The sign of the Covenant expands to include not only Jews but Gentiles, not only men but women, but wait! It contracts to not include children! Hold on Jewish believers! Don't baptize your children!
> 
> Come on folks. Can't you feel the folly in this regulative principle argument? It reminds me of the Church of Christ that doesn't allow instrumental music because it's not reiterated by some Apostle in the New Testament.
> 
> [Edited on 11-13-2005 by SemperFideles]
Click to expand...


or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I don't know why, but this thread has been the *BEST* thread on this subject in regard to teaching me the credo stance on baptism.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Martin,

I appreciate your concern. These were not my arguments but Luther & Calvin, especially Luther. The analogy was my attempt to "see" it better apart from the hyperboly that attends such arguments, over & over again.

I have read Reformed baptist authers, which heretofore about me you did not know, that's quite alright. I understand what they are saying and disagree without reservation, the best of which was Tombs (in my opinion). 

Of course as soon as I say I disagree you will reply, "poor man he's just too simple to understand", for in your paradigm, which you do, I believe, believe with all your heart you cannot fathom another. That's not a put down or just you, but a general dynamic for ALL men who trust what they know to be truth. I accept that. As a scientist I have to be objective & emotionally distant, doesn't always happen, but thus I'm trained & educated and generally do. Now, is that which is trusted subjectively - objectively true - that is an altogether other question. Its that simple. 

Its a matter of speech conveying & what the sacaments point to. That's why I used the analogy - what the baptistic speech becomes in actuality. There was no strawmen in the argument if one understands that.

As for scriptures it was not my intent to get into a Scripture dual, because the problem is not with Scripture, but the presuppositions braught to them - by anybody.

Like I say constantly, the Gospel ferrets out all divergent & deformed doctrines - that's the hill I die on & concede to no man, not even you.

And as I have said before I appreciate our conversations & respect your opinions.

L

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.



While I agree with the principle you're illustrating that Rich brought up, I don't think the tithe is a particularly good example, as Jesus does implicitly command it in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42.



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I don't know why, but this thread has been the *BEST* thread on this subject in regard to teaching me the credo stance on baptism.



Are you talking about teaching you the credo stance from a specifically non-Dispensational perspective (in this case Reformed Baptist), in light of the fact that a Dispensational understanding of baptism was previously the only credo stance you had learned? In any case, out of curiosity, is this one of the issues on which you're currently "on the fence"?


----------



## ReformedWretch

Chris:

I've read almost all the other threads her on this topic and while I learned much and even complimented another thread in the past, this one has been by far the most clear, least argumentative, and easy to understand.

As for the credo position, before coming here I nly knew of that Roman Catholic practice and as such believed it to be hersey and something to run from as fast as one could run.

I am "on the fence" for sure, but leaning toward the credo position. It may take another thread or two like this though (and the word of God of course!!!)


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> Chris:
> 
> I've read almost all the other threads her on this topic and while I learned much and even complimented another thread in the past, this one has been by far the most clear, least argumentative, and easy to understand.



Gotcha. 



> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> As for the credo position, before coming here I nly knew of that Roman Catholic practice and as such believed it to be hersey and something to run from as fast as one could run.
> 
> I am "on the fence" for sure, but leaning toward the credo position. It may take another thread or two like this though (and the word of God of course!!!)



Your mention of only knowing of it as a Roman Catholic practice makes me think you're mixing up the terms...just for clarification, the credo view is the believer's-only baptism and the paedo view is the one in favor of infant baptism. If you had those terms switched, I guess my mention above of you learning the "credo" position from a Dispensational perspective must have sounded rather strange!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with the principle you're illustrating that Rich brought up, I don't think the tithe is a particularly good example, as Jesus does implicitly command it in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42.
Click to expand...


Chris,
Just for the record, I was agreeing with Rich and his labeling things like this as 'folly'. The idea it is not that cut and dry to some people; you and I both acknowledge Christs statements and agree that their is a tithe! However, MacArthur doesn't. Would I call MacArthur irresponsible? No, just dispensational.



[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> or the abrogation of the tithe because it is not mentioned as a practice in the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with the principle you're illustrating that Rich brought up, I don't think the tithe is a particularly good example, as Jesus does implicitly command it in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris,
> Just for the record, it is not that cut and dry to some people; you and I both acknowledge Christs statements. However, MacArthur doesn't. Would I call MacArthur irresponsible? No, just dispensational.
Click to expand...


Interesting. How does he interpret those two verses (particularly "without neglecting the former") in regard to tithing and its relevance (or lack thereof) to the New Covenant believer?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I believe it is because Christs comments were made prior to His crucifixion; much like Martins statement that the NC is Inaugurated and not _consumated_. Since the comments were made prior to, MacArthur seems to imply that since it is not again mentioned by Paul et. al., then it is abrogated.



[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## ReformedWretch

Yep Chris, I had mixed up the terms.


----------



## Steve Owen

Scott wrote:-


> and I guess the OT saint did not have the efficacy in their time???



Heb 11:13. *'These *[Abel, Abraham etc]* all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar of were assured of them, embrased them...etc'.*

Martin


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.



In all seriousness, Scott, it is obvious that it is not so obvious. Otherwise we wouldn't see this and the many threads of the past.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, Scott, it is obvious that it is not so obvious. Otherwise we wouldn't see this and the many threads of the past.
Click to expand...


Gerry,
Are you referring to the change in signs; going from circumcision to baptism?

Both camps place a sign, that being today, baptism. The issue in question is when is the sign to be placed. 
For both the credo and paedo camps, adults coming to faith have the sign placed upon confession. During the early church, it was the same. This has nothing to do with the issue of infants though. In the early church, male infants had the sign placed in circumcision. In the NT church, that sign has changed to baptism. Infants should then receive that sigh via Gods immutable command to place that sign.

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Scott wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> and I guess the OT saint did not have the efficacy in their time???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heb 11:13. *'These *[Abel, Abraham etc]* all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar of were assured of them, embrased them...etc'.*
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Martin,
Can you say DISPENSATIONALISM?

Calvin writes:



> ...hence it is though they had the same salvation promised them, yet they had not the promises so clearly revealed to them as they are to us under the kingdom of Christ;



Revelation is key. We have a clearer picture than they, "under the Kingdom of Christ", the efficacy however, was never different.

What was their faith in? How is that different? It is no less efficacious...........If it is, the saint at the cross, during Christs time, has a hand up on both the OT saint and the present day.

As well, the term _promises_ needs to be defined.

~It's ok Martin, I as well have a dispensational bible here in my home: 
The New Testament w/ Psalms & Proverbs, Pocket Edition



[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Steve Owen

Mike Rogers asked:-


> Martin, what do you think of this excerpt from Gregg Strawbridge?................
> 
> Can we use the positive statements of the NT to say that something from the OT is obsolete? For example, if I say I love my daughter, can someone conclude from that, that I do not love my son? It seems to me that we need to look to something more concrete in order to show that we should not give the covenant sign to an infant.



To answer your illustration, if you say that you love your daughter, I may not conclude from that statement that you *do* love your son. It comes back to the Regulative Principle. Consider the following from the English reformer and martyr, John Hooper:-


> The Scriptures are the law of God; none may set aside their commands *or add to their injunctions. * Christ's kingdom is a spiritual one....neither the Pope nor King may govern the church....Christ alone is the Governor of His church. The Scripture and the apostles' churches [he meant the examples of church rule given in Acts and some of the letters- Martin] are solely to be followed, and no man's authority. *There is nothing to be done in the church but is commanded......by the word of God. *[emphases mine- Martin]



It is not enough to say that there is no command against baptizing infants. We must have a positive command or example before we can do anything in God's church. Scott tells us that there is a command to circumcise male infants in Gen 17. So there is, but that is circumcision and not baptism. They are two very different operations (to say the least!) and they have different meanings as I've tried to explain in other posts. In Acts 2:41, were told, *'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.'* How easy it would have been for the Holy Spirit to add, '...along with their children'; but He didn't, and it's not for us to write it in for Him.

BTW, Hooper's colleague, Nicholas Ridley, was scared of The Regulative Principle and warned Hooper that his stance could only lead to one end- Anabaptism! Exactly so! True implementation of the R.P. will inevitably lead to a Baptist position. Alas that neither Hooper nor Ridley lived long enough to see the truth of it. They were both burned by Bloody Mary. 

Mike continued:-


> I'm not saying I agree with the paedos, but I think we can't just assume that children should not receive the sign of the covenant just because there isn't a positive command to do so. We need a clear evidence in order to know that it has ceased.



Well, I can and do say it. However there is very clear evidence to show that only believers are in the New Covenant. In my opinion, Jer 31:31ff (and the equivalent passage in Heb 8 ) is the elephant in the bathroom of paedo-baptism. I dealt with this in some depth in my critique of Dr McMahon's _Simplistic Overview_. I'm happy to set it out again if you like.

There is also the important teaching of the two seeds of Abraham (Gal 4:21ff; Isaiah 54 ) and the 'children of promise' (Gal 4:28 ). Again, I've posted on this before and no one's been prepared to interact with me on it. The Isaiah 54 thread's still open, brothers! Come and get me if you dare! 

Rich wrote:-


> Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)



First of all, Abraham is nowhere mentioned in Acts 2. Paedo-baptists write him in! Secondly, let's look at 2:39:-


> For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off....


What promise? The answer's in v38. If the Jews, their children and the Gentiles [those 'that are afar off'- Eph 2:13] will repent and be baptized (faith is pre-supposed- v37 ), they will be saved. But all three groups are only to be baptized when they give credible evidence of repentance and faith (vs 41-42 ).
Adam wrote:-


> I don't know why, but this thread has been the BEST thread on this subject in regard to teaching me the credo stance on baptism.


I agree! I just hope that Scott doesn't close it before we've had a chance to hash it all out a bit. However, I have some other writing to do in the next day or two, so please forgive me if I'm absent from the thread for a while.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

Scott wrote:-
[/quote]
Martin,
Can you say DISPENSATIONALISM? [/quote]
Yep, and HYPERCOVENANTALISM


> Calvin writes:
> 
> Quote:
> ...hence it is though they had the same salvation promised them, yet they had not the promises so clearly revealed to them as they are to us under the kingdom of Christ;



Well shame on Calvin! The Holy Spirit says that they didn't receive the promises. Period. He says nothing about, 'The promises so clearly revealed.'



> Revelation is key. We have a clearer picture than they, "under the Kingdom of Christ", the efficacy however, was never different.
> 
> What was their faith in? How is that different? It is no less efficacious...........



I never said it was less efficacious. What was their faith in? It was in the Seed that should come. How He should come and in what way was a mystery to them, *'The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been revealed to His saints (Gal 1:26- cf Luke 10:23-24; 2Peter 1:10-12 ).




~It's ok Martin, I as well have a dispensational bible here in my home: 
The New Testament w/ Psalms & Proverbs, Pocket Edition

Click to expand...


Who needs a Bible when he's got a set of Calvin's commentaries? 

Martin*


----------



## Larry Hughes

Yep and Who needs a Bible or Calvin's commentaries when we have so many other men to listen to


----------



## Scott Bushey

> "It is not enough to say that there is no command against baptizing infants. We must have a positive command or example before we can do anything in God's church."



This is the wrong question altogether. Infant baptism is the last 3 minutes of conversation on a 5 hour conversation on Covenant Theology (Biblical Theology). 

If asking the question the way you posed it, it will always be missed.

The question is:

Does God desire His people to include children in the covenant, and if He commands that, has He recinded that anywhere?

The answer is "all through the bible" (He has commanded that children be part of the covenant, even unto all generations), and "He has never recinded it." That is _par excellance_, the RPW.

To ask the wrong question is to walk down the wrong path.

I am as "HYPERCOVENANTAL" as the rest of church history. 
That is actually a derrogatory theological term used of the Federal Visionists and Auburn Avenue men by real theologians who know what Covenant Theology really is all about.

You said:



> Well shame on Calvin! The Holy Spirit says that they didn't receive the promises. Period. He says nothing about, 'The promises so clearly revealed.'
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Revelation is key. We have a clearer picture than they, "under the Kingdom of Christ", the efficacy however, was never different.
> 
> What was their faith in? How is that different? It is no less efficacious...........
> 
> 
> I never said it was less efficacious. What was their faith in? It was in the Seed that should come. How He should come and in what way was a mystery to them, 'The mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but has now been revealed to His saints (Gal 1:26- cf Luke 10:23-24; 2Peter 1:10-12 ).



You are clearly contradicting yourself here. Either they recieve the same promises and are saved int he same way we are, or they are not. It is that they receive the promise (not so clearly revelaed) or they don't. If they don't then you demonstrate your DIspenstionalism. If they do, then you'll have to define how its different or not different (which you seem simply to be chasing your tail here).

What did they actually recieve and what did they not recieve?
Were they saved as we are saved? If they were, then what promise did they not receive?

Your abounding in doubletalk to keep your dispensationalism - _rank bad theology in my book_. 


[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Larry Hughes

When Luther and Calvin after him attacked the Anabaptist they were not attacking the Romish superstitious overestimation of baptism as set forth by Rome, rather the faithless undervaluation of it in the Christian´s life in favor of penance and penitential good works. Fundamentally on this issue the Anabaptist and Rome were no different, just a matter of what the "œpenitential good work" was. Then, establishing their new penitential system in the absence of the true God set means of grace, the Anabaptist just like the Roman monks began to either war with society or disengage from it altogether to "œseek a more "œpure"œ church body on earth"œ. But just like the monks they made one crucial error, they brought the source of sin along with them - their hearts. 

This we see today in American Christian life in rank action where the adult only position tends to rule the populace. Gone are the use of the signs appointed by God and Christ for the strengthening of the faith of the Christian unto the Gospel and replaced by 10,000 manmade "œmeans of grace"œ. This is the infidelity of the modern American church as a whole. Everything from aisle walking in the more gross churches, rededications in the same, promise keepers meetings and other tear jerker meetings as if man ever does keep a promise, short term mission trip vacations to "œvicariously" experience suffering making even suffering a work/means of grace, and many other penance on a scale that Medieval Rome would be green with jealousy over. All to "œgrow in the faith" by showing God "œmy dedication". Things like this always arise when God´s appointed means are diminished or changed or altered in some fashion. Gone is the reception of what HE has set forth to strengthen faith and proclaim Gospel, and in the vacuum comes man´s idols to "œshow God that, ´now I really mean business´, at least for the next minute or two of the act. The only difference in these and Maryology, praying to St. Jude and Mass is the idol itself.

Oberman notes concerning the baptism issue, "œThis made it perfectly reasonable to call entering a monastery , when novices dedicate their lives to penance, "œsecond baptism". Rejecting infant baptism and demanding adult baptism of the converted and of penitents is thus not "œradical reformation" but "œradical Middle Ages". The widespread influence of the Anabaptist movement in the face of bloody persecution fit´s the tenor of the time: the new layman is the old monk."

"œ"¦Luther´s inquiry remains valid: shifting the EMPHASIS (emphasis added - ldh) to an adult´s conscious decision to be baptized confuses God´s gift with a human act (Calvin and the early reformers saw this as well). The problem is not adult baptism but the arguments against infant baptism (this is key to grasp - ldh). An age that thrives on concepts like self-determination and credibility demands adult baptism. "œSelf-determination" is genuinely necessary to a profession of faith, especially in a post-Christian world. To with stand the test of self-analysis and the ensuing diabolical accusation, however, infant baptism is the rich sacrament for the empty-handed. The statement "œWe are beggars, that is true", does not suddenly become valid when a person is on his deathbed. It marks the way life begins."

L


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Peter preaches on Pentecost to the crowds and reiterates the promise, given to Abraham, that that it is to "...you and your children...." (Is that not positive enough? I suppose not for some but I'll lay that aside.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Abraham is nowhere mentioned in Acts 2. Paedo-baptists write him in! Secondly, let's look at 2:39:-
> 
> 
> 
> For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What promise? The answer's in v38. If the Jews, their children and the Gentiles [those 'that are afar off'- Eph 2:13] will repent and be baptized (faith is pre-supposed- v37 ), they will be saved. But all three groups are only to be baptized when they give credible evidence of repentance and faith (vs 41-42 ).
Click to expand...

Martin,

This truly takes my breath away. Only an atomistic reading of the Scriptures or a reading so intent on avoiding covenantal language would ignore the parrallels here. It is pure eisegesis to make the promise to the children of the listeners contingent upon adult repentance and faith.

Scott's note about Biblical Theology is right on target. You not only parse texts into individual terms to ignore a larger point but you seem to challenge the immutability of God's character itself. Is God a God that saves us and our children or not.

I really don't know how you can even utilize the Old Testament faithfully given the need to protect yourself from any covenantal implications that apply to you. The book of Proverbs is written from a father to a covenant son and showing the way of wisdom. Can't use that for your kids anymore. Out goes Proverbs. Among the Psalms it seems you've got to jettison at least Psalm 78.

Back when scientists thought the sun and the stars revolved around the earth they could predict their courses but the math was terrribly complicated. A mathmetician and astronomer was able to demonstrate that the earth revolved around the sun because the orbital equations greatly simplified. 

Your system allows you to explain away all the Scriptural "anomolies" you face but it's terribly complicated to have to keep reading things into Scripture passages, is it not? It just seems like so much plate spinning to me.

Further, you have never addressed the absence of any kind of "paedobaptist heresy" in the apostolic Church. Why the silence?

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> Heb 11:23 By faith *Moses*, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. 24 By faith *Moses*, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 *He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward*.



Martin, it seems to me from this simple passage that even Moses understood the promise "so clearly revealed" as Calvin says, to consider "the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward." There is no other option, unless we charge the author of Hebrews with eisogesis to prove Covenant Theology.


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> The command is to place a sign; that sign today is baptism. It is obvious that the sign changed to baptism. In the same way circumcision was applied to the infant, so is baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, Scott, it is obvious that it is not so obvious. Otherwise we wouldn't see this and the many threads of the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gerry,
> Are you referring to the change in signs; going from circumcision to baptism?
> 
> Both camps place a sign, that being today, baptism. The issue in question is when is the sign to be placed.
> For both the credo and paedo camps, adults coming to faith have the sign placed upon confession. During the early church, it was the same. This has nothing to do with the issue of infants though. In the early church, male infants had the sign placed in circumcision. In the NT church, that sign has changed to baptism. Infants should then receive that sigh via Gods immutable command to place that sign.
> 
> [Edited on 11-13-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


In reality Scott I was referring to the paedo / credo debate _in toto_ (hope the Latin is right.) Others in previous threads (which I can't seem to find the reference to right now - maybe 1984 hit again) have made similar comments, along the lines of "I won't respond to that since the answer is so obvious," and the like. All I am trying to say is that if it was so obvious, then we wouldn't have such division.

May I humbly suggest that the word "obvious" be used with caution?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> In reality Scott I was referring to the paedo / credo debate _in toto_ (hope the Latin is right.) Others in previous threads (which I can't seem to find the reference to right now - maybe 1984 hit again) have made similar comments, along the lines of "I won't respond to that since the answer is so obvious," and the like. All I am trying to say is that if it was so obvious, then we wouldn't have such division.
> 
> May I humbly suggest that the word "obvious" be used with caution?


Truly Brother! We have to have paedobaptistic eyes to see! 

Of course, some issues should be perspicuous. Just because we debate with Roman Catholics on Justification doesn't mean the truth isn't manifest.

In this case, I'm willing to be patient because I know the other camp is within the Camp.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mike,
> Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?



Actually, I'm glad you challenged me on that. I was prepared to say "yes", but when I actually read Genesis 17, I saw that only Abraham's circumcision is a "sign". It is true that all males had to be circumcised, but never once is it referred to as a "sign" being placed on the male children. 

I think I just caught on to something very important in this discussion. If you can prove to me that God actually did command a sign to be placed upon all male children, I would really love to see it!

Mike


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mike,
> Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm glad you challenged me on that. I was prepared to say "yes", but when I actually read Genesis 17, I saw that only Abraham's circumcision is a "sign". It is true that all males had to be circumcised, but never once is it referred to as a "sign" being placed on the male children.
> 
> I think I just caught on to something very important in this discussion. If you can prove to me that God actually did command a sign to be placed upon all male children, I would really love to see it!
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Mike, your observation here prompted me to do an online Bible search for passages containing _both_ "circumcize" (or any variation) _and_ "sign" (or any variation). Sure enough, Genesis 17:11 and Romans 4:11 were the only two verses that came up, both of them referring to the same command and promise to Abraham.

So going by the English, your observation above is correct. But I then thought of something on which I could not help but wonder further, and that is whether the two uses of the word "you" at the beginning and end of verse 11 were singular or plural, as that would have tremendous implications for the issue at hand, and especially for your current question.

With my limited knowledge of Classical Greek, and an online comparison of Koine and Attic verb forms, I looked at Genesis 17:11 in the LXX, and found that both uses are indeed plural. The imperative (command-verb) at the beginning ("You shall be circumcized...") is indeed conjugated for the _plural_ form of "you" rather than the singular, and the promise at the end ("...between me and you") contains the _plural_ form of the "you" pronoun, rather than the singular.

Thus, in the command and promise in Genesis 17:11, _both referring to circumcision as a corresponding sign_, the "you" being spoken to is properly interpreted as referring to Abraham and his offspring, rather than Abraham singularly - at least in the LXX. For anyone who knows Hebrew, I would be interested to know if the Hebrew agrees with the LXX on the imperative and pronoun both being written as plural cases of "you."


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
You wrote:-



> This truly takes my breath away. Only an atomistic reading of the Scriptures or a reading so intent on avoiding covenantal language would ignore the parallels here. It is pure eisegesis to make the promise to the children of the listeners contingent upon adult repentance and faith.


[/b]
No brother, it is you who is intent on reading the Old Covenant into the New, when you are clearly told that it will be, * 'Not according to the [Old] Covenant.' * Just look at the context of Acts 2. Peter focusses on Joel's prophecy of the New Covenant, which ends, *'And....whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'* He does not come near to Abraham and it is not for you to import him into the text. *That* is eisogesis.


> Scott's note about Biblical Theology is right on target. You not only parse texts into individual terms to ignore a larger point but you seem to challenge the immutability of God's character itself. Is God a God that saves us and our children or not.



If you mean that God promises to save our physical children purely because we are Christians, then absolutely not! John 1:13 and 3:6 should be sufficient proof against that presumption. But listen to the words of our Lord.

Luke 8:21. *'My mother and My brothers are they who hear the word of God and do it.'*

Luke 12:51-53. *' Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided, three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother aganst daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-lw and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.'*

Luke 21:16. *'You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death.'*

This is absolutely the reality for many Christians today throughout the world. This, if you will, is _real_ Christianity. It involves suffering.

Mark 10:29-30. *"Assuredly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and lands, with persecutions- and in the age to come, eternal life.'*

The church has to be the family for many whose blood family have rejected their faith. That is surely the meaning of the verses above. We must put, as Paul puts it, *'No confidence in the flesh.'*


> I really don't know how you can even utilize the Old Testament faithfully given the need to protect yourself from any covenantal implications that apply to you.



Well your lack of understanding is your problem and not mine. I absolutely do not reject the Old Testament in any way, but it *must* be read in the fuller light of the New.


> The book of Proverbs is written from a father to a covenant son and showing the way of wisdom. Can't use that for your kids anymore. Out goes Proverbs.



Don't talk rubbish. * 'My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commandments.......'* The promises are conditional. We would doubtless agree that the father here is Solomon, and so the son is presumably Rehoboam. Not much room for 'confidence in the flesh' there! 


> Among the Psalms it seems you've got to jettison at least Psalm 78.



On the contrary. *'He also gave His people over to the sword, and was furious with His inheritance.* What a splendid illustration of Gal 3:7! Read it in conjunction with Hosea 2:23. But you must also read the OT in the light of the New, and understand that the OT is about Christ (John 5:49 ), not about Abraham. 


> Your system allows you to explain away all the Scriptural "anomolies" you face but it's terribly complicated to have to keep reading things into Scripture passages, is it not? It just seems like so much plate spinning to me.


Well you would think that, wouldn't you, because you're locked in your hermeneutical system and you can't escape. To me it is just reading what the Scripture says and comparing Scripture with Scripture to explain seeming anomalies. I see no true 'anomalies'; the word of God is consistent. But if you try to impose Abraham onto Christ you are placing the shadow before the substance and putting the new wine into old bottles.


> Further, you have never addressed the absence of any kind of "paedobaptist heresy" in the apostolic Church. Why the silence?


I don't believe that paedo-baptism is a heresy. It is a mistaken view, but hey, no one's perfect. I do have the deepest reservations concerning _Presumptive Regeneration_ since it seems to deny John 1:13 & 3:6, and indeed the whole doctrine of the New Birth.

But if you want to talk Church history, I'm your man! Bring it on!

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## LawrenceU

Very well said, Martin!


----------



## Mocha

Is baptism a 'seal' at the moment an infant is baptized?

James Bannerman, a Presbyterian, comments on this in the following excerpt:



> In this respect there is an obvious distinction between the Baptism of infants and the Baptism of adults. Infants are not capable of faith and repentance; and *Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before.* In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation. In adults it is otherwise; and the difference is appropriate to their condition as adults. Baptism to the believing adult is a seal at the moment of his interest in the covenant of grace; a sensible attestation of the blessings of justification and regeneratrion, of which at the time he is in possession, through the exercise of his faith contemporaneously with his Baptism. In the case of the adult, Baptism is a present seal in connection with the faith which he presently has. *In the case of the infant, it is a prospective seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards.* The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the adult experiences at the moment of its administration, in virtue of the faith which at the moment makes him a partaker in the blessings of the covenant. *The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal.* (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:116-117)



According to James Bannerman, baptism is not a seal to an infant until there is faith. Infant baptism is only a 'prospective' seal.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones, also a Presbyterian, says the following:



> When the person is baptized, *he should be conscious that that grace is conveyed to him personally* in a special way, as the lady does with a [wedding] ring. It's to you, in the same way, when we take the bread and the wine at the communion table, we should regard it as God saying, "Now, this is the way I have chosen to tell you that My grace is given to you in particular. You are admitted to this, you are a member of the body, and I am telling you through this bread and through this wine that My grace is coming to you." That's His way of saying it!...It is God's way of telling us that directly. He speaks to us in symbols, and He does it in this special way, that what I have believed in general, I know now personally is mine. That's it's intent and object. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)
> 
> 
> The truth comes, the grace comes, primarily by the word. So that you see it is essential that anybody who is to derive any benefit from the sacrament must be a man of faith. *Without faith in the recipient, there is no value whatsoever in baptism* or in the Lord's Supper. Because obviously the whole definition rests upon that idea. It is because she already knows this love of this person that that woman values that [wedding] ring. It is confirmation of faith. It's something that seals the faith. So that we emphasize not only the preaching of the word, but the *absolute necessity of faith in the recipient.* (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)



According to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the person being baptized should:
- be conscious that the grace is conveyed to him personally
- have faith, otherwise baptism has no value whatsoever

Both Bannerman & Lloyd-Jones see baptism as being a 'seal' only if there is faith. 

Dr. Alan Cairns, yet another Presbyterian, says:



> I want you to see this. Circumcision might have been a 'sign'. It signified something to Ishmael, as it signified something to the fleshly line, or the children born after the flesh to Abraham, or natural descedants. But it was not a 'seal' to Ishmael. And I will make the point according to the wording of Romans chapter 4, *circumcision could not be a 'seal' to anybody who was yet unjustified.* It is a 'seal' of that which has already been given or imputed...In other words, *a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective*...I say again, the only language of Scripture describing a sacramenatal 'seal', makes *the 'seal' retrospective and looks back to what God has already done. It is never said to look forward to what he's going to do*...I believe a sacrament is a 'sign' and a 'seal', but I believe that in paedobaptism, it can never be a 'seal' to that child. Do you see what I'm saying? If I believe then in infant baptism, what I'm doing, is that I'm excluding the major significance spiritually of the entire sacrament.Click here to listen to the sermon audio



Three Presbyterians agree that baptism is not a 'seal' the moment an infant is baptized! Faith is needed in order for baptism to be a 'seal'. I realize that this is only three Presbyterians and that there are many more Presbyterians that would disagree with them. But I do believe that they have raised some valid points that deserve our consideration.

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> No brother, it is you who is intent on reading the Old Covenant into the New, when you are clearly told that it will be, * 'Not according to the [Old] Covenant.' * Just look at the context of Acts 2. Peter focusses on Joel's prophecy of the New Covenant, which ends, *'And....whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'* He does not come near to Abraham and it is not for you to import him into the text. *That* is eisogesis.


Thanks for the correct spelling of eisogesis so I can label your arguments more accurately.  Nevertheless, your orbital equations became even more complicated.


> Joel 2:32
> And it shall come to pass
> That whoever calls on the name of the LORD
> Shall be saved .
> For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance,
> As the LORD has said,
> Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.


That Peter. Reading things from the Old Covenant into the New! But I guess the remnant is only in the New Covenant so he really wasn't. The connection between Joel and Peter is established because he announces: "Hey you Guys! I'm quoting Joel here!" If he hadn't said those words were from the prophet and I said that he was quoting Joel I guess you would be telling me that Peter never brings Joel in either.

Just so we're clear - If an NT writer writes something using the same language as an OT prophet without saying the name of the prophet then we are reading the Old into the New if we connect the two? I'll try to remember that exegetical rule.

But I find it hard to break old habits...


> Gen 17:7
> And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.


and



> Acts 2:39
> For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."


Are not connected because Peter doesn't say anything about Abraham here? No Jew in his right mind would ever connect those two Scriptures! What _was_ I thinking?! 

Oh and also, I'm reading the Old Covenant into the New because I believe God's promise to Abraham was an everlasting covenant? 

I claim:


> Rom 4:11-14
> And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.


I believe that the promise made to Abraham was everlasting and that Abraham was the father of circumcision to all who believe. I believe that everlasting covenant was to us and to our children. I believe that everlasting covenant has always been spiritual in substance. If that is what you refer to as reading the Old into the New then I am guilty.


> If you mean that God promises to save our physical children purely because we are Christians, then absolutely not!


No. I believe the Covenant God who calls me Abraham's heir by faith and I also don't blindly reject Covenantal language because it would gore a sacred cow.



> John 1:13 and 3:6 should be sufficient proof against that presumption.


Let's see...


> John 1:13
> 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
> 
> John 3:6
> That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.


Yes brother. Read Romans 4:11-14 again. It explains both quite nicely. Only dispensationalists can truly read those verses and still believe the promise to Abraham and his children is some bare fleshly act.



> Luke 8:21. *'My mother and My brothers are they who hear the word of God and do it.'*


Ah yes and prior to that it was acceptable to be in true Covenant with God and disobey His Word. Are you trying to establish something new here with Christ?



> Luke 12:51-53. *' Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. For from now on five in one house will be divided, three against two, and two against three. Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother aganst daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-lw and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.'*


Do you have any children? If so, does the proper exegesis of these verses teach you that your children are your enemies?

"Good night James. Sleep tight my enemy."

Paul must have been very confused when he told children to honor their parents based on a promised blessing.



> Luke 21:16. *'You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death.'*


Again, so our children are our enemies?



> This is absolutely the reality for many Christians today throughout the world. This, if you will, is _real_ Christianity. It involves suffering.


On the part of suffering I can agree but not for the reasons you're insinuating. I do experience such contention with my mother and brothers who are in Roman Catholicism. As for my son and daughter, I love them and discipline as a loving father does. I do not believe God suddenly made them my enemies because a new dispensation of the Covenant came along. Instead I rejoice that:


> Ps 127:3-5
> Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD,
> The fruit of the womb is a reward.
> 4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior,
> So are the children of one's youth.
> 5 Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them;





> Mark 10:29-30. *"Assuredly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel's, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time- houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and lands, with persecutions- and in the age to come, eternal life.'*
> 
> The church has to be the family for many whose blood family have rejected their faith. That is surely the meaning of the verses above. We must put, as Paul puts it, *'No confidence in the flesh.'*


Agreed on the first part but you certainly have a warped view of parenting if you believe those Scriptures extend to our children who are still in our household and haven't the ability to even rebel in such a way yet.



> I really don't know how you can even utilize the Old Testament faithfully given the need to protect yourself from any covenantal implications that apply to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well your lack of understanding is your problem and not mine. I absolutely do not reject the Old Testament in any way, but it *must* be read in the fuller light of the New.
Click to expand...

You mean like Romans 4:11-14 perhaps?


> The book of Proverbs is written from a father to a covenant son and showing the way of wisdom. Can't use that for your kids anymore. Out goes Proverbs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't talk rubbish. * 'My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commandments.......'* The promises are conditional. We would doubtless agree that the father here is Solomon, and so the son is presumably Rehoboam. Not much room for 'confidence in the flesh' there!
Click to expand...

My point is that you cannot use any Proverbial wisdom for your own children for your very poor understanding of the Covenant as just demonstrated by that statement. What a sad view of being a Christian parent to see nothing here but Solomon and a reprobate son.


> Among the Psalms it seems you've got to jettison at least Psalm 78.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary. *'He also gave His people over to the sword, and was furious with His inheritance.* What a splendid illustration of Gal 3:7! Read it in conjunction with Hosea 2:23. But you must also read the OT in the light of the New, and understand that the OT is about Christ (John 5:49 ), not about Abraham.
Click to expand...

You just have to cut out the verses that talk about parental responsibility to train your children because they don't apply to you.


> Your system allows you to explain away all the Scriptural "anomolies" you face but it's terribly complicated to have to keep reading things into Scripture passages, is it not? It just seems like so much plate spinning to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you would think that, wouldn't you, because you're locked in your hermeneutical system and you can't escape. To me it is just reading what the Scripture says and comparing Scripture with Scripture to explain seeming anomalies. I see no true 'anomalies'; the word of God is consistent. But if you try to impose Abraham onto Christ you are placing the shadow before the substance and putting the new wine into old bottles.
Click to expand...

Of course you see no anomalies. You're too busy working your complicated math. 


> Further, you have never addressed the absence of any kind of "paedobaptist heresy" in the apostolic Church. Why the silence?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that paedo-baptism is a heresy. It is a mistaken view, but hey, no one's perfect. I do have the deepest reservations concerning _Presumptive Regeneration_ since it seems to deny John 1:13 & 3:6, and indeed the whole doctrine of the New Birth.
> 
> But if you want to talk Church history, I'm your man! Bring it on!
Click to expand...

Crickets chirping....

So nobody tried to baptize their children and the Apostles never had to deal with the abuse even if it is not "heresy".


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> According to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the person being baptized should:
> - be conscious that the grace is conveyed to him personally
> - have faith, otherwise baptism has no value whatsoever



This is important to clarify. Lloyd-Jones and others like him are _not_ saying that the recipient need exhibit those qualities _at the time of the baptism_, for as the Confession states, "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (28.6). They certainly _are_ saying, however, that the fruit of true conversion is absolutely necessary to look for in time, so that the covenant child's conversion through faith as evidenced by that fruit will thereby render him a _keeper_ of that visible covenant he entered at baptism, rather than a _breaker_. This is the key area where Federal Visionists and the like accuse good Presbyterian and Reformed paedobaptists of being "Baptistic," when in reality the former is merely in the grave error of blurring and ignoring the necessity of true conversion.

One thing that would likely help to clarify the substance and importance of that concept in paedobaptistic thought is the issue of presumptive election versus presumptive regeneration. I personally hold to the former, as I believe the majority of the historic paedobaptist camp does as well, and while certainly not all who hold to the latter exaggerate the sacraments at the expense of conversion and fruit, it is related to some of the same concepts that lead to that road so often. There was a long discussion about the distinction between the two here.

Also, another resource that may help you further understand how confessional paedobaptists understand (and embrace) statements like Lloyd-Jones' in light of their view of the covenant and the sacraments is a sermon my pastor gave a few weeks ago from Joshua, entitled "The Necessity of True Conversion," which you can hear here. Coming from a paedobaptist frame of mind, Pastor Spink specifically mentions and gives attention to the covenantal importance of the sacraments in that whole issue, but at the same time could hardly emphasize the sermon's title to a greater extent, consistently setting us apart from the dissenters who abuse the covenantal mindset of presumption at the expense of conversion, faith and fruit. Let me know what you think of it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Is baptism a 'seal' at the moment an infant is baptized?
> 
> Mike


Hey Mike, some expended some great energy in this thread on this very topic:
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=14681

It was very useful for me.

This thread is a great discussion!


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Is baptism a 'seal' at the moment an infant is baptized?
> 
> James Bannerman, a Presbyterian, comments on this in the following excerpt:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this respect there is an obvious distinction between the Baptism of infants and the Baptism of adults. Infants are not capable of faith and repentance; and *Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration. But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before.* In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation. In adults it is otherwise; and the difference is appropriate to their condition as adults. Baptism to the believing adult is a seal at the moment of his interest in the covenant of grace; a sensible attestation of the blessings of justification and regeneratrion, of which at the time he is in possession, through the exercise of his faith contemporaneously with his Baptism. In the case of the adult, Baptism is a present seal in connection with the faith which he presently has. *In the case of the infant, it is a prospective seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards.* The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the adult experiences at the moment of its administration, in virtue of the faith which at the moment makes him a partaker in the blessings of the covenant. *The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal.* (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:116-117)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to James Bannerman, baptism is not a seal to an infant until there is faith. Infant baptism is only a 'prospective' seal.
> 
> Martyn Lloyd-Jones, also a Presbyterian, says the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the person is baptized, *he should be conscious that that grace is conveyed to him personally* in a special way, as the lady does with a [wedding] ring. It's to you, in the same way, when we take the bread and the wine at the communion table, we should regard it as God saying, "Now, this is the way I have chosen to tell you that My grace is given to you in particular. You are admitted to this, you are a member of the body, and I am telling you through this bread and through this wine that My grace is coming to you." That's His way of saying it!...It is God's way of telling us that directly. He speaks to us in symbols, and He does it in this special way, that what I have believed in general, I know now personally is mine. That's it's intent and object. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)
> 
> 
> The truth comes, the grace comes, primarily by the word. So that you see it is essential that anybody who is to derive any benefit from the sacrament must be a man of faith. *Without faith in the recipient, there is no value whatsoever in baptism* or in the Lord's Supper. Because obviously the whole definition rests upon that idea. It is because she already knows this love of this person that that woman values that [wedding] ring. It is confirmation of faith. It's something that seals the faith. So that we emphasize not only the preaching of the word, but the *absolute necessity of faith in the recipient.* (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Audio Tape "Sacraments", #2234)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the person being baptized should:
> - be conscious that the grace is conveyed to him personally
> - have faith, otherwise baptism has no value whatsoever
> 
> Both Bannerman & Lloyd-Jones see baptism as being a 'seal' only if there is faith.
> 
> Dr. Alan Cairns, yet another Presbyterian, says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I want you to see this. Circumcision might have been a 'sign'. It signified something to Ishmael, as it signified something to the fleshly line, or the children born after the flesh to Abraham, or natural descedants. But it was not a 'seal' to Ishmael. And I will make the point according to the wording of Romans chapter 4, *circumcision could not be a 'seal' to anybody who was yet unjustified.* It is a 'seal' of that which has already been given or imputed...In other words, *a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective*...I say again, the only language of Scripture describing a sacramenatal 'seal', makes *the 'seal' retrospective and looks back to what God has already done. It is never said to look forward to what he's going to do*...I believe a sacrament is a 'sign' and a 'seal', but I believe that in paedobaptism, it can never be a 'seal' to that child. Do you see what I'm saying? If I believe then in infant baptism, what I'm doing, is that I'm excluding the major significance spiritually of the entire sacrament.Click here to listen to the sermon audio
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Three Presbyterians agree that baptism is not a 'seal' the moment an infant is baptized! Faith is needed in order for baptism to be a 'seal'. I realize that this is only three Presbyterians and that there are many more Presbyterians that would disagree with them. But I do believe that they have raised some valid points that deserve our consideration.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Bannerman is flat out wrong; as is Jones and Cairns! They have shut the door on Gods power and mercy. It extends far out beyond our visual parameters and spectrums. Tell me this, how is it that elect infants dying in infancy are received into glory? Or the imbecile? Or the unborn fetus? I will tell you; by Gods word. The Lord goes to these individuals in a way only the Lord can and imparts grace, faith, repentance, justification. The ordo is packed nicely together for these cases. Who is to say that an infant cannot be regenerate? Based upon what you have Bannerman et. al. saying, no infant can be saved. I would have to believe, knowing Bannerman Jones and Cairns, they would agree with what I have said.

As far as it being a seal, the WCF states:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2]* but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,*[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20



[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin (or any other who would like to tackle this):

How would you understand this:


> Mal 4:5-6
> Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
> Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
> 6 And he will turn
> The hearts of the fathers to the children,
> And the hearts of the children to their fathers ,
> Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."


Was it John's job to restore fathers to their children in a fleshly sense in the day of the Lord so Christ could then turn them against one another since they would be disconnected therefafter in a Spiritual sense?


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mike,
> Simple question: Did God command a sign to be placed upon all male children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm glad you challenged me on that. I was prepared to say "yes", but when I actually read Genesis 17, I saw that only Abraham's circumcision is a "sign". It is true that all males had to be circumcised, but never once is it referred to as a "sign" being placed on the male children.
> 
> I think I just caught on to something very important in this discussion. If you can prove to me that God actually did command a sign to be placed upon all male children, I would really love to see it!
> 
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike, your observation here prompted me to do an online Bible search for passages containing _both_ "circumcize" (or any variation) _and_ "sign" (or any variation). Sure enough, Genesis 17:11 and Romans 4:11 were the only two verses that came up, both of them referring to the same command and promise to Abraham.
> 
> So going by the English, your observation above is correct. But I then thought of something on which I could not help but wonder further, and that is whether the two uses of the word "you" at the beginning and end of verse 11 were singular or plural, as that would have tremendous implications for the issue at hand, and especially for your current question.
> 
> With my limited knowledge of Classical Greek, and an online comparison of Koine and Attic verb forms, I looked at Genesis 17:11 in the LXX, and found that both uses are indeed plural. The imperative (command-verb) at the beginning ("You shall be circumcized...") is indeed conjugated for the _plural_ form of "you" rather than the singular, and the promise at the end ("...between me and you") contains the _plural_ form of the "you" pronoun, rather than the singular.
> 
> Thus, in the command and promise in Genesis 17:11, _both referring to circumcision as a corresponding sign_, the "you" being spoken to is properly interpreted as referring to Abraham and his offspring, rather than Abraham singularly - at least in the LXX. For anyone who knows Hebrew, I would be interested to know if the Hebrew agrees with the LXX on the imperative and pronoun both being written as plural cases of "you."
Click to expand...


Chris, I checked on another discussion group as to whether the 'you' in Gen. 17:11 is plural in the Hebrew. I received a private email back from someone that knows Hebrew and he confirmed that the 'you' is plural.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Mike

[Edited on 11-14-2005 by Mocha]


----------



## Mocha

Chris,

Do you believe that baptism is a 'seal' to the infant the moment they are baptized?

James Bannerman says:



> Baptism can be to infants *no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.* But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation.



Alan Cairns says:



> In other words, a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective...



It seems to me that these two men are saying that the 'sealing' does not take place at the 'time of its administration', but '*may* become a 'seal'...afterwards'. So, having believed, one looks back at their baptism, and at that point, it becomes a 'seal'.

Would you agree with them on this?

BTW, I'm planning on reading that thread you recommended on PR and PE later on tonight. I'll let you know what I think later.

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Chris,
> 
> Do you believe that baptism is a 'seal' to the infant the moment they are baptized?
> 
> James Bannerman says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism can be to infants *no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.* But it may become a seal of such blessings afterwards, when the child has grown to years of intelligence, and has superinduced upon his Baptism a personal act of faith, and thereby become possessed of the salvation which he had not before. In such a case, he can look back upon his Baptism with water, administered in the days of his unconscious infancy; and through the faith that he has subsequently received, that Baptism which his own memory cannot recall, and to which his own consciusness at the time was a stranger, becomes to him a seal of his now found salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Cairns says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, a sacramental 'seal' is retrospective, it is never prospective...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems to me that these two men are saying that the 'sealing' does not take place at the 'time of its administration', but '*may* become a 'seal'...afterwards'. So, having believed, one looks back at their baptism, and at that point, it becomes a 'seal'.
> 
> Would you agree with them on this?
> 
> BTW, I'm planning on reading that thread you recommended on PR and PE later on tonight. I'll let you know what I think later.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Not trying to answer for Chris, but did you read what the WCF states? I provided it in an earlier post.


----------



## Mocha

Chris,

You said:



> Also, another resource that may help you further understand how confessional paedobaptists understand (and embrace) statements like Lloyd-Jones' in light of their view of the covenant and the sacraments is a sermon my pastor gave a few weeks ago from Joshua, entitled "The Necessity of True Conversion," which you can hear here. Coming from a paedobaptist frame of mind, Pastor Spink specifically mentions and gives attention to the covenantal importance of the sacraments in that whole issue, but at the same time could hardly emphasize the sermon's title to a greater extent, consistently setting us apart from the dissenters who abuse the covenantal mindset of presumption at the expense of conversion, faith and fruit. Let me know what you think of it.



I listened to Pastor Spink's this afternoon and enjoyed his sermon very much. I found it ironic that he drew a connection between the crossing of the Jordan with conversion, and then after Israel crossed the Jordan, then the sons of Israel were circumcised. I couldn't help but smile when I heard that!

Mike


----------



## Me Died Blue

to Scott. Mike, I fully agree with the Confession on the issue. As Scott posted above, in 28.1 it notes that "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."

I cannot emphasize enough here how crucial it is to understand where the divines are coming from in terms of the visible and invisible aspects of the Church, and thus of the Covenant of Grace. The sign _does_ actually seal the infant in the _visible_ Covenant at the time of administration, but as you noted, if and when the child exercises faith in Christ, it is only then that the baptism and their membership in the visible Covenant is also confirmed as having been a sign and seal to his membership in the _invisible_ Church and Covenant as well, as they look back on it as such. It makes perfect sense when circumcision is considered in the same way, noting all of the spiritual references to it in Scripture alongside the significance of its visible role.

And though paedobaptists do sometimes disagree on whether to presume regeneration or just election, we all fully agree that the visible is a very real element, meant to foreshadow the invisible, and a biblical and trustworthy basis on which to presume eventual membership in God's invisible Covenant, similarly to how such presumption is made on one's profession of faith, even though such a profession is never any more a _guarentee_ than is the baptism signifying God's covenant promises. So basically, when you say, "It seems to me that these two men are saying that the 'sealing' does not take place at the 'time of its administration', but '*may* become a 'seal'...afterwards'. So, having believed, one looks back at their baptism, and at that point, it becomes a 'seal,'" I would agree with that only insofar as it refers to one's sealing _in the invisible Covenant_ via conversion, justification and adoption, and I would add that we simply _presume_ until fruit shows otherwise that that sealing will come to being from the sealing in the _visible_ Covenant that was actually sealed at the time of baptism, all the while actively encouraging and looking for that fruit.

Am I making sense?


----------



## Calvibaptist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Question 3: What is the promise of God?
> 
> Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.
> 
> 5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13



Here is my problem. The promise was made with Abraham and all his descendents. The sign of circumcision was place on the physical descendants of Abraham as they were brought under the Mosaic covenant (8 days after birth). When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism. How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham? They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith. 

To be given the sign of the Old Covenant (circumcision), one had to be born a child of Abraham. To be given the sign of the New Covenant (baptism), one has to be born a spiritual child of Abraham. We call that birth regeneration. Now, I believe that regeneration preceeds faith, but we do not know who is regenerated until they show it by their faith. Baptism should not be given out willy-nilly to every child of a believer regardless of a show of faith or not. Baptism is reserved for those who are a part of the New Covenant. (With an understanding caveat that none of us truly knows the hearts of men, so we all have a dillema.)


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Chris,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, another resource that may help you further understand how confessional paedobaptists understand (and embrace) statements like Lloyd-Jones' in light of their view of the covenant and the sacraments is a sermon my pastor gave a few weeks ago from Joshua, entitled "The Necessity of True Conversion," which you can hear here. Coming from a paedobaptist frame of mind, Pastor Spink specifically mentions and gives attention to the covenantal importance of the sacraments in that whole issue, but at the same time could hardly emphasize the sermon's title to a greater extent, consistently setting us apart from the dissenters who abuse the covenantal mindset of presumption at the expense of conversion, faith and fruit. Let me know what you think of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I listened to Pastor Spink's this afternoon and enjoyed his sermon very much. I found it ironic that he drew a connection between the crossing of the Jordan with conversion, and then after Israel crossed the Jordan, then the sons of Israel were circumcised. I couldn't help but smile when I heard that!
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


 I can imagine. Actually, I think that's a perfect illustration for the covenantal understanding of the family and its unique and necessary role in the Church; for everyone knows that we would never think of going around baptizing random infants left and right in an attempt to "confer God's blessing" - but asking "Why not?" would actually be a perfectly logical question if one did not yet understand the family's biblical role as the covenantal unit in the Church. For it is only on the basis of the external profession of faith of the parents (and hence the parents' presumed membership in the invisible Church) that a child is biblically considered a part of God's visible community and presumed an eventual part of the invisible, and thus given the sign.

*So long story short*, that observation you made from the crossing of the Jordan preceding the circumcisions is an excellent reminder on the high importance of examining the parents for true fruit of conversion and faith before giving the sign to both them and their children - for notice that _as soon as the adults actively crossed the Jordan (conversion), with the children still being passively carried along, both the adults and their children were then given the sign_.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Question 3: What is the promise of God?
> 
> Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.
> 
> 5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my problem. The promise was made with Abraham and all his descendents. The sign of circumcision was place on the physical descendants of Abraham as they were brought under the Mosaic covenant (8 days after birth). When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism. How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham? They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.
> 
> To be given the sign of the Old Covenant (circumcision), one had to be born a child of Abraham. To be given the sign of the New Covenant (baptism), one has to be born a spiritual child of Abraham. We call that birth regeneration. Now, I believe that regeneration preceeds faith, but we do not know who is regenerated until they show it by their faith. Baptism should not be given out willy-nilly to every child of a believer regardless of a show of faith or not. Baptism is reserved for those who are a part of the New Covenant. (With an understanding caveat that none of us truly knows the hearts of men, so we all have a dillema.)
Click to expand...


Doug,
If I am following you, here is how I explain this:

One needs to first distinguish between the visible and invisible body of believers and what and who a disciple is. The visible body has believers and unbelievers. The sign is placed upon disciples. God is immutable; the command to place the sign has not changed and has not been abrogated. What has changed is what is used as the sign, i.e. circumcision/Baptism. 

You cite Rom 4 & 9:


> Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham.



This is an example of the invisible body of Christ. How is this different from Abrahams day? It is no different! The _true_ descendants, even then, are those whom are of faith. Not all that were circumcised in Abrahams day were _of faith_ and not all whom are baptized today are _of faith_ either; no different.

You continue:



> These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism.



I agree. Where we differ is when the NC began. I say in Genesis, you say at the cross. Martin says that the NC was inaugurated at the cross, I say it was consummated. The only problem with Martin´s view and yours is that under this premise, you revert back to dispensationalism.



> How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham?



How can you say that an infant cannot have faith?



> They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.



Profession does not a Christian make. Many a man has confessed only later to show his true colors as apostate.


----------



## Steve Owen

Chris wrote:-


> This is important to clarify. Lloyd-Jones and others like him are not saying that the recipient need exhibit those qualities at the time of the baptism


I think you'll find that Lloyd-Jones is saying exactly that. Although he pastored first a Welsh Presbyterian ('Calvinistic Methodist') church and then a Congregational one, MLl-J was in fact an antipaedobaptist. Check out page 790 of Vol II of Iain Murray's biography.

On the question of Abraham and circumcision, there's no doubt that it was a _sign_ of the Abrahamic Covenant. But it wasn't a _seal_. Rom 4:11 makes it very clear that circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the faith he had while still uncircumcised. But it wasn't a seal to anybody else.

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> Here is my problem. The promise was made with Abraham and all his descendents. The sign of circumcision was place on the physical descendants of Abraham as they were brought under the Mosaic covenant (8 days after birth). When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism. How do we propose that infants are of the faith of Abraham? They have not yet even professed, let alone shown any signs of, faith.


I'd like to re-state what Scott said using my own words for what it's worth.

Do you see what you're saying here that:

"When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham. These descendants are under the New Covenant and receive the sign of that covenant - baptism."

Let's examine that passage again:


> (Romans 4:11-13) He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.


Romans 4 speaks of a spiritual circumcision for ALL who walk in the footsteps of faith. Let's say that again: ALL who walk in the footsteps of faith. Thricely: ALL who walk in the footsteps of faith! The promise to Abraham and his offspring came through faith. Through what? Faith!!

Who? Both physically circumcised and physically uncircumcised.

So, here's the main crux of the issue (I swear my head is bleeding  because some keep ignoring what the implications of these verses are)

The Old Covenant community received a physical sign which represented spirtual circumcision. EVEN THOSE THAT MIGHT BE REPROBATE. OH MY GOSH!!! EVEN BEFORE THEY DEMONSTRATED THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM! SAY IT ISN'T SO!

I'm trying to be a bit hyperbolic here to drive home a point so you can see where we are coming from.

You guys are creating a "dilemna" that always existed. Shall we apply a sign and seal to our kids before they demonstrate the faith that the sign always represented (either circumcision in the Old or bapstim in the New)? God says DO IT!

Any attempts to show a material difference between the spiritual circumcision of true OT belief and NT belief are dispensationalist as Scott has repeatedly stated.

Martin said: "The seal was only to Abraham"

No Martin. That's eisogesis and I can spell it correctly now!! 

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Can someone point to one clear reference/analogy (one from the NT preferably) that associates entering the promised land with conversion?

I know it served both members of the Old Covenant and the New as a type of glory, Heb. 11:8-10. Crossing Jordan figures prominently in the good baptist John Bunyan's _Pilgrim's Progress_ in exactly that way.


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

You said:



> Not trying to answer for Chris, but did you read what the WCF states? I provided it in an earlier post.



Sorry about that! I'm not ignoring you. I should make a list of the posts I want to respond to, because if I don't, I tend to forget. I appreciate how you and Chris have been challenging me. It has been very helpful!

You said:



> Bannerman is flat out wrong; as is Jones and Cairns! They have shut the door on Gods power and mercy.



How specifically have they shut the door on God's power and mercy?



> Tell me this, how is it that elect infants dying in infancy are received into glory? Or the imbecile? Or the unborn fetus? I will tell you; by Gods word. The Lord goes to these individuals in a way only the Lord can and imparts grace, faith, repentance, justification. The ordo is packed nicely together for these cases. Who is to say that an infant cannot be regenerate? Based upon what you have Bannerman et. al. saying, no infant can be saved.



I don't think Bannerman, Lloyd-Jones, and Cairns are saying that an infant can't be regenerate. They are instead saying that an infant's baptism is not a 'seal' to him until there is faith. 



> As far as it being a seal, the WCF states:
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visiblechurch;[2] but also, *to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace*,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, byChrist's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]
> 
> 1. Matt. 28:19
> 2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
> 3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
> 4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
> 5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
> 6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
> 7. Rom. 6:3-4
> 8. Matt. 28:19-20



I agree that baptism is both a 'sign' and a 'seal' to the one being baptized. What is it a 'sign' and a 'seal' of? Well, one's ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, etc. Is baptism a 'seal' to the reality that these things have been accomplished in them? Or, is baptism a 'seal' to the reality that these things are possible if there is faith? Or am I misssing the mark completely?

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.



I assume Bannerman is taken out of context here to a degree (not saying that you have presented him erroneously); acknowledging that he would agree that an infant can be regenerated and even converted if God chooses. God accomplishes this in the elect infant dying in infancy, does He not? Anyone denying this assuredly is _limiting_ Gods power and mercy.

You earlier responded to this Bannerman quote with:



> According to James Bannerman, baptism is not a seal to an infant until there is faith. Infant baptism is only a 'prospective' seal.



I asked:



> Who is to say an infant cannot have faith?



The quote from Jones seems to be directed at an adult:



> When the person is baptized, he should be conscious that that grace is conveyed to him personally in a special way, as the lady does with a [wedding] ring.




You ask:



> What is it a 'sign' and a 'seal' of?



The WCF is clear:

a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway

Where is the Bible is baptism referred to as a seal? It is not!

The Holy Spirit seals members of the New Covenant (Eph 1:13; 4:30) and that sealing happens AFTER faith.

To believe that baptism is a seal is to make baptism equal to circumcision, also something the Bible never does.

Let's get back to what the Bible says and cast off the confessions and traditions of men when they err.

Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). It is never referred to as a seal. And in fact, if it is, as the Bible clearly tells us, the answer of a good conscience toward God then the one being baptized must be able to express that answer of a good conscience toward God, hence making a profession of his faith.

Phillip


----------



## Mocha

James Bannerman said:



> Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.



Scott, you responded:



> *I assume Bannerman is taken out of context here to a degree* (not saying that you have presented him erroneously); acknowledging that he would agree that an infant can be regenerated and even converted if God chooses. God accomplishes this in the elect infant dying in infancy, does He not? Anyone denying this assuredly is limiting Gods power and mercy.



Well, here is more from Bannerman. Maybe it will help clarify his view.



> The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule...The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnesses in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no furthur than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.
> (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:108-109)



I'm not sure if that helps clear up Bannerman's view with regard to your point or not.

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Where is the Bible is baptism referred to as a seal? It is not!
> 
> The Holy Spirit seals members of the New Covenant (Eph 1:13; 4:30) and that sealing happens AFTER faith.
> 
> To believe that baptism is a seal is to make baptism equal to circumcision, also something the Bible never does.
> 
> Let's get back to what the Bible says and cast off the confessions and traditions of men when they err.
> 
> Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). It is never referred to as a seal. And in fact, if it is, as the Bible clearly tells us, the answer of a good conscience toward God then the one being baptized must be able to express that answer of a good conscience toward God, hence making a profession of his faith.
> 
> Phillip


1. Baptism is said to be the "...circumcision made without hands..." (Col 1:11-12)
2. Spiritual circumcision ("...the sign of circumcision...") is said to be "...a seal of the righteousness by faith..." (Rom 4:11)
3. baptism = circumcision without hands = seal

If you agree with Martin on this then I am certain you disagree with the exegesis but I would humbly submit that you ought to cast aside your own man-made doctrine that would keep you from seeing the clear teaching of Scripture. 

You write as if the WCF and other Reformed writers came up with the idea from some gold tablets. Those are the Scriptures appealed to.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Where is the Bible is baptism referred to as a seal? It is not!
> 
> The Holy Spirit seals members of the New Covenant (Eph 1:13; 4:30) and that sealing happens AFTER faith.
> 
> To believe that baptism is a seal is to make baptism equal to circumcision, also something the Bible never does.
> 
> Let's get back to what the Bible says and cast off the confessions and traditions of men when they err.
> 
> Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21). It is never referred to as a seal. And in fact, if it is, as the Bible clearly tells us, the answer of a good conscience toward God then the one being baptized must be able to express that answer of a good conscience toward God, hence making a profession of his faith.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip,

What's your response to this quote by Martyn Lloyd-Jones?:



> *Baptism is nothing but a seal.* The teaching of baptismal regeneration is a plain denial of the doctrine of justification by faith only, and is to be utterly rejected. *To build anything on baptism save God's sealing to us our justification by faith alone is to deny this vital teaching.* (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Romans 3:20-4:25", pgs 187-188)



Mike


----------



## Contra_Mundum

What is a sign? What is a seal?

The sign is the "pointer" to something else.

The seal is the "signet mark" of God's ownership.

Under the Old Covenant, circumcision served as the external mark of God's internal, spiritual mark. That mark, the real mark, could only serve its purpose when faith appropriated it.

The same is no less true of the New Covenant sign, baptism.


> The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is adminstered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance {by faith}, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time. WCF 28.6


When does God mark somebody as his spiritual property? The baptist says that he only does so when the person exercises faith the first time. The presbyterian says no. It happens in conjunction with baptism--not by the operation of sacramentalism--and not in violation of the principle that "grace and salvation are not so inseperable annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved without it; or, that all who are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated" (WCF 28.5).

God declares ownership of the children of true believers, in a way he does not do with the children of the unsaved. Why? 'Cause he wants to. When does he do this? At their birth. Signifying and sealing the Covenant of Grace, the mark (be it circumcision or baptism) even declares their *election* ("promising to give unto all those that are *ordained unto eternal life* his Holy Spirit" WCF 7.3), though not infallibly (just as adult baptism _also_ does not declare the same thing, infallibly). How fit, then, that such should be placed on designated persons as soon as humanly possible.


The newness of the new covenant consists in no small part of its sheer scope. The Spirit of God is "poured out on all flesh." Thousands, millions swept into the kingdom of grace. The borders of Israel, the tents of Shem are too small. "Lengthen the cords." Hebrews 8:8 "Finding fault with *them*...." With what? the covenants? the administration? No, with them, the people of the Old Covenant. Even then, with all the externals, all the means of grace, all the blessings given by God, _sin_ still ruled. Wickedness reigned in their hearts. Idolatry, idolatry, idolatry. Nothing was too immoral or too dispicable.

The grace of regeneration dripped out like an eyedropper. The grace of parental faithfulness was restricted. Haven't you ever wondered how it was that over and over and over children did not adopt their parent's faith? Start in Judges. The next generation, chapter 2 verse 10! Eli's sons. Samuel's sons. David's sons! Where do we find intergenerational faithfulness? It is the _exception,_ and not the rule! What makes the New Covenant new? The phrase "I will be a God to you, and to your children after you," has seen fulfillment since Pentecost! No, not every child. Not every generation the same. The ebb and flow of saving grace is still a reality. _But the tide is coming in._

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The grace of regeneration dripped out like an eyedropper. The grace of parental faithfulness was restricted. Haven't you ever wondered how it was that over and over and over children did not adopt their parent's faith? Start in Judges. The next generation, chapter 2 verse 10! Eli's sons. Samuel's sons. David's sons! Where do we find intergenerational faithfulness? It is the _exception,_ and not the rule! What makes the New Covenant new? The phrase "I will be a God to you, and to your children after you," has seen fulfillment since Pentecost! No, not every child. Not every generation the same. The ebb and flow of saving grace is still a reality. _But the tide is coming in._


Your whole post was like enjoying a fine wine. Thank you. The above tied in very well with:


> Mal 4:5-6
> Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. *And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers*, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."


In fact, more covenantal faithfulness and connectedness is expected now and not less.


----------



## pastorway

Intersting....still not a single verse from SCRIPTURE that identifies baptism as seal......

We could argue that:



> 1. Baptism *is this water baptism??* is said to be the "...circumcision made without hands..." (Col 1:11-12)
> 2. Spiritual circumcision *I thought Abraham's circumcision was physical, not spiritual* ("...the sign of circumcision...") is said to be "...a seal of the righteousness by faith..." (Rom 4:11)
> 3. baptism = circumcision without hands *uh, Scripture please?*= seal



but that is so complicated one might think we had the planets out of alignment. Why not just provide one verse anywhere from Holy Scripture that shows us that baptism is referred to as a seal. Keep it simple, right?

I'll wait.

[Edited on 11-15-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Mocha

I read the following quote on another thread:



> The difference in external form was in each case conditioned by the circumstances of the time. In circumcision it bore respect to the propagation of offspring, as it was through the production of a seed of blessing that the covenant, in its preparatory form, was to attain its realization. But when the seed in that respect had reached its culminating point in Christ, and the objects of the covenant were no longer dependent on national propagation of seed, but were to be carried forward by spiritual means and influences used in connection with the faith of Christ, the external ordinance was fitly altered, so as to express simply a change of nature and state in the individual that received it. Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognises the connection between parent and child - we should rather say, does not of itself recognise that connection at all; so much ought to be frankly conceded to those who disapprove of the practice of infant baptism, and will be conceded by all whose object is to ascertain the truth rather than contend for an opinion. (Fairbairn: The Typology of Scripture, Vol I, 313-314)



Can somebody tell me why the circumcision of male infants cannot have a 'typological' element that finds its fulfillement in Christ?

Mike


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Wait, you don't believe in paedobaptism, Phillip??? *shocked*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Intersting....still not a single verse from SCRIPTURE that identifies baptism as seal......


I'm starting to categorize some fascinating exegetical rules from the credo-Baptists in this thread. Would you like to announce that we can now require all your arguments be based on a single verse from Scripture? It's not a rule I'm familiar with but I'm willing to remind you when necessary:

Your *single, solitary verse* that tells you not to Baptise your children? The single verse that calls children born to believers the children of the devil? The single verse that says the seal was only to Abraham?


> 1. Baptism *is this water baptism??* is said to be the "...circumcision made without hands..." (Col 1:11-12)


In the verse, no. It is baptism with Christ. Our water baptism can be distinguished from our baptism with Christ but they are not separate. (Except when our theological system forces them to be - as dispensationalism must)



> 2. Spiritual circumcision *I thought Abraham's circumcision was physical, not spiritual* ("...the sign of circumcision...") is said to be "...a seal of the righteousness by faith..." (Rom 4:11)


Please step away from the Scoffield Study Bible. That the physical act of circumcision is tied to spiritual circumcision is apparently obvious to the casual observer.



> 3. baptism = circumcision without hands *uh, Scripture please?*= seal


The number 3 after a 1 and a 2 denotes that you might want to refer to the above to determine that Scriptures were already quoted.



> But that is so complicated one might think we had the planets out of alignment. Why not just provide one verse anywhere from Holy Scripture that shows us that baptism is referred to as a seal. Keep it simple, right?
> 
> I'll wait.



Complicated? I think I could explain the 3 sentence argument to a 6 year old. It's trying to explain around those verses that requires some sophistication as we've seen in a previous thread where the aorist tense is parsed in a unique way to interpret the Collosians verses differently than the normal reading.

My main point anyway was in response to your spurrious charge of using no Scripture to support the argument but bare tradition.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who *has also put his seal on us* and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> James Bannerman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism can be to infants no seal of the blessings which these stand connected with, at the time of its administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, you responded:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I assume Bannerman is taken out of context here to a degree* (not saying that you have presented him erroneously); acknowledging that he would agree that an infant can be regenerated and even converted if God chooses. God accomplishes this in the elect infant dying in infancy, does He not? Anyone denying this assuredly is limiting Gods power and mercy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, here is more from Bannerman. Maybe it will help clarify his view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proper and true type of Baptism, as a Sacrament in the Church of Christ, is the Baptism of adults, and not the Baptism of infants...It is abundantly obvious that adult Baptism is the rule, and infant Baptism the exceptional case; and we must take our idea of the ordinance in its nature and effects not from the exception, but from the rule...The Sacrament in its complete features and perfect character is to be witnesses in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual nature has been fully developed and is entire, and not in the case of those subjects of it whose moral and intellectual being is no more than rudimental and in embryo. Infants are subjects of Baptism in so far as, and no furthur than their spiritual and intellectual nature permits of it. And it is an error, abundant illustration of which could be given from the writings both of the advocates and opponents of infant Baptism, to make Baptism applicable in the same sense and to the same extent to infants and to adults, and to form our notions and frame our theory of the Sacrament from its character as exhibited in the case of infants. It is very plain, and very important to remember, that the only true and complete type of Baptism is found in the instance of those subjects of it who are capable both of faith and repentance, not in the instance of those subjects of it who are not capable of either. The Bible model of Baptism is adult Baptism, and not infant.
> (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:108-109)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if that helps clear up Bannerman's view with regard to your point or not.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Mike,
Again, dealing with the presented statement by Bannerman, since it is clearly obvious God gives all the elements of the ordo salutis to the infant dying in infancy, or the imbecile, who is to say a sustained infant cannot have faith? As well, who says that the great commission directs to only baptise true believers? The passage clearly states "Make disciples and baptize them". The biblical description of disciples included true believers and unbelievers; _followers_ of Christ. 

Just because someone says "I believe", does not guarantee their position in Christ. ALL baptisms are based upon presumption! Ask any pastor of 30 years how many disciples he has baptised over those years and how many disciples now walk no more.


----------



## Peters

> When does God mark somebody as his spiritual property? The Baptist says that he only does so when the person exercises faith the first time.



What do you mean by "œexercise"?



> The Presbyterian says no. It happens in conjunction with baptism--not by the operation of sacramentalism--and not in violation of the principle that "grace and salvation are not so inseparable annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved without it; or, that all who are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated" (WCF 28.5).



What do you mean by "œspiritual property"? 



> God declares ownership of the children of true believers, in a way he does not do with the children of the unsaved. Why? 'Cause he wants to. When does he do this? At their birth. Signifying and sealing the Covenant of Grace, the mark"¦even declares their election ("promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit" WCF 7.3), though not infallibly"¦How fit, then, that such should be placed on designated persons as soon as humanly possible.



Amazing! Infant baptism declares that the infant is elect unless, of course, they haven´t been ordained unto life. What kind of declaration is that? It sounds like, "œYes, we consider you a believer until we are proven otherwise." 



> The newness of the new covenant consists in no small part of its sheer scope. The Spirit of God is "poured out on all flesh." Thousands, millions swept into the kingdom of grace. The borders of Israel, the tents of Shem are too small. "Lengthen the cords." Hebrews 8:8 "Finding fault with them...." With what? the covenants? the administration? No, with them, the people of the Old Covenant. Even then, with all the externals, all the means of grace, all the blessings given by God, sin still ruled. Wickedness reigned in their hearts. Idolatry, idolatry, idolatry. Nothing was too immoral or too dispicable.



Ok.



> The grace of regeneration dripped out like an eyedropper. The grace of parental faithfulness was restricted. Haven't you ever wondered how it was that over and over and over children did not adopt their parent's faith? Start in Judges. The next generation, chapter 2 verse 10! Eli's sons. Samuel's sons. David's sons! Where do we find intergenerational faithfulness? It is the exception, and not the rule! What makes the New Covenant new? The phrase "I will be a God to you, and to your children after you," has seen fulfillment since Pentecost! No, not every child. Not every generation the same. The ebb and flow of saving grace is still a reality. But the tide is coming in.



Brother, honestly, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that certain children did not "œadopt" the faith of their parents because the parents failed?


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Bruce,


> When does God mark somebody as his spiritual property? The baptist says that he only does so when the person exercises faith the first time.



I don't want to nit-pick, but I don't think I would say that. God marks out His people from all eternity (2Thes 2:13 etc).


> God declares ownership of the children of true believers, in a way he does not do with the children of the unsaved.


I don't think this is true either. Obviously there are great blessings and benefits in being the child of Christian parents; I don't deny that for one moment, but the great growth in Christ's Church today is coming from Asia and Africa where the Lord is making brand new Christians out of those who have never heard the Gospel. Not a single known Christian in Outer Mongolia ten or so years ago; more than 10,000 today! Praise the Lord!

At the same time, there is the most appalling falling away of young people in Britain today. The churches are all empty, and those who _are_ there are almost entirely old folks. Where are their children and Grandchildren on the Lord's Day? Filling up the shopping malls or nursing their hangovers!

In my darker moments, I wonder if the Lord has given over my country for its wickedness and apostasy.

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Peters,
1) by "exercise faith" I mean "believe" (there is no English verb "to faith", although in the Greek, both noun and verb are easliy recognized as cognates). Of course I recognize that part of the debate here is that the baptist position represented by some on the thread rejects the idea of baptism as a seal, period. Nevertheless, seeing that the person confesses faith and is subsequently _baptized,_ it certainly serves as a _de facto_ seal, i.e. "marking out" ritual.

2) by "his spiritual property" I distinguish between the general mark of divine ownership that is on every created thing, whether visible or invisible (every fact of the universe declares God's identity and sovereignty, Rom 1:19-20); and his express declaration, in the spiritual arena, that he lays "claim" to certain people. Even in the case of the hypocrite adult who submits to baptism in a baptist church, upon _his own_ profession, God is also declaring to the world, through the church, "this one is mine."

3)


> Amazing! Infant baptism declares that the infant is elect unless, of course, they haven´t been ordained unto life. What kind of declaration is that? It sounds like, "œYes, we consider you a believer until we are proven otherwise."


Explain how this sentence would read differently to you if you replace the word "infant" with "believer".

4)


> Brother, honestly, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that certain children did not "œadopt" the faith of their parents because the parents failed?


Does God ordinarily work by ordinary means? Aren't parents supposed to train up their children in the way they should go? Isn't that effort futile unless the Spirit is also at work? I pray that God will sanctify my meager, sin-tainted, and humanly ineffectual efforts to my children's salvation.

All I said in my last paragraph was that it was abundantly obvious that the Spirit was not regenerating the great majority of Israel's sons and daughters over the centuries. Only a remnant in every generation. This, despite the promises. Did God fail? Or his promises? No. He's never been under any obligation to save any.

But then it also follows that even believing parents were not _generally_ being faithful either, to teach the children the law and it's inner meaning. God it is God at work in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I have no reason to boast in my ability to raise godly children. It is God who stirs me up to teach, God who works on their hearts, God who uses my weak, sinful efforts to get spiritual truth across. He provides all the strength to change the hearts of my children.

God works most often by ordinary means. To use the promise that Rich alluded to, "I will turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the children to the fathers."


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> Here is my problem.
> 
> When we get to the New Testament, we discover from Romans 4 and 9 that the true descendants of Abraham are those who are of the faith of Abraham.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's the way it's always been yet the sign of a circumsized heart was still given to even his natural descendents.
Click to expand...


Not always.
Abel, who was a prophet, and who is still speaking to us today, knew nothing of circumcision, nor of baptism. He stands as the first of those who are saved by faith alone. He is telling us today not to put our emphasis on outward signs, but on a redeemed heart and a naked trust in Christ and His redeeming blood.

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

That doesn't really apply to this discussion though, Martin.


----------



## piningforChrist

> 2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.



Gabe, I claim that the seal is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich wrote:-


> Please step away from the Scoffield (sic) Study Bible. That the physical act of circumcision is tied to spiritual circumcision is apparently obvious to the casual observer.



'Scoff' seems to be what you do best at the moment, Rich, and it doesn't become you. Beware of trying to prove yourself a wit, lest you actually prove that you're only half the man you think you are.

It is the frequent complaint of the Lord that those who had the physical circumcision lacked its spiritual counterpart (Jer 9:25-26; Acts 7:51 etc).

We are also told that those who possess the spiritual reality do not need the physical sign (Phil 3:3; Col 2:11 ).

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Corinthians 1:21 And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, 22 and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gabe, I claim that the seal is the Holy Spirit, not baptism.
> 
> [Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]
Click to expand...


And what is Baptism a sign of?


----------



## Mocha

I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:

1) "Possibly"
- The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)

2) "Probably"
- The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)

3) "Assumed to be"
- The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)

If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptuiral evidence is there to support this?

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

> And what is Baptism a sign of?



_'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'_

1698 Baptist Confession

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> And what is Baptism a sign of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'_
> 
> 1698 Baptist Confession
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


So ... it is a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in a man's heart?


----------



## Saiph

As a paedobaptist, I also claim that baptism is the sign, and the Holy Spirit is the seal. But in one sense even the sign was an external seal right ?

He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.



The above statement is key.


----------



## piningforChrist

Scott and/or Mark, 

Please clarify.


----------



## Saiph

Jamieson Fausset & Brown (Baptists ?)



> Rom 4:9-12 - Cometh this blessedness then, &c.--that is, "Say not, All this is spoken of the circumcised, and is therefore no evidence of God's general way of justifying men; for Abraham's justification took place long before he was circumcised, and so could have no dependence upon that rite: nay, *'the sign of circumcision' was given to Abraham as 'a seal' (or token) of the (justifying) righteousness which he had before he was circumcised;* in order that he might stand forth to every age as the parent believer--the model man of justification by faith--after whose type, as the first public example of it, all were to be moulded, whether Jew or Gentile, who should thereafter believe to life everlasting."




[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Saiph

> The tenour of the covenants must first be settled before the seal can be annexed. Sealing supposes a previous bargain, which is confirmed and ratified by that ceremony. After Abraham's justification by faith had continued several years only a grant by parole, for the confirmation of Abraham's faith God was pleased to appoint a sealing ordinance, and Abraham received it; though it was a bloody ordinance, yet he submitted to it, and even received it as a special favour, the sign of circumcision.
> 
> Matthew Henry



Abraham Obeyed/Believed God in the covenant of grace.
God gave the sign as seal of covenant.
We now give the sign/seal to our children in Obedience/Faith.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:
> 
> 1) "Possibly"
> - The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)
> 
> 2) "Probably"
> - The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)
> 
> 3) "Assumed to be"
> - The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)
> 
> If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptuiral evidence is there to support this?
> 
> Mike



Everyone, Baptists included, agrees with #1 of course. Presumptive election (or regeneration) is chiefly defined by #3, and implies a sense of #2 as well. Regarding Scriptural reason for that, one thing I would say is to look at the Scriptures I cited earlier in the thread that contain God's spiritual blessings for our children (Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14), and realize that surely such spiritual promises from God Himself are _at least_ as reliable a ground on which to presume true election as is the external profession of fallible man - especially in light of our monergistic view of salvation and depravity.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:
> 
> 1) "Possibly"
> - The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)
> 
> 2) "Probably"
> - The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)
> 
> 3) "Assumed to be"
> - The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)
> 
> If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptural evidence is there to support this?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone, Baptists included, agrees with #1 of course. Presumptive election (or regeneration) is chiefly defined by #3, and implies a sense of #2 as well. Regarding Scriptural reason for that, one thing I would say is to look at the Scriptures I cited earlier in the thread that contain God's spiritual blessings for our children (Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14), and realize that surely such spiritual promises from God Himself are _at least_ as reliable a ground on which to presume true election as is the external profession of fallible man - especially in light of our monergistic view of salvation and depravity.
Click to expand...


Chris, if the condition of baptism is required for an infant to be in the covenant, and if being in the covenant means that they are assumed to be elect, then doesn't that make baptism a condition of election in some sense? Are you of the belief that God elects from those within the external covenant?

I'll take a look at those verses and get back to you.

Mike


----------



## piningforChrist

I say we just  :bigsmile: 

Random question: Has anyone in this board gone from a paedobaptist position to a credobatist one?


----------



## Mocha

On the "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" thread (pg. 3), in a disussion between Matthew McMahon and Paul Manata (see thread for context), Matthew McMahon, with regard to baptized infants said:



> ...he has the *seeds of faith* - something that, after he is able to put propositions together, he will exercise.



What are the 'seeds of faith'? Do the the children of Baptist parents have the 'seeds of faith'? If not, why not?



> He is still a Christian based on regeneration and being born from above. It has nothing to do with faith thus far...His faith will one day grow into an active and cognative faith.



Is a baptized infant a Christian? If you assume that the infant is regenerate, then you have no choice but to believe that the infant will one day believe. It's absolutely guaranteed! Hey...just for curiousity sake, how can a regenerate become a covenant breaker? I just thought of that now. It would be impossible...right?



> He is a new creation based on regeneration. (i.e. sovereign grace)



Does that mean every baptized infant is a new creation? Wow, I'm beginning to see how absolutely important the faith of the parent(s) is in the salvation of infants (from a paedobaptist perspective). Just for curiousity sake (again), if a unbaptized infant of Baptist parents was to die, would he or she go to hell?

I hope you don't mind all the questions. It's not easy figuring all this out. I'm finding it hard to think within the paedobaptist understanding. But I'll keep trying!

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mike,
Without understanding the covenant, you will not understand these principles. Your questions are abstract to say the least, based upon your misunderstanding of Gods promuise and His covenant people..

Can I suggest a book?


----------



## piningforChrist

Mike, you raise some MONUMENTAL quesitons. Your questions just won the argument for me. I'm sticking with the biblical practice of "believer's baptism," in other words, giving my children, when and if they are justified, the privelage and joy of expressing their belief through immersion, being buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Him in His resurrection. 

I WILL NOT WITHOLD SUCH A BLESSING FROM MY CHILDREN AS MY PAEDOBAPTIST FRIENDS HERE WILL


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Mike, you raise some MONUMENTAL quesitons. Your questions just won the argument for me. I'm sticking with the biblical practice of "believer's baptism," in other words, giving my children, when and if they are justified, the privelage and joy of expressing their belief through immersion, being buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Him in His resurrection.
> 
> I WILL NOT WITHOLD SUCH A BLESSING FROM MY CHILDREN AS MY PAEDOBAPTIST FRIENDS HERE WILL



Both sides are seeking the proper obedience to God, and the excercise of their faith in Him towards their children. My question for you is what determines "when and if they are justified" in your ideology ?

The blessing that belongs to the child baptized in infancy is growing up with the implicit knowledge and comfort of knowing they have always been His children.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## piningforChrist

> My question for you is what determines "when and if they are justified" in your ideology ?



God's sovereign good pleasure aquired personally through the preaching of the Word received by faith upon the instantaneous regeneration of the Holy Spirit.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Saiph

So is there a blood test for regeneration then ? Your presumption after testimony is not all that different than our presumption before. Except that I would actually tend to call your presumption "doubt seeking a sign".

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## piningforChrist

It is an outward proclaimation of an inward reality. Both are lost in the case of infant baptism. The inward reality of justification is impossible without the hearing of the Word ("Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"), and the outward symbol of unity with Christ is made void without immersion and a treasuring of the truth by the individual being baptised at the moment of baptism.


----------



## Saiph

Brother Matthew,

I grew up in a dispensational church. I made a public testimony and decided to get baptized out of self righteous motives and a desire to be accepted by the Christian community. No one knew any different until a period of apostasy in my later teens that my confession was not genuine.


----------



## piningforChrist

This in no way negates my proposition.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Mike, you raise some MONUMENTAL quesitons. Your questions just won the argument for me. I'm sticking with the biblical practice of "believer's baptism," in other words, giving my children, when and if they are justified, the privelage and joy of expressing their belief through immersion, being buried with Christ in His death, and raised with Him in His resurrection.
> 
> I WILL NOT WITHOLD SUCH A BLESSING FROM MY CHILDREN AS MY PAEDOBAPTIST FRIENDS HERE WILL



These questions you call "MONUMENTAL" are no more than misunderstandings dressed in dispensational clothing. I don't sayy that with any disrespect. The understanding and treatments reveal large gaps in biblical harmony.

For the record, the bible is one book, not two.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> It is an outward proclaimation of an inward reality. Both are lost in the case of infant baptism. The inward reality of justification is impossible without the hearing of the Word ("Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"), and the outward symbol of unity with Christ is made void without immersion and a treasuring of the truth by the individual being baptised at the moment of baptism.



Please tell me how you chave come to the conclusion that an infant CANNOT HAVE FAITH?


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> This in no way negates my proposition.



No but it points to the limited understanding of men, the decietfulness of false confessions, and shows that faith in the promise is still necessary to either side of the credo/paedo debate.


----------



## piningforChrist

There are both differences and similarities between the Old and New Covenants. Infant baptism is not biblical, but baptism administered to those who are professed members of the New Covenant by faith is:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/baptism/infant_baptism.html

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Saiph

So under the Old Covenant children were a blessing from the Lord, but now, under the expansive, fulfilled, and more glorious new covenant built on better promises, children are actually a curse ?

Mal 4:6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mark,
Just toss the OT into the garbage; it has no obvious relation to the NC!


----------



## piningforChrist

Then, I think that this shows that, Biblically speaking, believer baptism is correct:



> <STRONG><FONT size=3>In other words, the justification of infant baptism in the Reformed churches hangs on the fact that baptism is the New Testament counterpart of circumcision.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have undervalued the <EM>dis</EM>continuity. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we honor both the continuity <EM>and</EM> discontinuity between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>The continuity is expressed like this: Just as circumcision was administered to all the physical sons of Abraham who made up the physical Israel, so baptism should be administered to all the spiritual sons of Abraham who make up the spiritual Israel, the church. But who are these spiritual sons of Abraham who constitute the people of God in our age?</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>Galatians 3:7 says, "So you see that it is men of <EM>faith</EM> who are the sons of Abraham." The new thing, since Jesus has come, is that the covenant people of God are no longer a political, ethnic nation, but a body of believers.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>John the Baptist inaugurated this change and introduced the new sign of baptism. By calling all <EM>Jews</EM> to repent and be baptized, John declared powerfully and offensively that physical descent does not make one part of God's family and that circumcision, which signifies a physical relationship, will now be replaced by baptism, which signifies a spiritual relationship. The apostle Paul picks up this new emphasis, especially in Romans 9, and says, "Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants. . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God" (vs. 7-8).</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>Therefore a very important change has occurred in redemptive history. There is discontinuity as well as continuity.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>Zwingli and Calvin and their heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently than when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The people of God are no longer formed through natural kinship, but through supernatural conversion to faith in Christ.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus and the apostles, the emphasis now is that the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the <EM>faith</EM> of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> <P><STRONG><FONT size=3>And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism.</FONT></STRONG></P>
> http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/leadership/brothers_baptism.html



[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Scott Bushey

And calvin et. al. were just plain out of their minds. How could they have missed such a simple thing?



> Galatians 3:7 says, "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham."



And how does one identify such a person? By profession? Profession proves nothing. Only God knows who the true sons of Abraham are........


This is no different from the OT saint. The true sons back then were as well identified by God and God alone!


----------



## piningforChrist

Scott, you have not dealt with Piper's argument's from Scripture. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God" is a central axiom, along with the fact that families who believed heard this Word, and then were baptised. And, you did not respond to the discontinuity between the covenants. A few centuries between us and Calvin allow us to see both the errors of our day and the errors of his, both are oversights because of tradition. Please deal with the arguments. Scripture is clear. Piper's arguments are sound.


----------



## piningforChrist

Here is a more thorough exegetical treatment of the text of Scripture:

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/97/051197.html

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## piningforChrist

This sermon answers the argument from Romans 4:11, which I agree is the linchpin in the doctrine of paedobaptism. Piper pulls it out (please read this, if you don't mind, and tell me if you agree) and the whole doctrine falls. Please examine whether or not this sermon concurs with the testimony of the Scriptures:



> <H4>How Is the Church a Continuation of Israel?</H4>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>Now the question for us is: is the New Testament Church - the Church today -a continuation of the larger mixed group of ethnic, religious, national Israel, or is the Church a continuation of the remnant of the true sons of Abraham who are children of God by faith in Christ? Are we a Spirit-born, new covenant community with the law of God written on our hearts and defined by faith? We don't need to guess at this.</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>Paul makes the answer clear in Galatians 4:22-28:</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman [Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise."</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>Now who is "you brethren"? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like Israel - a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh - an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and "children of God." Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way. The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is an continuation of the true Israel, the remnant -not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>The church is the new covenant community - "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25) - we say when we take communion. The new covenant is the spiritual work of God to put his Spirit within us, write the law on our hearts and cause us to walk in his statutes. It is a spiritually authentic community. Unlike the old covenant community it is defined by true spiritual life and faith. Having these things is what it means to belong to the Church. Therefore to give the sign of the covenant, baptism, to those who are merely children of the flesh and who give no evidence of new birth or the presence of the Spirit or the law written on their heart or of vital faith in Christ is to contradict the meaning of the new covenant community and to go backwards in redemptive history.</STRONG></FONT></P>
> <P><FONT color=#0000bf><STRONG>The Church is not a replay of Israel. It is an advance on Israel. To administer the sign of the covenant as though this advance has not happened is a great mistake. We do not baptize our children according to the flesh, not because we don't love them, but because we want to preserve for them the purity and the power of the spiritual community that God ordained for the believing church of the living Christ.</STRONG></FONT></P>
> http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/00/100100.html



[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I have been reading the thread of "Presumptive Regeneration/Presumptive Election" and I'm wondering how "Presumptive" should be understood. Does it mean:
> 
> 1) "Possibly"
> - The baptized infant is possibly regenerate (or elect)
> 
> 2) "Probably"
> - The baptized infant is probably regenerate (or elect)
> 
> 3) "Assumed to be"
> - The baptized infant is assumed to be regenerate (or elect)
> 
> If your answer is "Probably" or "Assumed to be", what Scriptural evidence is there to support this?
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone, Baptists included, agrees with #1 of course. Presumptive election (or regeneration) is chiefly defined by #3, and implies a sense of #2 as well. Regarding Scriptural reason for that, one thing I would say is to look at the Scriptures I cited earlier in the thread that contain God's spiritual blessings for our children (Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14), and realize that surely such spiritual promises from God Himself are _at least_ as reliable a ground on which to presume true election as is the external profession of fallible man - especially in light of our monergistic view of salvation and depravity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chris, if the condition of baptism is required for an infant to be in the covenant, and if being in the covenant means that they are assumed to be elect, then doesn't that make baptism a condition of election in some sense? Are you of the belief that God elects from those within the external covenant?
> 
> I'll take a look at those verses and get back to you.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


This is again where the difference between the insivible and visible Church is crucial. Indeed, "being in the [visible] covenant means that they are assumed to be elect," but the converse does not necessarily follow. In other words, while the visible covenant or the local Church is God's primary revealed means of making and growing people in the invisible Church, He can and does elect, call and save people apart from that means, such as the thief on the Cross.

It parellels both ways - for all people in the visible Church are presumed by the elders and members to be elect, but they are not necessarily always so; likewise, Scripture speaks of the God's elect as being nurtured and fed by the local Church, but they are not always so. With regard to adults, we usually have no problem understanding that, but for some reason we can often start to get confused when the very same principle is thought of in terms of infants in the Church.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## Saiph

> Mal 2:1 "And now, O priests, this command is for you.
> Mal 2:2 * If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings.* Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart.
> Mal 2:3 * Behold, I will rebuke your offspring,* and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it.
> Mal 2:4 So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the LORD of hosts.
> Mal 2:5 My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name.
> Mal 2:6 True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity.
> Mal 2:7 For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
> Mal 2:8 But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts,
> Mal 2:9 and so I make you despised and abased before all the people, inasmuch as you do not keep my ways but show partiality in your instruction."
> Mal 2:10 * Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers? *
> Mal 2:11 Judah has been faithless, and abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, *and has married the daughter of a foreign god. * (IN OTHER WORDS, THE CHILDREN OF HEATHENS DO NOT BELONG TO YHWH)
> 
> Mal 2:12 May the LORD cut off from the tents of Jacob, *any descendant of the man who does this,* who brings an offering to the LORD of hosts!
> Mal 2:13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand.
> Mal 2:14 But you say, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.
> 
> 
> Mal 2:15 * Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring.* So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
> 
> 
> Mal 2:16 "For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless."
> Mal 2:17 You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, "How have we wearied him?" By saying, "Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them." Or by asking, "Where is the God of justice?"





[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

STOP posting Piper sermons, PLEASE. Link to them if you have to, but quit wasting space on this thread and making it extremely tiresome to get through.


----------



## piningforChrist

They are faithless, because ethnic Israel, the members of the Old Covenant community, were composed, for the majority of their history, of a small remnant of true Israel, justified by faith, within the mass of unjustifed false Israel.


----------



## piningforChrist

Sorry to Gabe (and others). I will do as you say. I just desired for his arguments to be seen and read in the most convenient way, and I thought that would be through posting them, highlighting the meat of the argument for people to see and comment upon.


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> They are faithless, because ethnic Israel, the members of the Old Covenant community, were composed, for the majority of their history, of a small remnant of true Israel, justified by faith, within the mass of unjustifed false Israel.



Yes, but simply because there were tares among the wheat does not mean that the promise of God failed, or that it has changed under the new covenant administration of the COG. I think I remember Kevin Easterday explaining once that even Ishmael was circumcised, and Abraham might have believed, that although the promise would not be cairried out through him, that he would not be excluded from the assembly either. And God did bless him. Also, David had a sister married to an Ishmaelite.


----------



## piningforChrist

Gabe and others: I cleaned up my posts a bit...hope that helps.

Mark, you have not delt with the Biblical evidence for the differences between the covenants and the people who comprise them, and the implications of this for the mark of the new covenant. In other words, I do not think you did justice to this argument:



> For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman[Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise."
> 
> Now who is "you brethren"? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like Israel - a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."
> 
> The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh - an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and "children of God." Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
> 
> But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way. The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is an continuation of the true Israel, the remnant -not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.
> 
> Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.
> -J. Piper



[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Saiph

> For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman[Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But theson by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise."
> 
> Now who is "you brethren"? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like Israel - a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."
> 
> The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh - an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and "children of God." Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
> 
> *But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way. *
> The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole; it is an continuation of the true Israel, the remnant -not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.
> 
> Therefore, it is not fitting that the children born merely according to the flesh receive the sign of the covenant, baptism.
> 
> -J. Piper



There is the fallacy in Piper's theology. He is confusing ethnic or national distinctives with natural and organic applications of the promise. Paul in Galatians is saying do not rest in your heritage, but rather the faith of your heritage. But he does not say that the promise to offspring is now void.

In that one sentence I highlighted in your quote from Piper, he is implying there are two Churches. Israel of old, and the new body of Christ.



[Edited on 11-15-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## piningforChrist

Maybe you are correct. Please expand on that premise, if you don't mind.


----------



## piningforChrist

I think Piper would respond by saying that the promise to offspring (at least in the Abrahamic Covenant) is applicable to the true Israel, or is applicable to the ethnic Israel currently insofar as they are comprised essentially of the true Israel, i.e. when all Israel is eventually saved.


----------



## Scott Bushey

To begin with, Piper has done just what Mark has said; he has dispensationalized the bible and the peoples of God. I can't blame Piper per se as he has no other rationale to deal with the continuity/discontinuity issue he believes he finds in the paedobaptist discipline. 

Matthew,
You mention my not dealing with Pipers statements. Dealing with them is akin to me dealing with a charismatic on charismatic premises. One cannot approach the issues raised from the perspective Piper brings; he obviously does not understand Gods covenant and how it relates to the family unit as well as Gods immutability on the issue.

As I asked earlier (Which no one has dealt with), and this will possibly even deal with Piper to a degree:



> Please tell me how you chave come to the conclusion that an infant CANNOT HAVE FAITH?



and



> And how does one identify such a person? By profession? Profession proves nothing. Only God knows who the true sons of Abraham are........
> 
> 
> This is no different from the OT saint. The true sons back then were as well identified by God and God alone!


----------



## piningforChrist

Maybe this observation of Piper will be useful in the discussion:



> 3. The promises made to Abraham, including the promise of the Land, will be inherited as an everlasting gift only by true, spiritual Israel, not disobedient, unbelieving Israel.
> 
> This was the point of Romans 9. When Paul grieved over the lostness of so many Jews who were rejecting Jesus and were perishing, he said in verses 6-7, "œIt is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring." In other words, the promises cannot be demanded by anyone just because he is Jewish. Jewish ethnicity has a place in God's plan, but it is not enough to secure anything. It does not in itself qualify a person to be an heir of the promise to Abraham and his offspring. Romans 9:8 says it clearly: "œIt is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring." Being born Jewish does not make one an heir of the promise"”neither the promise of the Land nor any other promise.
> 
> This was plain in the Old Testament, and it was plain the teachings of Jesus (which we will see under truth #4). For example, in the terrible list of curses that God promised to bring on the people if they broke his covenant and forsook him was this: "œ And as the Lord took delight in doing you good and multiplying you, so the Lord will take delight in bringing ruin upon you and destroying you. And you shall be plucked off the land that you are entering to take possession of it" (Deuteronomy 28:63). Throughout the history of Israel, covenant breaking and disobedience and idolatry disqualified Israel from the present divine right to the Land. (See also Daniel 9:4-7; Psalm 78:54-61.)
> 
> Be careful not to infer from this that Gentile nations (like Arabs) have the right to molest Israel. God's judgments on Israel do not sanction human sin against Israel. Israel still has human rights among nations even when she forfeits her present divine right to the Land. Remember that nations which gloated over her divine discipline were punished by God (Isaiah 10:5-13; Joel 3:2).
> 
> So the promise to Abraham that his descendants will inherit the Land does not mean that all Jews inherit that promise. It will come finally to the true Israel, the Israel that keeps covenant and obeys her God.
> http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/04/030704.html


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Please step away from the Scoffield (sic) Study Bible. That the physical act of circumcision is tied to spiritual circumcision is apparently obvious to the casual observer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Scoff' seems to be what you do best at the moment, Rich, and it doesn't become you. Beware of trying to prove yourself a wit, lest you actually prove that you're only half the man you think you are.
Click to expand...

Insofar as I have offended you brother, I ask your forgiveness.

Pastorway - I I have offended you as well, I ask your forgiveness.

My polemics could be softer in their criticism of your arguments. I would only ask in return that you be more circumspect prior to accusing a brother of being filled with pride. I certainly have much to mortify.


> It is the frequent complaint of the Lord that those who had the physical circumcision lacked its spiritual counterpart (Jer 9:25-26; Acts 7:51 etc).
> 
> We are also told that those who possess the spiritual reality do not need the physical sign (Phil 3:3; Col 2:11 ).
> 
> Martin


Yes, that is a complaint of the Lord because the one signifies the other. He could not complain about their lack of a circumcised heart if He did not expect them to have one. We both agree that it is God's sovereign election that would cause that but it does not change the nature of His preceptive will.

As to Phil 3:3 and Col 2:11 - obviously there is no need anymore for physical circumcision. I would ask that you be more careful here. How can you conclude that I or anyone else is saying that circumcision of the flesh is still necessary? Nevertheless, Baptism, which signifies that spiritually reality is clearly commanded and connected to our spiritual circumcision.


----------



## piningforChrist

> Please tell me how you chave come to the conclusion that an infant CANNOT HAVE FAITH?



Romans 10:5-17 fully answers your question:

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, "œDo not say in your heart, "˜Who will ascend into heaven?´" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or "œ"˜Who will descend into the abyss?´" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? "œThe word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, "œEveryone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "œeveryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "œHow beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "œLord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.



> And how does one identify such a person? By profession? Profession proves nothing. Only God knows who the true sons of Abraham are........
> 
> 
> This is no different from the OT saint. The true sons back then were as well identified by God and God alone!



There will always be unbelieving professors, true. This, however, does not undermine the necessity of only giving the sign of the new covenant to those who testify that they have heard the Word and called upon the name of the Lord.

I do not think it is fair for you to not even respond to Piper because you do not agree with his assumptions. I think you may have a misconception of him and his doctrine in general. To be just and fair, please respond to his main argument that I have already outlined in my previous post. He runs in the tradition of the puritans, especially Jonathan Edwards and John Owen. Yes, there are differences, and those are because a few centries enables us to see blind spots in theologians of the past in light of Scripture, and also our own blind spots. Please give his position an honest examination.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Matt,
Please tell me how it is that elect infants dying in the womb, or the imbecile end up in Heaven?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Matt,
Please show me a passage in the new testament that forbids placing the sign upon a child? Where did God say to change the program from what He originally decreed, that being placing the sign upon the child. 

The great commission commands to make disciples (not all disciples were true believers) and to place the sign upon them.


----------



## piningforChrist

Thankfully, I concur with Piper's exegesis on this issue as well:



> <P>John Piper and many others, however, believe that there is one more biblical strand of evidence which must be considered. This evidence leads us to conclude that God saves <EM>all</EM> infants who die.</P>
> <P>In a funeral sermon several years ago for an infant, Dr. Piper summarized the basis for his conclusion:</P>
> <BLOCKQUOTE>
> <P>Jesus says in John 9:41 to those who were offended at his teaching and asked if he thought they were blind-he said, "If you were blind, you would not have had sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains."</P>
> <P>In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.</P>
> <P>The other text is Romans 1:20 where Paul is dealing with persons who have not heard the gospel and have no access to it, but who do have access to the revelation of God's glory in nature:</P>
> <P>Romans 1:20 "<EM>Since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, <STRONG>so that they are without excuse</STRONG>."</EM></P>
> <P>In other words: if a person did not have access to the revelation of God's glory - did not have the natural capacity to see it and understand it, then Paul implies they would have an excuse at the judgment.</P>
> <P>The point for us is that even though we human beings are under the penalty of everlasting judgment and death because of the fall of our race into sin and the sinful nature that we all have, nevertheless God only executes this judgment on those who have the natural capacity to see his glory and understand his will, and refuse to embrace it as their treasure.</P>
> <P>Infants, I believe, do not yet have that capacity; and therefore, in God's inscrutable way, he brings them under the forgiving blood of his Son.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
> <P>In another sermon, he adds:</P>
> <BLOCKQUOTE>God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing. It seems to me that the most natural guess would be that babies will grow up in the kingdom (either immediately, or over time) and will by God's grace come to faith so that their justification is by faith alone just like ours.</BLOCKQUOTE>
> http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/infant_salv/infants.html


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ok. So God has two ways of salvation. The person who never hears the gospel will be graded on a curve? Rubbish. Heresy! Baloney!

The bible is clear: ALL have sinned. Where is the propitiation for the Egyptians? For those sunk in Noahs flood? Are you trying to tell me that some of the people of Noahs day that died in the flood are possibly in heaven based upon this curve Piper says God grades upon?

Nonsense!

The bible is clear; God punishes sin. All men are plagued at birth. judgment must be distributed else God has broken His own decree. Ignorance of Gods law is no excuse.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Ok. So God has two ways of salvation. The person who never hears the gospel will be graded on a curve? Rubbish. Heresy! Baloney!
> 
> The bible is clear: ALL have sinned. Where is the propitiation for the Egyptians? For those sunk in Noahs flood? Are you trying to tell me that some of the people of Noahs day that died in the flood are possibly in heaven based upon this curve Piper says God grades upon?
> 
> Nonsense!
> 
> The bible is clear; God punishes sin. All men are plagued at birth. judgment must be distributed else God has broken His own decree. Ignorance of Gods law is no excuse.



To clearify, Romand 10:17 is clear, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. The elect infant dying in infancy is converted by Gods word, hence proving that an infant can be regenerate/converted. No confession is needed. No isle walking or standing on the head. Just God!


----------



## piningforChrist

What does the Scriptural exegesis of Romans 1:20 say?

I found it to be rather logical and harmonious with the whole counsel of God, especially if the infant exercises faith in Christ in heaven, which would make his justification on the same basis as ours, by faith alone. This is built upon some implications of Romans 1:20, that those who do not see God's eternal attributes and reject them in their heart have an excuse and will be justified by God by faith in a special way. Granted, this is very interesting and goes beyond our comprehension and reason, but the text implies it may and probably will be so.

If however, it is not so, all infants and people unable mentally to hear the Word of God and call upon His name, will be condemned because of their federal inheritance of Adam's sin. Either way, the truth is difficult to swallow.

The only question that remains: Which position most fully conforms with the Biblical Text?


----------



## piningforChrist

Dear Sir, you mistake. All infants are unable to hear the Word of God and call upon His name, and therefore (assuming Piper's exegesis of Rom. 1:20 is incorrect), all infants will be eternally condemned.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Dear Sir, you mistake. All infants are unable to hear the Word of God and call upon His name, and therefore (assuming Piper's exegesis of Rom. 1:20 is incorrect), all infants will be eternally condemned.



So all children dying in infancy are in hell?


----------



## Scott Bushey

The WCF states:

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]

12. Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
13. John 3:8
14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12

The LBC of 1689:

3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. 
( John 3:3, 5, 6; John 3:8 )


----------



## piningforChrist

If Romans 1:20 does not imply that God will justify those who are unable to see and reject His eternal attributes clearly seen in His creation because they are with excuse, then

God will punish them in eternal torment.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Dear Sir, you mistake. All infants are unable to hear the Word of God and call upon His name, and therefore (assuming Piper's exegesis of Rom. 1:20 is incorrect), all infants will be eternally condemned.



How do you know that infants are incapable? Donkeys talk!


----------



## Scott Bushey

In regards to Rom 1:20

Who is spoken of?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Well, then I found the very first error in my confession.



oh my..............


----------



## Scott Bushey

Buddy,
You're not getting it. Everyone on this board, including all the reformed understand and agree with this principle; you are just missing the target. Slow down and reread the thread.


----------



## piningforChrist

Ok, they may be capable by divine intervention. If they are made to see God's eternal attributes, reject them, hear the Word, and call upon the name of the Lord, then

they will be elect and will inherit eternal life.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> What does the Scriptural exegesis of Romans 1:20 say?
> 
> I found it to be rather logical and harmonious with the whole counsel of God, especially if the infant exercises faith in Christ in heaven, which would make his justification on the same basis as ours, by faith alone. This is built upon some implications of Romans 1:20, that those who do not see God's eternal attributes and reject them in their heart have an excuse and will be justified by God by faith in a special way. Granted, this is very interesting and goes beyond our comprehension and reason, but the text implies it may and probably will be so.
> 
> If however, it is not so, all infants and people unable mentally to hear the Word of God and call upon His name, will be condemned because of their federal inheritance of Adam's sin. Either way, the truth is difficult to swallow.
> 
> The only question that remains: Which position most fully conforms with the Biblical Text?


The paedobaptist position most clearly conforms with the Biblical text.

What it does not conform with is a misappropriation of the Covenant of Grace that implies:

1. a material difference between the faith of TRUE OT and NT believers
2. a material difference in spiritual circumcision
3. the notion that physical circumcision wasn't really linked at all to true faith so it didn't matter that it might be applied to infants who were reprobate
4. that baptism _is_ really linked to true faith so it can't be applied to infants because they might be reprobate
5. that the "they might be reprobate" is how we ought to consider all issues within the visible Church
6. that we can existentially ensure that a person has true faith because when they're adults they say they have true faith
7. when a three year old sings "Amazing Grace" he is a liar
8. that our children are no longer a Covenantal blessing to us as the curtain fell on the old "dispensation". Now they are no more than any other random person that God just might regenerate because salvation is not ordinarily found within the Church anymore

In short, the Scriptures don't speak of a radical discontinuity so we can ensure that Romans 9-10 and adult faith and adult baptism can form the basis of our biblical hermeneutic.

[Edited on 11-15-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## piningforChrist

Geesh, one at a time.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

God doesn't have to conform to your systematic soteriology, Matthew. You should re-read your own Confession a few times before you drift further into Hypercalvinism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Ok, they may be capable by divine intervention. If they are made to see God's eternal attributes, reject them, hear the Word, and call upon the name of the Lord, then
> 
> they will be elect and will inherit eternal life.



Matthew,
Election is a decree created before the foundation of the world; it is not a reskult of something the infant does.


----------



## piningforChrist

The Scripture passages that support the propositions of the WCF and the LBCF do not imply that all infants will be elect, nor do they imply that God would have any basis for justifying infants. Only John 9:41 and Romans 1:20 present a basis for God's pardoning of infants.

Regarding John 9:41, 



> In other words, if a person lacks the natural capacity to see the revelation of God's will or God's glory then that person's sin would not remain-God would not bring the person into final judgment for not believing what he had no natural capacity to see.



Regarding Romans 1:20,



> In other words: if a person did not have access to the revelation of God's glory - did not have the natural capacity to see it and understand it, then Paul implies they would have an excuse at the judgment.



[Edited on 11-15-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Scott Bushey

The creeds clearly say _elect_ infants dying in infancy..........not all infants. No one has said that all infants dying in infancy are elect except Piper. This is a blatant error on his part!

As far as justification, no one gets into heaven outside of being justified. Hence, elect infants dying in infancy MUST be justified.


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Ok, they may be capable by divine intervention. If they are made to see God's eternal attributes, reject them, hear the Word, and call upon the name of the Lord, then
> 
> they will be elect and will inherit eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> Election is a decree created before the foundation of the world; it is not a reskult of something the infant does.
Click to expand...


I meant, "they will be justified and will inherit eternal life." Sorry, my first mistake.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## piningforChrist

Scott, in your view what is the basis for the justification of such infants if they are totally depraved because of their federal head, Adam?


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Well, then I found the very first error in my confession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh my..............
Click to expand...


I read it too quickly and incorrectly, skipping over the elect part. Yes, if the infants are elect and justified, they will be pardoned and righteous. I correct my second mistake.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Scott, in your view what is the basis for the justification of such infants if they are totally depraved because of their federal head, Adam?



Their election. Christ has, across time, died for His people.

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save *his* people from their sins."


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Scott, in your view what is the basis for the justification of such infants if they are totally depraved because of their federal head, Adam?



The same as it would be for every other depraved sinner, I would imagine, - grace.


----------



## piningforChrist

Is justification by faith alone?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Justification is by faith alone - whether that faith be outwardly manifested or not.

Turritin sums up your dilemma well:



> Concerning the subject of faith a question is moved as to infants. There are two extremes: (1) in defect, by the Anabaptists, who deny all faith to infants and under this pretext exclude them from baptism; (2) in excess, by the Lutherans, who, to oppose themselves to the Anabaptists, have fallen into the other extreme, maintaining that infants are regenerated in baptism and actually furnished with faith, as appears from the Mompeldardensi Colloquy (Acta Colloquy Mantis Belligartensis [1588], p. 459). "The round asserÂ­tion of our divines is that actual faith is ascribed to infants with the most just right" (Brochmann, "De Fide Justificante," 2, Q. 10 in Universae theologicae systema [1638], 2:429).
> 
> The *orthodox* occupy the middle ground between these two extremes. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain that a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists.



[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## piningforChrist

Are there examples or is there a ground in Scripture for a faith that is not outwardly manifested (either in the heart or by the tongue) that does justify? Is an outward expression of faith (either in the heart or by the tongue) necessary to be called faith and therefore to justify?

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Matthew,
Faith is a gift. The outward expression is a result of the gift. 
The outward expression is not neccesary to make the gift real, but a fruit thereof.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

An outward manifestation of "profession" of what one believes inwardly is not necessary for salvation. If it were, we should all go back to Arminianism, and we should all become credo-baptists.

WCF:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] *is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts*,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

1. Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39
2. I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2
3. Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21
4. I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7

II. By this faith, a Christian *believeth* to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein;[5] and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands,[6] trembling at the threatenings,[7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come.[8] *But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.*[9]

5. II Peter 1:20-21; John 4:42; I Thess. 2:13; I John 5:9-10; Acts 24:14
6. Psa. 119:10-11, 48, 97-98, 167-168; John 14:15
7. Ezra 9:4; Isa. 66:2; Heb. 4:1
8. Heb. 11:13; I Tim. 4:8
9. John 1:12; Acts 15:11, 16:31; Gal. 2:20; II Tim. 1:9-10

III. This faith is different in degrees, weak or strong;[10] may be often and many ways assailed, and weakened, but gets the victory:[11] growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance, through Christ,[12] who is both the author and finisher of our faith.[13]

10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10
11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5
12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2
13. Heb. 12:2

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## piningforChrist

> maintain that a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them



Matthew, please define this further for my edification and instruction in the faith.


----------



## piningforChrist

My question revised, "Is faith exercised by the heart (though a gift given and enabled to be exercised) upon the hearing of the Word of God necessary for justification?"


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Matthew, 

Think of it this way - 

The acorn of an oak tree holds within it all the properties of the tree. There is nothing in a 150 foot oak tree that is not contained in the acorn, except for it SIZE. 

The properties of faith, and everything that belongs to it, being in the heart (see the confession I edited in above) are IN the infant, child, man, woman, whoever, before they EVER outwardly profess or say anything. Justifying faith, then, is ALREADY present, though not actually exercised outwardly. Such a seed is a gift.

Much like the acorn, so is the faith in everyone believing. (Don't confuse Romans 10:9-10 for some "formula" that has to be enacted in order to be saved - that is not directed to the unsaved, but the ALREADY saved.)


----------



## piningforChrist

Can you please quickly exegete Romans 10:17?


----------



## piningforChrist

Follow up question as well: Have you read "A Divine and Supernatural Light" by Jonathan Edwards? If so, do you agree with his positions? If you agree, how do they relate to what you have just mentioned? If you do not agree, why?


----------



## BrianBowman

Matthew,

Why was Jonathan Edwards a Padeobaptist?


----------



## piningforChrist

I do not know. I can infer (from everything of his that I have read) that it is because of his close ties of circumcision to baptism, his oversight of the things that Piper points out.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Yes, I've read Edwards. Edwards remains consistent in the same way I am discussing in these last few posts. He was a stalwart advocate for the same truths. Yes, a Paedo-baptist even in spite of Piper.

Super brief - the passgaes applies ONLY to the outward preaching of the Gospel. It has nothing to do with the conversation thus far. Romans 10 is pressing that the Word must go in advance and be the beginning of our salvation as outward preaching utlizing the instrumentality of men as preacher. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his Gospel preached. The point of Paul's exhortation overall there is that everything is subject to the Word of God. But this priveledge here surrounds those who hear (physcially) the Gospel. For those who hear, we must first hear, and then keep; for as faith comes by hearing, it is in this way that the spiritual life must be commenced.

As Turretin rightly says, "It is one thing to praise God subjectively and formally from knowledge and affection; another to praise him objectively and materially." Romans 10 is dealing with subjective and formal knowledge done by those who exercise reason to an extent they are interacting with the Gospel.

To condemn all infants or mentally disabled because they cannot subjectively exercise faith is, again, to succumb to a Roman Catholic idea of faith.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

This is helpful as well (Turretin):

Second proposition: "Although infants do not have _actual_ faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is *ingenerated* in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrucÂ­tion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)." This second proposition is opposed to the Anabaptists, who deny to infants all faith, not only as to act, but also as to habit and form. Although habitual faith (as the word "habit" is properly and strictly used to signify a more perfect and consummated state) is not well ascribed to them, still it is rightly predicated of them broadly as denoting potential or seminal faith. Now by "seed of faith," we mean the Holy Spirit, the effecter of faith and regeneration (as he is called, 1 Jn. 3:9), as to the principles of regeneration and holy inclinations which he already works in infants according to their measure in a wonderful and to us unspeakable way. Afterwards in more mature age, these proceed into act (human instruction being employed and the grace of the same Spirit promoting his own work by which that seed is accustomed to be excited and drawn forth into act).

XIV. The reasons are: (1) the promise of the covenant pertains no less to infants than to adults, since God promises that he will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed" (Gen. 17:7) and the promise is said to have been made *"with the fathers and their children" (Acts 2:39)*. Therefore also the blessings of the covenant (such as "remission of sins" and "sanctification") ought to pertain to them (according to Jer. 31 and 32) and are communicated to them by God according to their state. In this sense (as some think), the children of believers are called "holy" by Paul (1 Cor. 7:14). This may with more propriety be referred to the external and federal holiness which belongs to them, according to which (because they are born of covenanted and Christian parents"”at least of one) they are also considered to be begotten in "holiness" (i.e., in Christianity, and not in heathenism, which was a state of uncleanness [akatharsias] and impurity).

XV. (2) *The kingdom of heaven pertains to infants (Mt.19:14), therefore also regeneration (without which there is no admittance to it, Jn. 3:3, 5).* Now although Christ proposes this to adults for an example of humility to show that they ought to be like children in disposition in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, still he does not exclude (but includes in that promise) infants themselves, from whom it commences.

XVI. (3) There are examples of various infants who were *sanctified from the womb* (as was the case with Jeremiah and John the Baptist, Jer. 1:5; Lk. 1:15, 80). For although here occur certain singular and extraordinary things (which pertained to them alone and not to others), still we may fairly conclude that infants can be made partakers of the Holy Spirit, who since he cannot be inactive, works in them motions and inclinations *suited to their age* (which are called "the seed of faith" or principles of sanctification).

XVII. (4) Infants draw from natural generation common 4. notions (koinas ennoias), and theoretical as well as practical principles of the natural law; and if Adam had continued innocent, the divine image (which consists in holiness) would have passed by propagation to his children. Therefore what is to prevent them from receiving by supernatural regeneration certain seeds of faith and first principles of sanctification, since they are not less capable of these by grace than of those by nature?

XVIII. Although there seem to be in infants no marks from which we can gather that they are gifted with the Holy Spirit and the seed of faith (because their age prevents it), it does not follow that this must be denied to them since the reason of their salvation demands it and the contrary is eviÂ­dent from the examples adduced.

XIX. As before the use of reason, men are properly called rational because they have the principle of reason in the rational soul; thus nothing hinders them from being termed believers before actual faith because the seed which is given to them is the principle of faith (from which they are rightly denominated; even as they are properly called sinners, although not as yet able to put forth an act of sin).

XX. If any of our theologians deny that there is faith in infants or that it is necessary for their salvation (as is gathered from certain passages of Peter Martyr, Beza and Piscator), it is certain that this is meant of *actual faith* _against the Lutherans_, *not of the seed of faith or the Spirit of regeneration* (which they freÂ­quently assert is ascribed to infants). Peter Martyr, after saying that the Holy Scriptures do not say that infants believe, adds: "I judge that it is sufficient that they who are to be saved be determined by this"”that by election they belong to the property of God, they are sprinkled by the Holy Spirit, who is the root of faith, hope and love, and of all the virtues, which afterwards it exerts and declares in the sons of God, when their age permits" (Loci Communes, Cl. 4, chap. 8.14 [1583], p. 826). Thus Calvin: "Yet how, say they, are infants regenerated, having a knowledge neither of good nor of evil? We answer, the work of God, even if we do not understand it, still is real. Further infants who are to be saved, as certainly some of that age are wholly saved, it is not in the least obscure were before regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring with them from their mother's womb innate corruption, they must be purged from it before they can be adÂ­mitted into the kingdom of heaven, into which nothing impure and polluted enters" (ICR, 4.16.17, p. 1340). This he fully discusses in the following sections.


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Yes, I've read Edwards. Edwards remains consistent in the same way I am discussing in these last few posts. He was a stalwart advocate for the same truths. Yes, a Paedo-baptist even in spite of Piper. . . .



. . . or with respect to chronology we could say that "Piper is a Credo-baptist in spite of Edwards"


----------



## piningforChrist

> Contra Calvin, Edwards claimed that most elect children would be regenerated, not in infancy, but in later life, with a conversion experience. Edwards offers two reasons for his position. First, otherwise most of the elect would never experience their sinful natures alone. Following this line of reasoning, Edwards argued that ministers who were converted in their infancy would be at a disadvantage in counselling their congregation, for they would not understand the conversion experiences that their parishioners would undergo. Second, Edwards argues that regenerated infants would never know a deep religious experience of their deliverance from sin and misery. God's covenant relationship with believers and their seed, in the line of continued generations, was being buried.
> http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/newengland.htm



I believe that Edwards would claim, based on the above quote and my reading of many of his sermons, including "A Divine and Supernatural Light" and "Justification By Faith Alone," that regeneration and faith are gifts given by the Holy Spirit in conjuction with the hearing of the Word at a moment in time when mental faculties are able (with the enablement of God) to hear and believe such things. This is why, though I believe that election is a truth that is secured from before the foundation of the world, faith and regeneration are gifts given when God pleases upon the work of the Holy Spirit in conjuction with the Word.

Do you understand or agree in any way? If I am incorrect either in my apprehension of truth or in my evaluation of Edwards, please explain how and in what manner.

Thank you.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Based on the information posted, Piper is simply blundering even on basic points that should be evident if he understood, rightly _regeneration_. He is mistakingly setting forth the doctrine of _preaching_ for understanding how God, for all men saved, regnerates; but covers himself, conveniently, by saying that infants will be saved in "some mysterious way" which is nonsensical.

This DENIES John 3 that says that no one can see or eneter the Kingdom of heaven without BEING born again. (i.e. born from above).

All those in heaven, infants include Dr. Piper, are REGNERATED. There is nothing mysterious about that (though regeneration in and of itself may be mysterious in the Spirit's working). Theologically, though, it is QUITE clear.

Matthew, it sounds, like Dr. Piper, that you are having a problem with REGNERATION, and how that works. I wuold suggest reading this:

Regeneration, by Peter Van MAstricht (Jonathan Edwards' favorite book) or this:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonHSRegenSanct.htm


[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## piningforChrist

Edwards states,

<P>II. I proceed now to the <I>second</I> thing proposed, <I>viz.</I>, to show how this light is immediately given by God, and not obtained by natural means. And here, 
<P>1. It is not intended that the natural faculties are not made use of in it. The natural faculties are the subject of this light: and they are the subject in such a manner, that they are not merely passive, but active in it; the acts and exercises of man's understanding are concemed and made use of in it. God, in letting in this light into the soul, deals with man according to his nature, or as a rational creature; and makes use of his human faculties. But yet this light is not the less immediately from God for that; though the faculties are made use of, it is as the subject and not as the cause; and that acting of the faculties in it, is not the cause, but is either implied in the thing itself (in the light that is imparted) or is the consequence of it. As the use that we make of our eyes in beholding various objects, when the sun arises, is not the cause of the light that discovers those objects to us. 
<P>2. It is not intended that outward means have no concern in this affair. As I have observed already, it is not in this affair, as it is in inspiration, where new truths are suggested: for here is by this light only given a due apprehension of the same truths that are revealed in the word of God; and therefore it is not given without the word. The gospel is made use of in this affair: this light is the "light of the glorious gospel of Christ", 2 Cor. 4:4. The gospel is as a glass by which this light is conveyed to us, 1 Cor. 13:12. "Now we see through a glass." -- But, 
<P>3. When it is said that this light is given immediately by God, and not obtained by natural means, hereby is intended, that it is given by God without making use of any means that operate by their own power, or a natural force God makes use of means; but it is not as mediate causes to produce this effect. There are not truly any second causes of it; but it is produced by God immediately. The word of God is no proper cause of this effect: it does not operate by any natural force in it. The word of God is only made use of to convey to the mind the subject matter of this saving instruction: and this indeed it doth convey to us by natural force or influence. It conveys to our minds these and those doctrines; it is the cause of the notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of the divine excellency of them in our hearts. Indeed a person cannot have spiritual light without the word. But that does not argue, that the word properly causes that light. The mind cannot see the excellency of any doctrine, unless that doctrine be first in the mind; but the seeing of the excellency of the doctrine may be immediately from the Spirit of God; though the conveying of the doctrine or proposition itself may be by the word. So that the notions that are the subject matter of this light, are conveyed to the mind by the word of God; but that due sense of the heart, wherein this light formally consists, is immediately by the Spirit of God. As for instance, that notion that there is a Christ, and that Christ is holy and gracious, is conveyed to the mind by the word of God: but the sense of the excellency of Christ by reason of that holiness and grace, is nevertheless immediately the work of the Holy Spirit. -- I come now, </P>

http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/sermons/supernatural_light.html


----------



## piningforChrist

So, natural faculties are not the cause, but are always used, so he seems to say.



> As I have observed already, it is not in this affair, as it is in inspiration, where new truths are suggested: for here is by this light only given a due apprehension of the same truths that are revealed in the word of God; and therefore it is not given without the word. The gospel is made use of in this affair: this light is the "light of the glorious gospel of Christ", 2 Cor. 4:4.



[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> So, natural faculties are not the cause, but are always used, so he seems to say.
> 
> [Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]



As a result of regeneration, and of course in the cases that one is able to use them. An unborn infant or an imbecile cannot. O

Obvioulsy, this is what Edwards is addressing as the ideas that have been presented thus far are not foreign to his theology.


----------



## piningforChrist

Supposedly, a man may not have spiritual light without the Word, God always (or we may suppose either always or most always) uses His Word:



> The word of God is only made use of to convey to the mind the subject matter of this saving instruction: and this indeed it doth convey to us by natural force or influence. It conveys to our minds these and those doctrines; it is the cause of the notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of the divine excellency of them in our hearts. Indeed a person cannot have spiritual light without the word. But that does not argue, that the word properly causes that light.


----------



## Scott Bushey

No man, outside of the *elect infant dying in infancy or the imbecile, will, or can be saved outside of the orthodox doctrine of _hearing_ Gods word in order to be converted. That means that all the elect WILL hear the word preached by Gods chosen vessel. All those whom do not hear, are NOT elect and rightfully perish.

*The elect infant , as well hears God word preached. However, it is by Gods Himself that this is accomplished.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## piningforChrist

If baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties, should we baptize infants?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> If baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties, should we baptize infants?



Where did you get such a definition? Is that more Piper?


----------



## piningforChrist

No; I formulated that definition.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## piningforChrist

This is what baptism is, according to the Scriptures. Do you disagree? If so, in what respect?


----------



## Scott Bushey

*The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXXIV 
Holy Baptism * 

We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has made an end, by the shedding of His blood, of all other sheddings of blood which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin; and that He, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to Him whose mark and ensign we bear; and which serves as a testimony to us that He will forever be our gracious God and Father.
Therefore He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized with pure water, into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, thereby signifying to us, that as water washes away the filth of the body when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled upon him, so does the blood of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan.

The ministers, therefore, on their part administer the sacrament and that which is visible, but our Lord gives that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing, and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of His fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds.
We believe, therefore, that every man who is earnestly studious of obtaining life eternal ought to be baptized but once with this only baptism, without ever repeating the same, since we cannot be born twice. Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life.

Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.


*The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism*
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20


*The Larger Catechism, Questions 165-166*
Q165: What is Baptism? 
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[8] 

1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered? 
A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.[2] 

1. Acts 2:38; 8:36-37
2. Gen. 17:7, 9; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:16; I Cor. 7:14; Matt 28:19; Luke 18:15-16


----------



## piningforChrist

I know what the confession states. Please share your view, if you don't mind. Since baptism marks faith expressed, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers. Please contradict that statement from Scripture, not from the confession (though the confession is supposed to be a summation of Scripture, in this point it is in error, that is my proposition).

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> If baptism is at least a proclaimation *of the person's treasuring of the divine light* in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties, should we baptize infants?



Matthew,

You are still missing the point. Edward's sermon concerns those who can hear the Word of God and exercise outwardly what they hear. It is based on Matthew 16:17 "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." 

It is a sermon on illumination, as Edward's distinguishes it. It evidences Peter's blessedness as it intimates that his knowledge is above any that flesh and blood can _reveal._ It is not new information, but impressed information (i.e. a light to what was revelaed to him - intellectually).

Edwards saw three points to illumination and may be studied at three points: regeneration, sanctification, and glorification.

Edwards states the importance of notional knowledge as he presses hard on the congregation to study with the "œprobability" that God will grant them to be spiritually enlightened. "œSeeking" doctrine is already present in Edwards´ earliest biblical preaching.

If we would get spiritual and saving knowledge we must receive all opportunities of hearing. Those that don´t think that spiritual knowledge worthy the constant attendance on the preaching of the word can´t reasonably expect that God will bestow it on them. If we make little things an excuse for staying at home and not coming to God´s house for instruction, God may justly make our . . . sins a means to provoke him to withhold instruction."

In scholastic fashion, Edwards finds the procuring cause to be the merit and intercession of Christ; the efficient cause the Holy Spirit; the instrumental cause the word of God, and the foundational cause, regeneration. Regeneration is something infants may experience.

What God does in regeneration is in the foreground while His sovereignty is in the background in the sermon on Matthew 16:17; His sovereignty in regeneration is in the foreground and what He does in regeneration in the background in the sermon on John 3:7. The Matthew sermon (which is the Divine and Supernatural Light), the second to be published and probably the most favorably received of all by subsequent generations. Edwards´ statement of his doctrine is, however, much fuller: "œThat there is such a thing as a spiritual and divine light, *immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a different nature from any that is obtained by natural means."* This means that 1) you have to understand Edwards in context of his theology. 2) That what you are proposing is not what Edwards taught (i.e. that the Word must be preached for men to have faith). 

Effectual calling, conversions, repentance and regeneration were approximately synonymous terms. An important statement in Original Sin shows the identity of the last three terms.

"I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts 3:19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing. The word Î¼ÎµÏ„Î±ÌÏšÎ½Î¿Î¹Î± (repentance) signifies a change of the mind; as the word "œconversion" means a change or turning from sin to God. And that this is the same change with that which is called regeneration (excepting that this latter term especially signifies the change, as the mind is passive in it) the following things do shew.Effectual calling, conversions, repentance and regeneration were approximately synonymous terms. An important statement in Original Sin shows the identity of the last three terms." Works (Yale), 3:362, see Original Sin Part III, Chapter II.

Edwards notes observing that the mind is passive in regeneration.

Edwards often notes that "œconversion" too has reference to the passivity of the mind as well as its reflex activity. He especially notes that repentance is a change of the mind [which as we shall soon see he constantly attributes exclusively to God the mind of man being passive (if not hostile) at the time of the change.] Man´s active turning away from sin and toward God is, again, a reflex of God´s activity in changing. So, in Edwards, regeneration, repentance and conversion have their passive aspects. "œEffectual calling" or "œcalling" also possesses this feature though it is followed by an active human response, of course.

Gerstner notes:

With regard to this topic, consider also the important M 15:

"IRRESISTIBLE GRACE. To dispute, as more latterly they do, whether the divine assistance is always efficacious or no, is perfectly ridiculous. For it is self-evident that the divine assistance is always efficacious to do that which we are assisted to. And it is no less certain, that it is efficacious to all that God intends it shall be efficacious [to]; that is, when God assists, he assists to all that he intends to assist to. But that the divine assistance is always efficacious to all that it has a tendency to in its own nature, is what nobody affirms."

In Edwards´ theology regeneration or "œefficacious grace" is immediate and supernatural. He says, "Things which God doth for the salvation and blessedness of the saints are like an inviolable chain reaching from a duration without beginning to a duration without end," p. 3, Contribution lecture, December 7, 1739.

Regeneration consists in the divine infusion of a new nature. It is a gracious principle in the soul. This is no mere alteration of habits or outward behavior, but a change on the inside. It is "œphysical" (in the realistic sense of the word) and not merely moral.

Gerstner says, "The clearest and fullest statement that the Spirit is the foundation of regeneration is found in the Treatise on Grace, which was not first published until 1865." He quotes Edwards:



> I suppose there is no other principle of grace in the soul than the very Holy Ghost dwelling in the soul and acting there as a vital principle. To speak of a habit of grace as a natural disposition to act grace, as begotten in the soul by the first communication of Divine light, and as the natural and necessary consequence of the first light, it seems in some respects to carry a wrong idea with it. Indeed the first exercise of grace in the first light has a tendency to future acts, as from an abiding principle, by grace and by the covenant of God; but not by any natural force. The giving one gracious discovery or act of grace, or a thousand, has no proper natural tendency to cause an abiding habit of grace for the future; nor any otherwise than by Divine constitution and covenant. But all succeeding acts of grace must be as immediately, and, to all intents and purposes, as much from the immediate acting of the Spirit of God on the soul, as the first; and if God should take away His Spirit out of the soul, all habits and acts of grace would of themselves cease as immediately as light ceases in a room when a candle is carried out. And no man has a habit of grace dwelling in him any otherwise than as he has the Holy Spirit dwelling in him in his temple, and acting in union with his natural faculties, after the manner of a vital principle. So that when they act grace, ´tis, in the language of the Apostle, "œnot they, but Christ living in them." Indeed the Spirit of God, united to human faculties, acts very much after the manner of a natural principle or habit. So that one act makes way for another, and so it now settles the soul in a disposition to holy acts; but that it does, so as by grace and covenant, and not from any natural necessity. _Edwards, "œTreatise on Grace," in Grosart, Selections, p. 55; reprinted in Treatise on Grace and other posthumously published writings, by Jonathan Edwards, edited, with an Introduction by Paul Helm (Cambridge: James Clark & Co. Ltd., 1971), pp. 74-75. Cf. the discussion of Bruce Stephens in his "œChanging Conceptions of the Holy Spirit in American Protestant Theology From Jonathan Edwards to Charles G. Finney," St. Luke Journal 33 (June 1990): 209-223._



Gerstner says, "We may conclude this section with a question concerning the relation between regeneration and illumination. Both mark the very beginning of the Christian life. How are they related to each other? They seem in their beginning not to be mutually dependent. That is, the illumination does not seem to depend on the regeneration, nor the regeneration on the illumination. The illumination comes from God immediately, not from the nature, even the regenerate nature, of man. Nor can the regeneration come from the illumination. The amiableness of the divine attributes is always there, but it is never seen by the carnal nature of man. The natural man is totally destitute of this "œknowledge." Therefore, when a person sees the light he is no longer an unconverted person. Unconverted persons cannot see it in order to become changed. They must be changed in order to see it. Therefore the conversion must come directly from God even as the light does. But they must come simultaneously. When the light dawns, at that very moment the spiritual eyes are opened. These two phenomena are not causally related, it would seem, but only occasionally. This is Edwards´ soteriological "œpre-established harmony.""

That is "Edwards" on how regneration occurs.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> I know what the confession states. Please share your view, if you don't mind. Since baptism marks faith expressed, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers. Please contradict that statement from Scripture, not from the confession (though the confession is supposed to be a summation of Scripture, in this point it is in error, that is my proposition).
> 
> [Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]



That is my view. This is exactly what the confessions are made for. To combat error and heresy. I cannot say it any better.............


As far as "immersion" goes, here is a paper on it.....

THE MODE OF BAPTISM
(as cited from William the Baptist) 

I. Passages that imply pouring or sprinkling

"¢ Daniel 4:33 (LXX 5:21)
-Nebuchadnezzar (bapto) wet with the dew of heaven 

"¢ Mark 7:4 (cf. John 2:6) 
-tables immersed? The largest estimate (as per John 2:6) would be 27 gallons, hardly a sufficient amount for immersing
-besides immersing itself does not accomplish cleaning; 

"¢ Mark 10:38-39
-Christ is speaking of his sufferings in regards to baptism
-does He immerse himself in His troubles, or are His sufferings applied to
Him? 

"¢ Luke 11:38
-washing your hands; does it mean immersing or pouring water over them?

II. Baptism as burial (Romans 6:2-4) 

Baptism, it is argued, is a picture of Christ´s burial (cf. Romans 6:2-4). 
The pastor asks what the burial of Jesus had to do with his great work for us. 
William answers and says that it proved that He really died. Besides it shows forth, in contrast, His resurrection.
The pastor replies that being buried is not necessary to prove the resurrection. Sunday is the day in which we commemorate Christ´s resurrection, and it is more than sufficient to remember it (baptism itself therefore does not need to be invoked to commemorate it).
The pastor goes on to say that the purpose of Romans 6 is not to teach us about baptism, for no other passage in the scripture ties baptism to burial, but to tell us about "œour death to sin." (page 51) 
When we examine the burial of Christ, we see that he was not placed in the earth. If he was placed in a room in a house with the door shut it would not have been materially different. Christ was not buried in the earth. If we are baptized into his death, or buried with him we are speaking of our union with the Lord and not baptism per se. Even so, as per the arguments of the Baptist, sprinkling or pouring fits the picture here just as well as immersion (see the following argument concerning the nature of Christ´s baptism). 

III. Baptism and the work of the Spirit

Mark 1:8 "œI indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."
-the water refers to, in scripture, as a cleansing agent; just as the Holy Spirit cleanses us from sin 
Proverbs 1:23; Isaiah 32:15; Isaiah 44:3; Ezekiel 39:29; Joel 2:28-29 (cf. Acts 2:16,33); John 1:33; Mark 1:10; Titus 3:6

Even in Acts 2:1-4 where the Spirit descends upon the apostles it is not the Spirit that fills the house but the noise of wind; the Spirit comes down upon them (N.B. just as the Spirit descends upon Christ after His baptism). 

IV. The baptism of Christ (Mark 1:8-10)

John´s baptism was "œunto repentance." Since our Lord did not need repentance he was baptized "œto fulfill all righteousness." In Numbers 8:5-7 we have a hint as to what this (legal) righteousness was: the Levites were sprinkled with water for their cleansing or purification. 

In Mark 1:9-10 we read that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan and came out of the water after His baptism. It is assumed that this means immersion, but this cannot be proven. Taken in connection with Numbers 8, it seems clear that Jesus could have been baptized as to His whole person with just a sprinkling (representing whole cleansing. cf. John 13:10 "œJesus said to him, "˜He who is bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.´" cf. Hebrews 9:19)

As an aside, looking at John´s baptism as well as that of Acts (Acts 2:41) it seems that to baptize the multitudes (especially the 3,000 in Acts) would require massive amount of water as well as time. It is unlikely that the authorities would have allowed a public immersion of this size; far more likely is it that they were sprinkled as per Hebrews 9:19. Besides, it would have been exhausting to immerse all such persons; an insurmountable duty for the apostles let alone one prophet!

V. The baptism of the eunuch (Acts 8:36-39) 

It is understood that the eunuch was immersed because he went down onto the water and was baptized. The only problem with this is that it is recorded that Phillip went into the water as well, and no one would suggest that he baptized himself and the eunuch. 
Secondly, Philip is told to go to Gaza to meet the eunuch. It is well known that there was not enough water in such a region to baptize. 
Thirdly, the eunuch had the understanding that "œit was his duty to be baptized." (page 81). This is a reference to Isaiah which he was reading. Philip explained chapter 53, and we read in Isaiah 52:15 "œSo shall He sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; For what had not been told them they shall see, And what they had not heard they shall consider." 

VI. The baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48)

The reason those who hear the gospel are baptized is because of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them ("œpoured out" cf. 10:38). The rite of baptism is tied to the work of the Holy Spirit who comes from above. Second, the baptism of the people is implied to be instant. There is no hint that they are brought to water but that water is brought to them. 






[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Since baptism marks *faith expressed*, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers.
> [Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]



Where in the world do the Scriptures even hint this? Where does it say anywhere that the sign of the covenant = faith expressed?

Baptism is a sign. Baptism is a seal. (see covenant signs and seals at Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12). Where do the Scriptures say that "Baptism is to be administered only to those who express faith?" Huh? I know of no credo-baptist through HISTORY that asserts they can prove that statement Scripturally. Rather, they deductively come to conlcusions about baptism by a dispensational hermeneutic appealing to NT passages.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Since baptism marks *faith expressed*, it is necessarily tied to immersion of believers.
> [Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in the world do the Scriptures even hint this? Where does it say anywhere that the sign of the covenant = faith expressed?
> 
> Baptism is a sign. Baptism is a seal. (see covenant signs and seals at Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12). Where do the Scriptures say that "Baptism is to be administered only to those who express faith?" Huh? I know of no credo-baptist through HISTORY that asserts they can prove that statement Scripturally. Rather, they deductively come to conlcusions about baptism by a dispensational hermeneutic appealing to NT passages.
> 
> [Edited on 11-16-2005 by webmaster]
Click to expand...


Matt,
I already asked this earlier:



> Please show me a passage in the new testament that forbids placing the sign upon a child? Where did God say to change the program from what He originally decreed, that being placing the sign upon the child.
> 
> The great commission commands to make disciples (not all disciples were true believers) and to place the sign upon them.


----------



## piningforChrist

Romans 5:20-6:4:

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.


----------



## piningforChrist

Baptism portrays what happened to us when we became Christians, when we became justified.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Care to comment on Ananias and Saphira; they were baptised? Or how about Demas? He was baptized.

Joh 6:60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 
Joh 6:61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 
Joh 6:62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 
Joh 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 
Joh 6:65 And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." 
Joh 6:66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

How about these guys, they were as well baptized. Were they justified?


----------



## piningforChrist

Baptism as commanded by Christ is instituted for justifed persons to portray what God did when He justified them. That is its primary purpose.


----------



## piningforChrist

Pastor Way says,



> Baptism is not the sign nor seal of the New Covenant any way. The cup of the Lord's Supper is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; 1Cor.11:25; Hebrews 13:20). The seal is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14).



Baptism as commanded by Christ is instituted for justifed persons to portray what God did when He justified them. That is its primary purpose.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Baptism as commanded by Christ is instituted for justifed persons to portray what God did when He justified them. That is its primary purpose.



As Dr. McMahon has inquired, please provide the passages that support this idea. You can't; there aren't any! The commission calls us to _make disciples_ and baptize them. That is exactly what was done w/ Ananias and Saphira, Demas and these other unknowns who 'walked no more' w/ Christ. It has nothing to do with their justification.

As well, how would anyone know whom is actually justified? 

If that is the case, no one would qualify as no one knows who is actually justified.

All for now, nighty night!


----------



## piningforChrist

Here is the Scripture I previously provided. It proves my position thoroughly.

Romans 5:20-6:4:

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This is not intended to sound unduly harsh but you seem to have ignored or misunderstood the first five pages of this thread and the last three pages have been almost exclusively generated by you and others trying to re-explain the previous five to you. 

I recommend you take a breath, go back and read all that's been written and make sure you understand both viewpoints. Then come back and let's discuss some new issues.


----------



## piningforChrist

Rich, my arguments (and those of Piper) have only been brushed off, and have yet to be addressed. So, as far as I am concerned, the first 5 pages of this thread were interesting; I sought to add to the discussion and not one person has yet to address the issue I just brought up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Rich, my arguments (and those of Piper) have only been brushed off, and have yet to be addressed. So, as far as I am concerned, the first 5 pages of this thread were interesting; I sought to add to the discussion and not one person has yet to address the issue I just brought up.


The arguments you presented from Piper were addressed earlier in the thread. Just because Piper's name wasn't addressed or it looked a bit different doesn't mean the issue was not addressed.

Your issue above has been addressed as well. Again the form might have been different but the substance was the same.


----------



## piningforChrist

After reading over the arguments, Scripture has shown itself to support this confession exclusively:

'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'

1698 Baptist Confession

And, I believe that it is not an inference based on a dispensational eyes, but a direct conculsion from Romans 5:20-6:4. Am I correct?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> After reading over the arguments, Scripture has shown itself to support this confession exclusively:
> 
> 'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'
> 
> 1698 Baptist Confession
> 
> And, I believe that it is not an inference based on a dispensational eyes, but a direct conculsion from Romans 5:20-6:4. Am I correct?


No. For the reasons previously cited.


----------



## piningforChrist

I guess what I'm saying is that I just stated an axiom from Scripture and "reasons previously cited" will not and can not bring resolution. Only Scripture can, and Scripture has yet to defeat the axiom:

'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'

Based on,

Romans 5:20-6:4:

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> I guess what I'm saying is that I just stated an axiom from Scripture and "reasons previously cited" will not and can not bring resolution. Only Scripture can, and Scripture has yet to defeat the axiom:
> 
> 'Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the party baptized- a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Christ Jesus, to live and walk in newness of life'
> 
> Based on,
> 
> Romans 5:20-6:4:
> 
> And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.


Present a Scripture that will defend your confession and then I'll agree with it. Your Scripture does not and the reasons previously cited show clear Scriptures that refute.

On the face of it, your "axiom" includes elements that are nowhere mentioned in the passage cited:
1. The verses say nothing about water baptism per se
2. They say nothing about a person giving up of himself. In fact, I know of no Scripture that describe baptism like that

Thus, it is ridiculous to assert that your Scripture verses line up so indelibly with your confession that the truth of it is axiomatic.

I can agree with some of the parts of the Confession on Baptism but certainly not all. As confessions go it's the best Baptist one. Nevertheless it's lacking in substantive language that other Scriptures ascribe exegetically to the sacrament.

The substance has been argued from both sides.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*I really like this New Covenant text...*

Isaiah 59:20-21

20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord.
21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.


That's just a taste. Isaiah 59 and 60 are awesome, simply awesome.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Isaiah is part of what made me paedo, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Hebrews.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Isaiah is part of what made me paedo, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Hebrews.


and Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, ....


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Isaiah is part of what made me paedo, along with Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Hebrews.
> 
> 
> 
> and Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, ....
Click to expand...


Not Ruth?  :bigsmile:


----------



## kceaster

Perhaps I'm a little slow, but it just occured to me that these "gleanings" that Baptists do of baptism texts are not really expounded by the Apostles in their teachings. What's more, Jesus doesn't expound like the Baptists, either. I know we accuse the Baptists of eisogesis, but if their postulations are true, why is it that the Apostles don't practice what the Baptists preach?

Take some example postulations (I realize that Matthew may not be speaking for the entire baptistic population.)

Postulation 1:
Baptism portrays what happened to us when we became Christians, when we became justified.

Does Paul anywhere claim that baptism is a portrait of our justification? Where does Paul talk about the connection between baptism and justification? Doesn't he more likely show that the portrait of our justification is the Cross of Christ? Doesn't he more likely teach that regeneration, which would be closely tied to baptism because it is the sign of the Holy Spirit's work of renewal, is the result of the gospel message being received by our hearts, not the result of our justification? If this is so, then baptism is not the result of justification, but logically prior. Isn't this what Paul preaches?

Postulation 2:
Baptism is at least a proclaimation of the person's treasuring of the divine light in his affections when it is apprehended by the natural faculties.

Who in the NT places such an emphasis on baptism? Where do they teach that a person proclaims anything in baptism? Where do they teach the convert to treasure baptism? Where do they teach that divine light, or any spiritual gift for that matter, is apprehended by the natural faculties?

Matthew, if you don't know it already, the 1689 is almost word for word with the Assembly of Westminster. Now, I'm not trying say more than what needs to be said, but quite frankly, the 1689 Baptists did not have to do as much work. If they merely took what was already and whittled down the parts they didn't like, then that confession just doesn't seem to me to be as well thought out. They didn't have the disciplines that the divines had. They didn't have to have the discipline since most of the document was already in front of them. This may mean that what they put forward was not as carefully addressed as it should have been. You might want to look more carefully at Chapter 11. They do not site Romans 6:3-6 anywhere in their treatment of Justification. Baptism may indeed be linked to justification, just as the preaching of the gospel is linked. But they did not inextricably tie baptism to justification, nor should they, because the Bible does not teach it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon




----------



## Saiph

Perspicacious as usual Kevin.


----------



## piningforChrist

> Does Paul anywhere claim that baptism is a portrait of our justification? Where does Paul talk about the connection between baptism and justification? Doesn't he more likely show that the portrait of our justification is the Cross of Christ? Doesn't he more likely teach that regeneration, which would be closely tied to baptism because it is the sign of the Holy Spirit's work of renewal, is the result of the gospel message being received by our hearts, not the result of our justification? If this is so, then baptism is not the result of justification, but logically prior. Isn't this what Paul preaches?



Notice how in my first postulation, I said baptism portrays what happened to us when we were saved, what happened to us when we were justified. The Scriptural support of this postulation was already given and has yet to be refuted:

Romans 5:20-6:4:

And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 



> Who in the NT places such an emphasis on baptism? Where do they teach that a person proclaims anything in baptism? Where do they teach the convert to treasure baptism? Where do they teach that divine light, or any spiritual gift for that matter, is apprehended by the natural faculties?



Peter says:

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Baptism is in the name of Jesus, thereby proclaiming His lordship. It is tied to repentance and therefore is a rightful expression of treasuring the divine light that is apprehended through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Paul says:

Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Faith releases us from the captivity of the law. We become sons of God through faith. And, our baptism into Christ is likened to putting on Christ. When we are baptised, we are outwardly proclaiming our putting on of Christ as we inwardly treasure that reality that was communicated to our minds by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus says:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "œAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

There is a reason they are baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is a proclaimation of the lordship of the triune God in the heart of the believer. It may be implied that this proclaimation is attended with the treasuring of the believer of all God is for him in Christ.

I too have been convinced of the verity of the historical view and practice of believer baptism from the Scriptures, Old and New Testiments. Moreover, stalwarts such as Charles Spurgeon, A. W. Pink, and John Bunyan were likewise convinced from the Scriptures of their positions, matching the claim you have put forth of historical othodoxy from the members of the Westminster Assembly. 

On the mode of baptism, the Weminster Divines had their eyes clouded by tradition. With hundreds of years between us, their mistakes are clearly seen from the Scriptures.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Do all baptism validate one's position in Christ?


----------



## piningforChrist

That question does not need to be answered. Done properly within the context of a healthy local church, most will.


----------



## BrianBowman

Is this an accurate summary of the play-by-play so far?

Matthew Johnson's entire line of reasoning reveals the hermeneutical differences between the covenantal continuity (with progressive revelation) which underlies padeo-baptist position -AND- the discontinuity fundamental to the credo-baptist position (i.e. God has done something "brand new" with the New Covenant that requires a "brand new" ordinance of baptism by imersion for confessing believers).

Matthew continues to challenge the padeo position with proof-texts while Rich, Scott, Matt McMahon, and others advance replies that attempt to engage Matthew (and indeed the Credo postion in total) with a comprehensive *understanding* of The Covenant of Grace and its progressive unfolding in _all_ of Scripture.

The Word of God is self-validating in its mandate that we get "understanding". Here is the list of references from the Proverbs alone:

Prov. 2:2-3,6,11; 3:5,13,19; 5:1; 8:1; 10:13,23; 11:12; 14:6,29,33; 15:14,21; 16:16; 17:10,27; 18:2; 19:8,25; 20:5; 21:30; 23:23; 24:3; 28:2,7,11,16; 30:2

So it would seem that proper hermeneutics should lead us to _understand_ ALL of Scripture without making any one Scripture repugnant to another. After nearly 20 years of considering these matters I believe the Covenantal view provides this understanding.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Do all baptism validate one's position in Christ?





> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> That question does not need to be answered. Done properly within the context of a healthy local church, most will.



"No." It is a simple answer for any Credo-only person or Paedo/credo person.

Why avoid the obvious answer with a "most will?"

If your position is so rock solid Matthew, then there should be no need to cower when asked a basic question.

An honest answer certainly does not destroy the credo-only argument for you does it?

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## piningforChrist

Chris, "most will" implies that "every external baptism will not validate ones particular position in Christ." I answered the question. I saw that it was a leading quesiton, and I wanted to give a richer and deeper answer than simply "no." Therefore, I qualified my "no."

Brian, I claimed that there is both a continuity and a discontinuity between the covenants, echoing what Piper has written. You and all the other members of the board who have consistently ignored my arguments, claiming that they flow from a dispensational viewpoint, have not given my position its just hearing. My arguments expand on the issues addressed in the first part of this discussion, pointing out the oversight of the Westminster Divines concerning the discontinuity between the covenants which lead to an erroneous view of the mode of baptism. Do you (and others here) recognize that there is a difference betwenn the two covenants? Does this difference affect the mode of baptism, the sign of the new covenant which portrays what God does in bringing us into the new covenant family? 

Additionally, let me say that my position and general view of Scripture does not fall into one particular category of dispensational/covenant theology/new covenant theology. I am furthest from a dispensational viewpoint, being most in harmony with the other two summations of Scripture's general theme.

Please read the above and this below and respond to the arguments specifically:

"But Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21 seemed to me to be devastating to the pedobaptist viewpoint. Paul compares baptism with circumcision and says, "You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." This says clearly: in baptism we are raised through faith. Baptism is effectual as an expression of faith. I did not see how an infant could properly accept this sign of faith.

Then 1 Peter 3:21 said, "Baptism. . . saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text frightens many Baptists away because it seems to come close to the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican notion that the rite in and of itself saves. But in fleeing from this text we throw away a powerful argument for believer baptism. For as J.D.G. Dunn says, this is the closest thing we have to a definition which includes faith. Baptism is "an appeal to God." That is, baptism is the cry of faith to God. In that senses and to that degree, it is part of God's means of salvation. This should not scare us off any more than the sentence, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . you will be saved." The movement of the lips in the air and the movement of the body in water save only in the sense that they express the appeal and faith of the heart toward God."


Moreover, 

"There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have undervalued the discontinuity. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we honor both the continuity and discontinuity between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs.

The continuity is expressed like this: Just as circumcision was administered to all the physical sons of Abraham who made up the physical Israel, so baptism should be administered to all the spiritual sons of Abraham who make up the spiritual Israel, the church. But who are these spiritual sons of Abraham who constitute the people of God in our age?

Galatians 3:7 says, "So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham." The new thing, since Jesus has come, is that the covenant people of God are no longer a political, ethnic nation, but a body of believers.

John the Baptist inaugurated this change and introduced the new sign of baptism. By calling all Jews to repent and be baptized, John declared powerfully and offensively that physical descent does not make one part of God's family and that circumcision, which signifies a physical relationship, will now be replaced by baptism, which signifies a spiritual relationship. The apostle Paul picks up this new emphasis, especially in Romans 9, and says, "Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants. . . it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God" (vs. 7-8).

Therefore a very important change has occurred in redemptive history. There is discontinuity as well as continuity.

Zwingli and Calvin and their heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently than when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The people of God are no longer formed through natural kinship, but through supernatural conversion to faith in Christ.

With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus and the apostles, the emphasis now is that the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community.

And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism."

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## Saiph

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Is this an accurate summary of the play-by-play so far?
> 
> Matthew Johnson's entire line of reasoning reveals the hermeneutical differences between the covenantal continuity (with progressive revelation) which underlies padeo-baptist position -AND- the discontinuity fundamental to the credo-baptist position (i.e. God has done something "brand new" with the New Covenant that requires a "brand new" ordinance of baptism by imersion for confessing believers).
> 
> Matthew continues to challenge the padeo position with proof-texts while Rich, Scott, Matt McMahon, and others advance replies that attempt to engage Matthew (and indeed the Credo postion in total) with a comprehensive *understanding* of The Covenant of Grace and its progressive unfolding in _all_ of Scripture.
> 
> The Word of God is self-validating in its mandate that we get "understanding". Here is the list of references from the Proverbs alone:
> 
> Prov. 2:2-3,6,11; 3:5,13,19; 5:1; 8:1; 10:13,23; 11:12; 14:6,29,33; 15:14,21; 16:16; 17:10,27; 18:2; 19:8,25; 20:5; 21:30; 23:23; 24:3; 28:2,7,11,16; 30:2
> 
> So it would seem that proper hermeneutics should lead us to _understand_ ALL of Scripture without making any one Scripture repugnant to another. After nearly 20 years of considering these matters I believe the Covenantal view provides this understanding.



Sounds accurate to me.


----------



## piningforChrist

My position and its postulates (updated not with "proof texts" but instead with biblical examples and explainations) have yet to be given a just hearing.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Notice how in my first postulation, I said baptism portrays what happened to us when we were saved, what happened to us when we were justified. The Scriptural support of this postulation was already given and has yet to be refuted:
> 
> Romans 5:20-6:4:
> 
> And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, (21) that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (6:1) What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? (2) May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (3) Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? (4) Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.



Please see your own confession for refutation: This passage speaks about sanctification, not justification, as the 1689 uses it in Chapter 13 on Sanctification.

Therefore, according to the 1689 (and the Westminster on which it is based) baptism is a precursor of both justification and sanctification, since one must needs happen before the other. Baptism does not happen because of justification or of sanctification, but stands logically prior to both since baptism is not merely the application of water by the minister in the name of the Trinity, but also the sign of the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration that may happen at the time of the baptism, before it, or after it.



> Peter says:
> 
> Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."



Repentance is placed on the same plane as baptism in this passage. Further, it is right that Peter preaches this way because it was ordained by our Lord Jesus. But it does not elevate baptism to a proclamation of a person's treasuring the divine light in his affections. If it were, do you not think that Scripture would record what each person said after they had been baptized? Do you remember the most famous saying after a baptism? The Word of God from Heaven spoke, not the person upon whom the baptism was administered. What proclamation can you say after your baptism that adds one thing to the goodness of it? You don't make Jesus Lord, He's Lord already. You don't crown Jesus King, He's King already. There is no proclamation from the person, there is proclamation from God. I should think that the proper proclamation of one who has just been baptized is absolute humble silence.



> Baptism is in the name of Jesus, thereby proclaiming His lordship.



See above. He doesn't need water and a fool to proclaim anything about His Lordship.



> It is tied to repentance and therefore is a rightful expression of treasuring the divine light that is apprehended through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.



First, if we apprehend at all, it is not our words that mean anything. It is God's Word. Therefore, we should be able to find examples of this kind of proclamation in the NT. Further, we should find the apostles teaching that baptism is a proclamation of the believer. We don't find either.



> Paul says:
> 
> Galatians 3:23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.



I'm not sure what you think this proves, but it says nothing about our proclamation in baptism, but everything about God's proclamation to us.



> Faith releases us from the captivity of the law. We become sons of God through faith. And, our baptism into Christ is likened to putting on Christ. When we are baptised, we are outwardly proclaiming our putting on of Christ as we inwardly treasure that reality that was communicated to our minds by the Holy Spirit.



This is only true as the Holy Spirit works. But as we know, baptism is a sign or symbol of what happens, not the actual thing. It is a shadow of a reality. We can't see what happens in baptism. And everywhere the apostle teaches, he knows this. Only those who have been truly baptized by the Holy Spirit in the realm we can't see, have put on Christ. The water is not magic, nor the minister, nor the words, nor the participant. The Holy Spirit makes this effectual to us, and so, only by the Spirit do we put on Christ, not by the symbolic water. Do you see the difference. You're making much too much of the outward sign.



> Jesus says:
> 
> Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "œAll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
> 
> There is a reason they are baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is a proclaimation of the lordship of the triune God in the heart of the believer. It may be implied that this proclaimation is attended with the treasuring of the believer of all God is for him in Christ.



There is no inference that can be drawn anywhere in Scripture that says that water baptism is a proclamation of the Lordship of God in the heart. Again, we say nothing. God says everything. The proclamation must never come from us. We are His, He is not ours. We don't proclaim anything other than His Word and His Word does not tell us that we make Him Lord. We don't make Him Lord. He makes us subjects.

Here baptism is placed on the same plane as teaching, yet you are not suggesting that teaching is equal to the physical sign of baptism.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Baptism being associated in any way with Justification not only scares me, but reminds me of Rome!

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> That question does not need to be answered. Done properly within the context of a healthy local church, most will.



Matthew,
This thinking is akin to Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism. Formula does not have anything to do with salvation; whether or not one church is more _proper_ in their administration of the sacrament than another, is irrelevent.


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> That question does not need to be answered. Done properly within the context of a healthy local church, most will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> This thinking is akin to Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism. Formula does not have anything to do with salvation; whether or not one church is more _proper_ in their administration of the sacrament than another, is irrelevent.
Click to expand...


----------



## piningforChrist

> Please see your own confession for refutation: This passage speaks about sanctification, not justification, as the 1689 uses it in Chapter 13 on Sanctification.



This passage outlines the basis for sanctification, justification. Therefore, it speaks to both. And, baptism is tied to the basis of our sanctification, what God did in justifying us, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4).



> Therefore, according to the 1689 (and the Westminster on which it is based) baptism is a precursor of both justification and sanctification, since one must needs happen before the other. Baptism does not happen because of justification or of sanctification, but stands logically prior to both since baptism is not merely the application of water by the minister in the name of the Trinity, but also the sign of the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration that may happen at the time of the baptism, before it, or after it.



This is refuted because the basis of this argument was refuted. Baptism is tied to justification. Period.



> Repentance is placed on the same plane as baptism in this passage. Further, it is right that Peter preaches this way because it was ordained by our Lord Jesus. But it does not elevate baptism to a proclamation of a person's treasuring the divine light in his affections.



Yes, so baptism is an outward act expressing an inward reality. It is more than repentance as well, because it is done in Jesus name, not the same as the baptism done by John. It involves and outward expression of the inward reality of both repentance and faith.



> If it were, do you not think that Scripture would record what each person said after they had been baptized? Do you remember the most famous saying after a baptism? The Word of God from Heaven spoke, not the person upon whom the baptism was administered. What proclamation can you say after your baptism that adds one thing to the goodness of it?



You are misunderstanding what I am postulating. It is a proclaimation through the symbolic act, not through words.



> You don't make Jesus Lord, He's Lord already. You don't crown Jesus King, He's King already. There is no proclamation from the person, there is proclamation from God. I should think that the proper proclamation of one who has just been baptized is absolute humble silence.



We express our being humbled through baptism, resting in Christ alone for the forgiveness of our sins and for the fulfillment of all God's promises to us in Him, even eternal life. Yes, tears would be more appropriate than words. I did not mention words. In essence I said that the outward act is the proclaimation of God's personal lordship over the heart of the one who has called upon His name and is saved.



> See above. He doesn't need water and a fool to proclaim anything about His Lordship.



God doesn't need the agency of the Holy Spirit or the instrumentation of the Word either. He chooses means for His own secret purposes. We trust and obey, by His grace.



> First, if we apprehend at all, it is not our words that mean anything. It is God's Word. Therefore, we should be able to find examples of this kind of proclamation in the NT. Further, we should find the apostles teaching that baptism is a proclamation of the believer. We don't find either.



It is a proclaimation in the sense that it displays and inward reality, not by words, but by a symbolic expression of faith and repentance present in the heart.



> I'm not sure what you think this proves, but it says nothing about our proclamation in baptism, but everything about God's proclamation to us.



As we are baptised into Christ, we outwardly express the inward reality of our putting on Christ through faith and repentance that He gives to us. In so doing, we treasure Christ in baptism.



> This is only true as the Holy Spirit works. But as we know, baptism is a sign or symbol of what happens, not the actual thing. It is a shadow of a reality. We can't see what happens in baptism. And everywhere the apostle teaches, he knows this. Only those who have been truly baptized by the Holy Spirit in the realm we can't see, have put on Christ. The water is not magic, nor the minister, nor the words, nor the participant. The Holy Spirit makes this effectual to us, and so, only by the Spirit do we put on Christ, not by the symbolic water. Do you see the difference. You're making much too much of the outward sign.



Yes, and only those who have inwardly put on Christ by the Spirit through faith are justified. Baptism by water is an outward expression, proclaimation, and sign of this inward reality.



> There is no inference that can be drawn anywhere in Scripture that says that water baptism is a proclamation of the Lordship of God in the heart.



Yes, there is. Please read over my responses and clarifications of my previous statements.



> Again, we say nothing. God says everything. The proclamation must never come from us. We are His, He is not ours. We don't proclaim anything other than His Word and His Word does not tell us that we make Him Lord. We don't make Him Lord. He makes us subjects.



Our calling upon the name of the Lord is an expression of the heart of the faith that God gives. We outwardly express this inward reality in baptism. Our triune God is magnified, because it is done in His name as a testimony to His gracious working in our lives. He has "shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." In baptism, we express this in an outward symbol and sign.



> Here baptism is placed on the same plane as teaching, yet you are not suggesting that teaching is equal to the physical sign of baptism.



Baptism is a command for those who are made disciples of Christ through the agency of the Holy Spirit and the instrumentation of the proclaimation of His Word. Teaching is also a command.

Hopefully I adequately clarified things. Does my position concur with the biblical text?

Your brother,

Matthew


----------



## Scott Bushey

> Baptism is tied to justification.



1) Baptism is tied to justification
2) If justified, converted
3) all whom are baptised are justified.

Nonsense.


----------



## piningforChrist

Gabe,



> Baptism being associated in any way with Justification not only scares me, but reminds me of Federal Vision proponents!



Baptism is a portrayl of what happened when we became a Christian upon the moment of justification:

"1. Baptism portrays our death in the death of Christ. Verses 3-4a: "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death," Here is a great truth about us Christians. We have died. When Christ died he died our death. This means at least two things. 1) One is that we are not the same people we once were; our old self has died. We are not the same. 2) Another is that our future physical death will not have the same meaning for us that it would have had if Christ had not died our death. Since we have died with Christ, and he died our death for us, our death will not be the horrible thing it would have been. "O death where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55). The answer is that the sting and the victory of death have been swallowed up by Christ. Remember from last week: he drank the tank. Notice the repetition of the word "into" in verses 3 and 4. Baptized "into Christ Jesus," and baptized "into his death" (verse 3), and baptism "into death" (verse 4a). What this says is that baptism portrays our union with Christ, that is, we are united to him spiritually so that his death becomes our death and his life will become our life. How do we experience this? How do you know if this has happened to you? The answer is that it is experienced by faith. You can hear this in the parallel verses. Galatians 2:20 makes the connection with faith: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God. . ." In other words, the "I" who died was the old unbelieving, rebellious "I" and the "I" who came to life was the "I" of faith - "The life I now live I live by faith in the Son of God." And the basis of all this is union with Christ - "Christ lives in me." And I live in him - in spiritual union with him. His death is my death and his life is being lived out in my life.

Another illustration of this would be Colossians 2:6-7a: "As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith." Here again you can see that faith in Christ is the way you experience union with Christ. You receive him as Lord and Savior and in that faith you are united to him and walk "in him" and are built up "in him."

So when Romans 6:3-4a says that we are baptized into Christ and into his death, I take it to mean that baptism expresses the faith in which we experience union with Christ. This is presumably why God designed the mode of baptism to portray a burial. It represents the death that we experience when we are united to Christ. This is why we are immersed: it's a symbolic burial.

So know, believer, that you have died. The old unbelieving, rebellious "I" has been crucified with Christ. This is what your baptism meant and means.

2. Baptism portrays our newness of life in Christ.

Verse 4: "We have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." Nobody stays under the water of baptism. We come up out of the water. After death comes new life. The old "I" of unbelief and rebellion died when I was united to Christ through faith. But the instant the old "I" died a new "I" was given life - a new spiritual person was, as it were, raised from the dead.

The most crucial commentary on this truth is Colossians 2:12. Paul says, "Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Notice: We are raised up with Christ just like Romans 6:4 says we walk in newness of life. And there is the working of God who raised him from the dead just like Romans 6:4 says that Christ was raised through the glory of the Father. And this happens through faith in the working of God who raised Jesus from the dead.

So Colossians 2:12 makes explicit what Romans 6:4 leaves implicit - that baptism expresses our faith in the working of God to raise Jesus from the dead. We believe that Christ is alive from the grave and reigning today at the Father's right hand in heaven from which he will come again in power and glory. And that faith in God's working - God's glory as Paul calls it - is how we share in the newness of life that Christ has in himself.

In fact, the newness of life is the life of faith in the glory and the working of God. "I am crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live . . but the life I live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God." The newness of life is the life of day by day trusting in the working of God - the glory of God.

Baptism Portrays What Happened to us When We Became Christians So let's summarize and come to a conclusion. Baptism portrays what happened to us when we became Christians. This is what happened to us: we were united to Christ. His death became our death. We died with him. And in the same instant, his life became our life. We are now living out the life of Christ in us. And all this is experienced through faith."


Scott and Brian,



> Matthew,
> This thinking is akin to Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism. Formula does not have anything to do with salvation; whether or not one church is more proper in their administration of the sacrament than another, is irrelevent.



I never said formula is conditional upon salvation. I mean that it seems correct to me that most of those who testify of an inward reality of faith and repentance within the context of a healthy church will indeed be honest professors. This may not be the case, it just seems to be the case. Therefore, it seems that most who are baptised will be honestly displaying an inward reality, just as it seems that most professors who are martyred will be honestly displaying an inward reality. Maybe not. It just appears that it may be the case. If not, that is sad, but possible, reality.


----------



## BrianBowman

Precisely why I no longer hold to the Baptist position


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Please see your own confession for refutation: This passage speaks about sanctification, not justification, as the 1689 uses it in Chapter 13 on Sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This passage outlines the basis for sanctification, justification. Therefore, it speaks to both. And, baptism is tied to the basis of our sanctification, what God did in justifying us, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4).
Click to expand...


Matthew, you are still missing the point. Please try to understand the oppositions point.

Examine Romans 6:3-4: Or do you not know that *all of us who have been baptized* into Christ Jesus *have been baptized into His death*? Therefore *we have been buried *with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

Now either all those who have been and ever will be physically baptized are in Christ Jesus and thus justified, or this passage is not referring to baptism alone validating one's position in Christ.

Do you see what we are saying?

Were Ananias and Saphira baptized into Christ's death? Were they buried with Him through baptism into death?


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is tied to justification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Baptism is tied to justification
> 2) If justified, converted
> 3) all whom are baptised are justified.
> 
> Nonsense.
Click to expand...


It is tied to justification in that it portrays (in the lives of honest professors) what happened to us when we were justifed. See my most recent comments.


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Matthew, you are getting "ganged up on now." I apologize brother.

I will back out and let the teachers here continue to guide.

Grace,

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> I never said formula is conditional upon salvation. I mean that it seems correct to me that most of those who testify of an inward reality of faith and repentance within the context of a healthy church will indeed be honest professors. This may not be the case, it just seems to be the case. Therefore, it seems that most who are baptised will be honestly displaying an inward reality, just as it seems that most professors who are martyred will be honestly displaying an inward reality. Maybe not. It just appears that it may be the case. If not, that is sad, but possible, reality.



Hold the presses. You have now destroyed your own premise. You previously wrote:



> Baptism is tied to justification.



If it is _tied_, then one would be justified. You are waffling. Is it or isn't it? Now you say,



> Maybe not


----------



## Scott Bushey

I see your post above.....ok. In _honest_ professors??? Do you mean the elect?


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Please see your own confession for refutation: This passage speaks about sanctification, not justification, as the 1689 uses it in Chapter 13 on Sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This passage outlines the basis for sanctification, justification. Therefore, it speaks to both. And, baptism is tied to the basis of our sanctification, what God did in justifying us, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew, you are still missing the point. Please try to understand the oppositions point.
> 
> Examine Romans 6:3-4: Or do you not know that *all of us who have been baptized* into Christ Jesus *have been baptized into His death*? Therefore *we have been buried *with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
> 
> Now either all those who have been and ever will be physically baptized are in Christ Jesus and thus justified, or this passage is not referring to baptism alone validating one's position in Christ.
> 
> Do you see what we are saying?
> 
> Were Ananias and Saphira baptized into Christ's death? Were they buried with Him through baptism into death?
Click to expand...


Scott, I understand what you are saying. My response is that baptism means and portrays certain things about what happens upon the point of justification by faith for the true believer, not universally for all who are baptised. It is inextricably linked to being buried and being raised in our being united to Christ by faith alone, this inward reality being expressed for the true believer in baptism by immersion.

1. Baptism portrays our death in the death of Christ.

"So when Romans 6:3-4a says that we are baptized into Christ and into his death, I take it to mean that baptism expresses the faith in which we experience union with Christ. This is presumably why God designed the mode of baptism to portray a burial. It represents the death that we experience when we are united to Christ. This is why we are immersed: it's a symbolic burial.

This is what your baptism meant and means.

2. Baptism portrays our newness of life in Christ.

The most crucial commentary on this truth is Colossians 2:12. Paul says, "Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." Notice: We are raised up with Christ just like Romans 6:4 says we walk in newness of life. And there is the working of God who raised him from the dead just like Romans 6:4 says that Christ was raised through the glory of the Father. And this happens through faith in the working of God who raised Jesus from the dead.

So Colossians 2:12 makes explicit what Romans 6:4 leaves implicit - that baptism expresses our faith in the working of God to raise Jesus from the dead. We believe that Christ is alive from the grave and reigning today at the Father's right hand in heaven from which he will come again in power and glory. And that faith in God's working - God's glory as Paul calls it - is how we share in the newness of life that Christ has in himself....

Baptism portrays what happened to us when we became Christians. This is what happened to us: we were united to Christ. His death became our death. We died with him. And in the same instant, his life became our life. We are now living out the life of Christ in us. And all this is experienced through faith."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> I never said formula is conditional upon salvation. I mean that it seems correct to me that most of those who testify of an inward reality of faith and repentance within the context of a healthy church will indeed be honest professors. This may not be the case, it just seems to be the case. Therefore, it seems that most who are baptised will be honestly displaying an inward reality, just as it seems that most professors who are martyred will be honestly displaying an inward reality. Maybe not. It just appears that it may be the case. If not, that is sad, but possible, reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hold the presses. You have now destroyed your own premise. You previously wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is tied to justification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is _tied_, then one would be justified. You are waffling. Is it or isn't it? Now you say,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I would like to erase the phrase "tied". That was a mistake. Baptism and Justification are related, not tied (related is what I meant by tied, but tied has different connotations, so I appologize). Baptism expresses the new covenant reality of faith and repentance whereupon we are justified and born of the Spirit, unlike those of the old covenant whose reality was of the flesh and was marked upon natural birth. Upon faith and repentance, we are justified. Therefore, for the true professor (and baptism was commanded and intended for the true professor), baptism expresses his being united to Christ in His death and in His life, signified by being immersed under the water and being brought up. Since babes cannot be true professors, it is improper to baptize them.


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_



Please explain your frustration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:3-4).

Connect the dots for me please. Where is justification in these two verses?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Matthew,
You are confusing what baptism is subjectively or practically to the believer and what it is theologically.


----------



## piningforChrist

> Connect the dots for me please. Where is justification in these two verses?



From the point of our first declarative justification, "we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." When we called upon the name of the Lord (yes, we continue to do so, but the initial justifying call I have in view here), were justified, and when we were justifed, we were united to Christ in His death and life. Baptism signifies for true professors, their being united to Christ.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

From the LBCF 1689 (Identical on this to the WCF):

"Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Are you saying Baptism AND Faith are the instruments of Justification?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Connect the dots for me please. Where is justification in these two verses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the point of our first declarative justification, "we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." When we called upon the name of the Lord (yes, we continue to do so, but the initial justifying call I have in view here), were justified, and when we were justifed, we were united to Christ in His death and life. Baptism signifies for true professors, their being united to Christ.
Click to expand...



Matthew,
Can you define what you mean by 'professor'?


----------



## piningforChrist

> Matthew,
> You are confusing what baptism is subjectively or practically to the believer and what it is theologically.



The practical expression baptism portrays the theological reality baptism.


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Are you saying Baptism AND Faith are the instruments of Justification?



By no means. I am saying that the practical expression baptism portrays the theological reality baptism for the true professor.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Are you saying Baptism AND Faith are the instruments of Justification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By no means. I am saying that the practical expression baptism portrays the theological reality baptism for the true professor.
Click to expand...


The theological reality of baptism is regeneration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> Connect the dots for me please. Where is justification in these two verses?
> 
> 
> 
> From the point of our first declarative justification, "we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." When we called upon the name of the Lord (yes, we continue to do so, but the initial justifying call I have in view here), were justified, and *when we were justifed, we were united to Christ in His death and life.* Baptism signifies for true professors, their being united to Christ.
Click to expand...

No.
Justification is not what unites us to Christ. We are united to Christ, historically, at the moment of our regeneration, "in our effectual calling," as our confession (if not yours) affirms. Faith is the instrumental cause. Justification (as well as adoption and sanctification) is a benefit partaken of by those who are effectually called.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## piningforChrist

> Matthew,
> Can you define what you mean by 'professor'?



Professor: one who affirms belief in the essentials of Christianity (in our context)

True Professor: one whose affirmation of belief in the essentials of Christianity conforms with the reality of divine light imparted by the Spirit of God granting regeneration and a true faith and repentance.


----------



## piningforChrist

> basically the same with circumcision. Circumcision represented a circumsized heart, a cutting away of the sinful flesh, etc. yet is was still given to infants.



I disagree. This is not biblical in any sense. Circumcision marked physical ingrafting into physical, ethnic Israel = the Old Covenant. I suppose this is our main difference in creed.


----------



## BrianBowman

Matthew,

You may be "reformed" in your basic understanding of monergistic salvation (although some of your argumentation seems to betray this), however you a talking like a dispensationalist.


----------



## piningforChrist

> The theological reality of baptism is regeneration.



I would say that the theological reality of baptism is justification, because of the previous biblical texts that were examined.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> basically the same with circumcision. Circumcision represented a circumcised heart, a cutting away of the sinful flesh, etc. yet is was still given to infants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. This is not biblical in any sense. Circumcision marked physical ingrafting into physical, ethnic Israel = the Old Covenant. I suppose this is our main difference in creed.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

You are not thinking through this - Abraham was not Israel. Jacob had not even been born yet. Israel is not in the picture at all. Circumcision is given to Abraham and HIS FAMILY. It marked, literally, the covenantal union God said He would have with "Abraham and your descents forever" as an everlasting covenant. Its not a main difference in understanding the creed - its a main difference of just getting our biblical history right.

Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a symbol of regeneration (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.

You said that you "disagree" that circumcision is in any way linked to regeneration but marked physical inclusion to Israel. You'll have to tell the OT prophets, then, God was wrong:

Deuteronomy 10:16-17 "Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer. 17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe. 

Deuteronomy 30:6 6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings." 

Colossians 2:11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, 

Sounds like the Prophets and Apostles had their theology in sync. Again, as I repeated before, it sounds like the Doctrine of Regeneration is eluding you as to the manner of the OT and NT. You quoted Edwards earlier, but I demonstrated that you are misunderstanding Edwards thoroughly. I would cease participating in this thread any longer, and instead get a biblical grip on the basics of regeneration. Without that, you are not going to be able to understand covenant concepts at all, or even the primary elements of John 3. Remember, Christ REBUKED Nicodemus for not understanding the Old Testament concepts behind regeneration and being born again, especially since he was Israel's teacher (3:10). Teachers of the church today who teach things contrary to these clear passages should be rebuked as well.


----------



## piningforChrist

> No.
> Justification is not what unites us to Christ. We are united to Christ, historically, at the moment of our regeneration, "in our effectual calling," as our confession (if not yours) affirms. Faith is the instrumental cause. Justification (as well as adoption and sanctification) is a benefit partaken of by those who are effectually called.



I did not say historically.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Rom. 6:3-4 (standing at the head of chapters 6-8) are speaking of the ultimate result of union with Christ--living out the "newness of _life"_ that is ours by virtue of regeneration (re-again, generation--life).

Union with Christ involves union to _everything_ about him. He died for our sins. So we died. Baptism symbolizes our union with him, and his death is a part of that identification. So, since we suffer with him (8:17), and died with him (2 Tim 2:11), we were also buried with him. And we will be glorified with him (8:17 again). And in between, we are raised with him to walk in newness of life. His righteousness--and everything else about him--became ours the moment we apprehended him by faith, the moment we came to life, our spiritual eyes opened, the light dawned, and we saw by faith the Savior.

Logically, the immediate consequence of that is God pardons us from sin, accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone--justification, a purely legal declaration.

We are justified because the Father sees Christ's death _objectively_ when he looks at us, as well as Christ's obedience. We aren't justified on the _ground_ of our regeneration, or our faith, or our profession, but on the ground of Christ's righteousness. We believe these things, receiving them, appropriating them, by faith, thus really making them _our own,_ subjectively. And Paul is not building an argument in Rom. 6 that justification is that ground or basis from which springs our sanctification.

No, it is much deeper and foundational than the forensic verdict. It springs from our union with Christ that has made us born-again, that has made a "new creature" out of us. The newlife produces fruit in keeping with repentance.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> Justification is not what unites us to Christ. We are united to Christ, historically, at the moment of our regeneration, "in our effectual calling," as our confession (if not yours) affirms. Faith is the instrumental cause. Justification (as well as adoption and sanctification) is a benefit partaken of by those who are effectually called.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say historically.
Click to expand...

I'm not referencing what you said. Non-historically, our union with Christ goes back to the eternal beginnings of the covenant of grace in election. "According as he hath chosen us *in him* {Jesus Christ} before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him" (Eph. 1:4).


----------



## piningforChrist

Pastor Buchanan,

I agree with everything you have stated in your last two posts.

What are the implications to my current position on baptism?

Thank you.

Your brother,

Matthew


----------



## Mocha

In dealing with the subject of 'Justification' in Roamsn 4, the apostle Paul says:



> Is this *blessing* then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?(vs. 9)



What blessing? The blessing of receiving a righteousness that justifies by faith.



> He (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision as a *seal of the righteousness* that he *had* by faith...(vs. 11)



For Abraham, the sign of circumcision was what? A 'seal'.

What did it 'seal'? It sealed 'the righteousness that he had by faith'.

What is baptism? A 'seal'.

What does it 'seal'? It seals 'the righteousness that we have by faith'.

Abrahams circumcision was a confirmation that he was right with God (Justified), and our baptism is a confirmation that we are right with God (Justified). 

But how do we know that the ones being baptized are really justified? Does the Bible actually tell us to baptized those who are justified? I don't think so. We are simply told to baptize disciples, and those who believe, and those who repent. The sign is for the believer himself, to be a confirmation that he is justified, if he does in fact believe.

What about the infant? I don't now right now. I'm still working on that. If infants are to be baptized, it seems to me that it must work a little differently. Infant Baptism could not be a 'seal' that they have been justified, but maybe it is a sign of entrance into the covenant. I don't know.

But it just doesn't fit with me. It seems unlikely that baptism, to the believer, is a seal that confirms that they are justified, and to the infant, is a seal of entrance into the covenant. Baptism would then be a sign and seal of two different things. 

I'm still confused...but I'm still trying to work it out!

Mike


----------



## piningforChrist

Dr. McMahon,

I think that our differing view of the covenants begins and ends at our differing interpretations of Romans.


----------



## Mocha

I wonder if we are trying to compare apple and oranges when we compare the baptism of believers and the baptism of infants. Could it be that the New Testament is dealing especially with the baptism of believers, and the Old Testament sets forth the sacrament in terms of children of believers?

Just a thought!

Mike


----------



## ChristopherPaul

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> We are simply told to baptize disciples, and those who believe, and those who repent. The sign is for the believer himself, to be a confirmation that he is justified, if he does in fact believe.



Hi Mike:

You are close, but you have an assumption that needs modified. Are we simply told to baptize disciples, or is baptism a component of being a disciple just as teaching is a component of being a disciple?

See what I am saying? Did Jesus say go and find disciples and then baptize and teach them or did he say make disciples by baptizing and teaching them?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> But how do we know that the ones being baptized are really justified? Does the Bible actually tell us to baptized those who are justified? I don't think so. We are simply told to baptize disciples, and those who believe, and those who repent. The sign is for the believer himself, to be a confirmation that he is justified, if he does in fact believe.
> 
> What about the infant? I don't now right now. I'm still working on that. If infants are to be baptized, it seems to me that it must work a little differently. Infant Baptism could not be a 'seal' that they have been justified, but maybe it is a sign of entrance into the covenant. I don't know.
> 
> But it just doesn't fit with me. It seems unlikely that baptism, to the believer, is a seal that confirms that they are justified, and to the infant, is a seal of entrance into the covenant. Baptism would then be a sign and seal of two different things.



As you rightly noted, we don't actually know that the ones being baptized are justified, whether infant or adult. Both cases are based upon presumption of one type or another.

Furthermore, as you noted, it is a sign of entrance into the covenant for the infant, but it's important to realize that it is likewise a sign of that very same thing for the adult. And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I wonder if we are trying to compare apple and oranges when we compare the baptism of believers and the baptism of infants. Could it be that the New Testament is dealing especially with the baptism of believers, and the Old Testament sets forth the sacrament in terms of children of believers?
> 
> Just a thought!
> 
> Mike



I had wondered that at times as well when I was first studying these issues. But see my post above, as I have tried to clarify why it ultimately turns out to really be the same thing for both the infant and the adult.


----------



## Mocha

Matthew McMahon said:



> Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a *symbol of regeneration* (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.



He received the sign of circumcision as a *sign of the righteousness*...(Romans 4:11)

That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?

Mike


----------



## piningforChrist

> And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.



Here is where I differ. Baptism has no efficacy, that is not its intention. Moreover, the new covenant community is defined in scripture in such a way that it cannot be entered into upon birth and then left when one somehow "breaks" the covenant. There is a discontinuity between the covenants that goes unaswered time and time again on this forum. The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.

Jeremiah 31:31 "œBehold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, "˜Know the Lord,´ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Jeremiah 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. 41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a *symbol of regeneration* (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He received the sign of circumcision as a *sign of the righteousness*...(Romans 4:11)
> 
> That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Mike, VERY good question.


----------



## BrianBowman

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> Dr. McMahon,
> 
> I think that our differing view of the covenants begins and ends at our differing interpretations of Romans.



... and Matthew, this is where your system of hermeneutics crumbles. You need to begin at the beginning and not with Romans. Romans is not the foundation for understanding the Covenant of Grace. You must begin in Genesis and follow the unfolding of redemptive history forward through the Covenants. If you'll spend much time studying the Old Testament and Biblical/redemptive history you'll have the correct foundation for understanding what is revealed in Romans. You cannot weight Romans as any more imporant than what is revealed in the historical O.T. antecedents and expect to understand the integration of Scripture. Romans (Galatians too) was not written to be the hermeneutical "template" from which all of Biblical soteriology is understood.


----------



## piningforChrist

I never said template. The Old Tesitment is only fully understood under the light of the New.


----------



## piningforChrist

And Romans is the brightest light we have available (subjective opinion), therefore, I suppose that our differences may have something to do with differing observations/interpretations/applications of Romans. I find this opinion verified by the recent comments by Mike.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by piningforChrist]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a *symbol of regeneration* (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He received the sign of circumcision as a *sign of the righteousness*...(Romans 4:11)
> 
> That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?
> 
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mike, VERY good question.
Click to expand...


Where is Christ mentioned in the verse?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I differ. Baptism has no efficacy, that is not its intention. Moreover, the new covenant community is defined in scripture in such a way that it cannot be entered into upon birth and then left when one somehow "breaks" the covenant. There is a discontinuity between the covenants that goes unaswered time and time again on this forum. The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.
Click to expand...


What about the olive tree (Rom. 11:17-24) - does it not need and receive pruning, including in the New Covenant (v. 21-22)? Likewise, do not the branches of the vine (John 15) receive pruning?


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circumcision is a sign of God's Abrahamic promise and covenant , and is a *symbol of regeneration* (Deut. 10, Jeremiah 4), which was given to Abraham and his whole household.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He received the sign of circumcision as a *sign of the righteousness*...(Romans 4:11)
> 
> That "righteousness" justified Abraham and that's what circumcision was a sign and seal of. Where is regeneration mentioned in that verse?
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


And then Abraham circumcised his family and those within his gates.


----------



## piningforChrist

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by piningforChrist_
> 
> 
> 
> And while, as you noted, the adult who keeps that covenant (which all who are elect will do of course) also views it for himself as a sign of his justification, it's important to realize that in time it will likewise come to mean that for the infant who looks back upon it if he has kept the covenant (which all who are elect will do of course). That is why it is significant that baptism's efficacy and significance is not tied to the temporal moment of its administration; indeed, there is a reason we are only baptized once but partake of the Supper repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is where I differ. Baptism has no efficacy, that is not its intention. Moreover, the new covenant community is defined in scripture in such a way that it cannot be entered into upon birth and then left when one somehow "breaks" the covenant. There is a discontinuity between the covenants that goes unaswered time and time again on this forum. The Old Covenant could be broken. The New Covenant cannot be broken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about the olive tree (Rom. 11:17-24) - does it not need and receive pruning, including in the New Covenant (v. 21-22)? Likewise, do not the branches of the vine (John 15) receive pruning?
Click to expand...


This is a common error of interpretation. Analogies must not be used beyond the immediate application of the author. The promises that the New Covenant cannot be broken (unlike the Old Covenant) are clear from the Jeremiah passages already cited. Beyond the usual arguments (inferences) used for believer baptism, the linchpin of my argument is the discontinuity between the covenants. 

Will someone here please answer the discontinuity question?


----------



## BrianBowman

> The New Covenant cannot be broken.



... then what in the world does apostasy mean in the New Testament?

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## piningforChrist

hmm, I didn't know the mode of baptism comes down to the nature of the covenants. Interesting.


----------



## piningforChrist

Dr. James White's article on the New Covenant is utterly convincing. I invite any and all who are thinking this issue over to order it, and/or read the following excerpt:

<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px" align=center><B><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>THE NEWNESS OF THE NEW COVENANT: </SPAN></FONT></B></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px" align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice,</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px" align=center><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-TOP: 0px; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-ALIGN: center"><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN-US>James R. White</SPAN></FONT></P>

http://www.rbtr.org/RBTR I.2 The Newness of the New Covenant.htm


----------



## Scott Bushey

Yea. It used to be utterly convincing to me as well until I read Witsius, Owens and Turretin..................

This one's done.

Say good night.

[Edited on 11-16-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------

