# Household salvation -- Split from Credobaptism and Raising Families



## Herald

Taylor Ortwell's thread "Credobaptism and Raising Families" generated some excellent discussion. Towards the end of the thread the subject of children of believers being more likely to be saved than children of unbelievers was was brought up. See -- HERE. Responses were provided HERE and HERE. I believe the discussion will prove profitable if opened up for all to participate. 

In the thread "What difference does Baptism make since Credo-Baptists train their children?" Cesar (discipulo) attached a sermon preached by Charles Spurgeon on household baptism from a credo perspective. Thanks go to Cesar for sourcing this wonderful message. Spurgeon certainly had no paedo inclinations. If anyone is confused as to his position on baptism consider this quote from his sermon titled, "Household Salvation."



> If you have come to the cross, and all your hope is placed there, then come and declare that you are Christ's. Touch not the ordinance till you believe in Jesus Christ: it may work you mighty mischief if you do. The sacramentarianism, which is so rampant in this age, is of all lies I think most deadly, and you encourage sacramentarianism if you give a Christian ordinance to an unconverted person. Touch it not, then, until you are saved. Until you are believers, ordinances are not for you, and it is a sacrilege for you to intrude yourselves into them."


The answers I provided to Rich's question in the "Credobaptism and raising families" thread left something to be desired. I stand by the intent of what I said, but certainly could have acquitted myself better in the manner in which I expressed my thoughts. I defer to Spurgeon on the matter. Regarding household salvation Spurgeon writes:



> "Far oftener, however, it happens that the God who is the God of Abraham becomes the God of Sarah, and then of Isaac, and then of Jacob, and though grace does not run in the blood, and regeneration is not of blood nor of birth, yet doth it very frequently - I was about to say almost always - happen that God, by means of one of a household, draws the rest to himself. He calls an individual, and then uses him to be sort of a spiritual decoy to bring the rest of the family into the gospel net."


The question was asked, "Is this the historical Baptist position?" I answer honestly, I don't know. Is Spurgeon historical enough? Spurgeon cites the 17th century Baptist, John Bunyan, and his work, "Pilgrims Progress" as a treatise on how household salvation takes place. First Christian, then followed some time later by his wife Christiana and his children; all these come to faith, albeit at different times and in different ways, but all through the same means -- the hearing of the gospel. 

It seems that God does work through families in calling sinners to repentance. Indeed, Spurgeon writes:



> "We rejoice to think of whole families enclosed within the lines of electing grace, and entire households, redeemed by blood, devoting themselves to the service of the God of love."


But while Spurgeon believed God works his grace in believing families, it was not consummated until the sinner believed. 

Obviously there is going to be a measure of agreement and disagreement among credos and paedos re: household salvation. The issue has been laid out. The only thing missing is discussion.


----------



## Christusregnat

Bill,



> If you have come to the cross, and all your hope is placed there, then come and declare that you are Christ's. Touch not the ordinance till you believe in Jesus Christ: it may work you mighty mischief if you do. The sacramentarianism, which is so rampant in this age, is of all lies I think most deadly, and you encourage sacramentarianism if you give a Christian ordinance to an unconverted person. Touch it not, then, until you are saved. Until you are believers, ordinances are not for you, and it is a sacrilege for you to intrude yourselves into them."



This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.



> The question was asked, "Is this the historical Baptist position?" I answer honestly, I don't know. Is Spurgeon historical enough? Spurgeon cites the 17th century Baptist, John Bunyan, and his work, "Pilgrims Progress" as a treatise on how household salvation takes place. First Christian, then followed some time later by his wife Christiana and his children; all these come to faith, albeit at different times and in different ways, but all through the same means -- the hearing of the gospel.



I might be mistaken, but if I recall correctly, Bunyan had all of his children baptized, and their baptismal certificates were found in his house. I recall hearing this from my old Baptist pastor, Bill Downing, in one of his sermons. Can anyone verify this?

ANYwho, just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Herald

Christusregnat said:


> Bill,
> 
> This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.



Adam, Spurgeon would not have confused the physical nature of the OC with the spiritual nature of the NC. The sign of the OC was not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sign. It was applied to all males who were part of the covenant people of God (Israel). While Spurgeon does not specifically mention paedo baptism in the quote cited, other opinions of his leave no doubt as to his position. Consider this quote from the same sermon:



> "We have a few such men, full of the Holy Ghost, but, alas, we have too many other converts, who are rather tinctured with grace, than saturated with it, and to whom sprinkling is a very significant ordinance, for it would appear they never received anything but a sprinkling of grace."


_It seems_ Spurgeon is saying that there are those who were baptized as infants who, through their baptism, received their full of grace, for their life shows no evidence at all of faith. He wasn't calling paedobaptism a means of grace, but rather, a deficient form of grace because it wasn't met with belief.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households. James White in the Shisko debate repeats a pretty popular argument that Christ practically promises that relatives will end up having to hate each other within a family to prove that there is no familial connection with election and that each person in the NC comes one at a time.

I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His _means_ flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.

I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.


----------



## Christusregnat

Herald said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, Spurgeon *would not have confused the physical nature of the OC with the spiritual nature of the NC*. The sign of the OC was not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sign. It was applied to all males who were part of the covenant people of God (Israel).
Click to expand...


Bill,

This is perhaps a main point of contention. I don't think that the N.T. writers regarded the OC as physical, and the NC as spiritual; I think that is a distinction that Scripture does not make. For instance, Moses preached the gospel to the Israelites in the wilderness, and forsook the riches of Egypt for Christ. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. By faith, David subdued kingdoms, turned the armies of the enemy to flight. Paul cites the faith of such saints as confirming the central tenants of his gospel in Romans 4. Clearly, the OC is not carnal.

Also, the NC is more physical than you may realize. God promises that we will own the whole earth, and that the wicked will be dispossessed. We are pilgrims and strangers, and are also heirs of all things with Christ. We have been promised the whole earth and all nations will serve our King. Peace on *earth*. God is still the God of families and households; this didn't change in the NC, and is nowhere spelled out. To the contrary, every time we read about families in Acts and the epistles (for example) we read about them believing together, being baptized together, serving the Lord together, bringing children up *in *Christ, that our children are numbered among the holy people, that they are part of those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, etc.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Herald

Rich,

First -- please understand that this is a subject I am actively working through. My arguments are not intended to be water tight on this _specific_ issue. 

I don't believe there is any doubt that God works through families. Gen. 3:15 introduces the first familial connection of the parents progeny being in covenant with God. The "seed of woman" in Gen. 3:15 is the Messiah Himself, so obviously there was no need for Him to be saved. But the precedent was set that salvation would come from this family line.

Deut. 5:7 introduces the command to teach the word of the Lord to "your sons." I hold firmly to Spurgeon's view that "grace does not run in the blood." We can argue about whether a child is/is not a disciple, but it's clear that the word of God was to be taught. I would argue that when the word is met with belief, _then _the child is able to appropriate the spiritual truth the word contains (1 Cor. 2:14,15; 1 John 2:21).

Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?

-----Added 1/1/2009 at 11:32:03 EST-----



Christusregnat said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> This is an interesting quotation, and one that, on one level, I can fully agree with as a paedo. A few questions which I would like to ask of Mr. Spurgeon would be: 1. Was the above true in the Old Covenant? In other words, were the sacraments of the covenant of grace in the older dispensation to be given to those of faith, or were unbelievers intruding themselves in accordance with divine directive? 2. If (as Romans 4 states) Abraham received circumcision as a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, why was it then given to his 13-year old reprobate son, and his 8-day-old infant? 3. If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside? Those would be a few thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, Spurgeon *would not have confused the physical nature of the OC with the spiritual nature of the NC*. The sign of the OC was not dependent on the faith of the one receiving the sign. It was applied to all males who were part of the covenant people of God (Israel).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill,
> 
> This is perhaps a main point of contention. I don't think that the N.T. writers regarded the OC as physical, and the NC as spiritual; I think that is a distinction that Scripture does not make. For instance, Moses preached the gospel to the Israelites in the wilderness, and forsook the riches of Egypt for Christ. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. By faith, David subdued kingdoms, turned the armies of the enemy to flight. Paul cites the faith of such saints as confirming the central tenants of his gospel in Romans 4. Clearly, the OC is not carnal.
> 
> Also, the NC is more physical than you may realize. God promises that we will own the whole earth, and that the wicked will be dispossessed. We are pilgrims and strangers, and are also heirs of all things with Christ. We have been promised the whole earth and all nations will serve our King. Peace on *earth*. God is still the God of families and households; this didn't change in the NC, and is nowhere spelled out. To the contrary, every time we read about families in Acts and the epistles (for example) we read about them believing together, being baptized together, serving the Lord together, bringing children up *in *Christ, that our children are numbered among the holy people, that they are part of those chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, etc.
> 
> Just some thoughts.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Adam, I appreciate your view of the NC but won't go too in-depth as to the credo-paedo distinctions of the NC, other than to point you to Galatians 3:7, 16, 29 as to the spiritual seed (not the physical seed). We can certainly bog ourselves down with a myriad of rabbit trails and I'd like to see if we can stay on topic.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?



Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

I thought Douglas Kelly made a great point in Systematic Theology II on the RTS iTunes. He noted that he often goes to some Churches and hears all about what the ordinances are _not_ (thinking of the Lord's Supper) but then the minister stops and never explains what it _is_. It seems that Baptists are really good at saying what their children are not and not very good at fleshing out what that "blessing" consists of when it comes time to give account for it.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.


----------



## Herald

Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.


----------



## Christusregnat

Herald said:


> Adam, I appreciate your view of the NC but won't go too in-depth as to the credo-paedo distinctions of the NC, other than to point you to Galatians 3:7, 16, 29 as to the spiritual seed (not the physical seed). We can certainly bog ourselves down with a myriad of rabbit trails and I'd like to see if we can stay on topic.



Bill,

Thanks! Indeed, there is a myriad of points to discuss. However, I believe that the fundamental questions of NC vs. OC etc. determine how one answers the household salvation question. Also, I think that Galatians 3:7, 16, and 29 were true in the OC as well, to which purpose Paul states that Isaac, at 8 days was a child of promise (Gal. 4:28). But again, not to derail the thread.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Hilasmos

Herald said:


> Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.



Thanks for sharing this...I have often avoided reading certain books on eschatology because I was already a Calvinist and I knew those tricky Reformed folk are just too dang smart and would dupe me into becoming an Amiller and I would have to start "not taking the Bible literally," like I did with historic premill  And, of course, I was right...I am now about 99% converted to amill.

I feel similiar about the baptism issue, and I am working on breaking down the walls I have in place. If God wants me to be a Paedo, I will...that is yet to be ascertained though. Tradition has very thick walls.


----------



## Herald

Hilasmos said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing this...I have often avoided reading certain books on eschatology because I was already a Calvinist and I knew those tricky Reformed folk are just too dang smart and would dupe me into becoming an Amiller and I would have to start "not taking the Bible literally," like I did with historic premill  And, of course, I was right...I am now about 99% converted to amill.
> 
> I feel similiar about the baptism issue, and I am working on breaking down the walls I have in place. If God wants me to be a Paedo, I will...that is yet to be ascertained though. Tradition has very thick walls.
Click to expand...


Will, interestingly enough my baptismal position has solidified, not weakened, even though my eschatology has been in flux. My counsel to you is to proceed cautiously when dealing with baptism. I am sure my paedo brethren will agree. It's a major shift and you want to make sure you have thought it out well. You don't want to be going back and forth.


----------



## satz

I understand I can’t and probably don’t speak for all RBs, but I do not see any inconsistency between a Baptist position and believing that God still blesses households in the NT and that the children of believers are privy to special blessings from God. Or, to put it very, very crudely, the children of believers are more “likely” to be elect.

While I will admit in some ways I am still working things out, at present I would even go so far as to say that I think the way Christians in both testaments treat their children is exactly the same. There is no change. In both testaments there were children born to godly parents who turned out not to truly be children of God in a spiritual sense. But in both testaments there was the general, not absolute expectation that if parents performed their duties diligently, their children could be raised to fear the Lord. I believe Col 3:21 and Eph 6:4, which Joe Johnson quoted in the other thread, are enough to show us that the particular blessings and promises associated with the children of believers apply equally in the NT. 

Adam wrote in an earlier post:


> If the sacrament of faith was given to infants then, where did God ever lay this aside?



I would answer that the very fact that the sacrament has changed for circumcision to water baptism (if you hold to a relationship between the two, which at the moment I do not), shows that there has been a change in the sign. And if God wants to change the ordinances of his church, there is no reason why that would disadvantage the children of NT believers. The fact that our children today are not baptised, if it is God who has chosen to deny them baptism – _for now_, is no more disadvantageous to them than being denied the Lord’s Supper until they believe, or than for a female child in the OT to be denied circumcision.


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> Adam, I appreciate your view of the NC but won't go too in-depth as to the credo-paedo distinctions of the NC, other than to point you to Galatians 3:7, 16, 29 as to the spiritual seed (not the physical seed). We can certainly bog ourselves down with a myriad of rabbit trails and I'd like to see if we can stay on topic.



Agreed that we should stay in the topic, but to be consistent with the Whole Counsel of God, we must recognize this topic is not independent from Covenant and Sacrament hermeneutics.



satz said:


> I would answer that the very fact that the sacrament has changed for circumcision to water baptism (if you hold to a relationship between the two, which at the moment I do not), shows that there has been a change in the sign. And if God wants to change the ordinances of his church, there is no reason why that would disadvantage the children of NT believers. The fact that our children today are not baptised, if it is God who has chosen to deny them baptism – _for now_, is no more disadvantageous to them than being denied the Lord’s Supper until they believe, or than for a female child in the OT to be denied circumcision.



Satz, for the reason mentioned above, I encourage you and all of us, to also read the other Split from the thread by Taylor Otwell, started with a relevant question of Pergamum, one that is in fact closely tied with this topic, «What difference does Baptism make since Credo-Baptists train their children?» and the answers posted there by Semper Fidelis (Rich)

http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/wh...ce-credo-baptists-train-their-children-41969/


----------



## Hippo

This is a very interesting thread, there are several theological areas where I have come to believe that my initial (possibly culterally based) convictions are not in fact biblical.

I am not in any way suggesting that these issues are necessarily linked or indeed form a trend but for me issues such as free will, external membership of the covenant of grace and household salvation have forced me to adopt an initially counter intuitive position that I now come to realise from continued study do have a very strong internal logic, specifically from a monergistic viewpoint.

The reformed position is best able to tackle such issues because of the centrality of systematic theology that forces such issues to be addressed in their proper biblical context. One of the problems with paedobaptism is that all too often it is defended outside a theologically systematic context and becomes what is in essence a tradition. Now Baptists have been around in numbers for a few hundred years they are starting to fall into the same trap.

It is always encouraging when these great questions are looked at in there proper context, no matter which conclusioin is eventually reached.


----------



## Herald

discipulo said:


> Agreed that we should stay in the topic, but to be consistent with the Whole Counsel of God, we must recognize this topic is not independent from Covenant and Sacrament hermeneutics.



Cesar, you bring up a good point, but in threads of this nature too many sidebar discussions tend to derail the thread. That's one of the inherent problems with baptism and baptism-related threads. In regards to baptism, The Presbyterian view of the sacrament is summarized in the phrase, "The sign applied to a promise yet", whereas the Baptist phrase is, "The sign applied to a promise kept." Presbyterians apply the covenant sign to a child believing he _will _come to faith. Baptists apply the sign upon a credible profession believing the individual _has _come to faith. Both camps will readily confess that their respective views of the sign does not guarantee salvation. There are reprobates in the Presbyterian camp and false professions in the Baptist camp. These reprobations do not negate the significance of the sign, nor its proper application. They simply underscore the reality that the hidden things belong to God.


----------



## Ivan

Herald said:


> Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.



Amen, Bill! 

I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.


----------



## KMK

Ivan said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, Bill!
> 
> I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.
Click to expand...


I get it! The Baptism threads tend to "go off the deep end". 

It is a Baptist inside joke...


----------



## Herald

Ivan said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, Bill!
> 
> I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.
Click to expand...


Ivan, I've decided to take a more vigorous role in moderating baptism threads. There is no reason for good folks such as yourself to feel put off by the explosive nature of this topic. There is much profit in dialog of goodwill over matters that greatly effect the church of Christ. This does mean baptism forums are necessarily a gentle place. Civility does not mean emasculation. There are times (and rightly so) when a point needs to be hammered home, not gently tapped. That's acceptable so long as it is not done with malicious intent. Participants also need to cite sources and back up imperatives and declarations. In short, considering the historic gravity of the topic, it should be treated with a serious mind and charitable heart.


----------



## Ivan

KMK said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, what I've found is that some Baptists respond mechanically when challenged because they are fearful of not being able to defend holding two opposing views. I've noticed this most among Baptists who are not confessional, and certainly not Reformed. Even in my own journey I am very much _semper reformanda_ in my theology. It wasn't too long ago that I was a "Baptist in Crisis." Instead of approaching an issue saying, "Will this fit into my Baptist schema?" I am now asking, "What is the biblical answer to this issue?" When I first started changing the questions I asked before approaching scripture, the first doctrinal shift I experienced was in my eschatology (from premil to amil). So, I very much appreciate the exchange of views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen, Bill!
> 
> I rarely participate in these kind of threads but I do read them (until they go off the deep end). I'm willing to read and learn, especially to understand what Bible says about this issue and, of course, other issues as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I get it! The Baptism threads tend to "go off the deep end".
> 
> It is a Baptist inside joke...
Click to expand...


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> Cesar, you bring up a good point, but in threads of this nature too many sidebar discussions tend to derail the thread.



Absolutely, that’s why I encourage to follow the other threads that are related. Actually we had already started some sharing on this topic on a former debate, but it developed on a broader band, so to speak, and it was difficult to focus. So I would like to re post some sources here.

On Household salvation, I find very helpful the commentary on Luke 19 by

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

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

emphasis mine


----------



## Herald

Cesar, with deference to Thomas Goodwin, there is no consensus that Zaccheus was a Gentile. Goodwin writes, about Zaccheus' ethnicity:



> _So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth..._


But Gill writes:



> [SIZE=+1][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]So that this man, as appears by his name, was a Jew, though some have thought him to have been a Gentile {c}, perhaps because of his employment: but it does not follow from thence; for there were Jews that were publicans, as Levi, or Matthew, afterwards one of Christ's disciples; and also in Jewish writings, mention is made, as of [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][SIZE=+1][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]yrkn okwm[SIZE=+1], "a stranger", or "a Gentile publican" {d}, so likewise of larvy okwm[SIZE=+1], "an Israelite publican" {e}; and such an one was Zacchaeus... [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]


[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]
[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]Matthew Henry comments:

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]


> Who, and what, this Zaccheus was. His name bespeaks him a Jew. _Zaccai_ was a common name among the Jews...


The passage changes emphasis if Zaccheus is a Jew. Why?

*Luke 19:9-10 * 9 And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 "For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost." 

Christ came to the nation of Israel, "to seek and to save that which is lost." His ministry, while accented with encounters with Gentiles, was predominantly focused on the nation of Israel, "that which is lost." It was not until Acts 10 that a seismic shift took place in the will of the Father towards the Gentiles. 

Henry continues:



> _This day is salvation come to this house._ Now that he is _converted_ he is in effect _saved,_ saved from his sins, from the guilt of them, from the power of them; all the benefits of salvation are his. Christ is come _to his house,_ and, where Christ comes, he brings salvation along with him. He is, and will be, the _Author of eternal salvation_ to all that own him as Zaccheus did. Yet this is not all. Salvation this day _comes to his house._ (1.) When Zaccheus becomes a convert, he will be, more than he had been, a _blessing to his house._ He will bring the means of grace and salvation to his house, for he is a _son of Abraham_ indeed now, and therefore, like Abraham, will teach his household to _keep the way of the Lord. He that is greedy of gain troubles his own house,_ and brings a curse upon it (Hab. ii. 9), but he that is charitable to the poor does a kindness to his own house, and brings a blessing upon it and salvation to it, temporal at least, Ps. cxii. 3. (2.) When Zaccheus is brought to Christ himself his _family_ also become related to Christ, and his children are admitted members of his church, and so _salvation comes to his house,_ for that he is _a son of Abraham,_ and therefore interested in God's covenant with Abraham, that _blessing_ of Abraham which comes upon the publicans, _upon the Gentiles,_ through faith, that God will be a God _to them and to their children;_ and therefore, when he believes, _salvation comes_ to his house, as the gaoler's to whom it was said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, _and thou shalt be saved, and thy house,_ Acts xvi. 31. Zaccheus is by birth a son of Abraham, but, being a publican, he was deemed a heathen; they are put upon a level, Matt. xviii. 17. And as such the Jews were shy of conversing with him, and expected Christ should be so; but he shows that, being a true penitent, he is become _rectus in curia--upright in court,_ as good a son of Abraham as if he had never been an publican, which therefore ought not to be mentioned against him.


Obviously I depart with Henry on the visible church admission of Zaccheus' children, but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by blood relation. What Zaccheus did, as a good son of Abraham, was to realize the purpose for which the sign of circumcision was intended: he believed. His belief made him not just a physical son of Abraham, but a spiritual son; a good son of Abraham. Salvation came to his house because Zaccheus was now able to proclaim the spiritual message of the covenant to his family. 





[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1][SIZE=+1]



[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## BG

Herald you said: 

but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, *not by blood relation. *

Why would he point out that salvation was not by blood relation?

Did someone believe that was the case?


----------



## Herald

WDG said:


> Herald you said:
> 
> but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, *not by blood relation. *
> 
> Why would he point out that salvation was not by blood relation?
> 
> Did someone believe that was the case?



Have you read the entire thread, especially the quotes from Spurgeon's sermon? It was mentioned earlier in the thread so it was germane to the conversation.


----------



## discipulo

WDG said:


> Why would he point out that salvation was not by blood relation?
> Did someone believe that was the case?



Not at all, and in my opinion we should also avoid discussing baptismal regeneration, presumptive or dormant regeneration, either.

In my humble opinion opinion it is also important not to mix any kind of prognosis concerning the Household, that would imply any conditionality.

We are mostly trying to understand the promises of God to the Household of Believers. 

in my opinion the children of believers are in the Covenant and should receive the Sacrament of Baptism, its sign and seal. 

But concerning the thing signified, we must maintain that the Eternal Election of God is Unconditional and according to His Sovereign Decree.

_So the condition of faith is joined to the promise; for those who are baptized do not receive what is promised and sealed by baptism unless they have faith, so that without faith the promise is not ratified, and baptism is of no profit. _

Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism



Herald said:


> but Henry is careful to point out that salvation is by faith in Christ, not by blood relation. What Zaccheus did, as a good son of Abraham, was to realize the purpose for which the sign of circumcision was intended: he believed. His belief made him not just a physical son of Abraham, but a spiritual son; a good son of Abraham. Salvation came to his house because Zaccheus was not able to proclaim the spiritual message of the covenant to his family.



Thank you, that is very interesting and yes it seems that Goodwin attempt to relate a gentilical grafting in the Olive Tree, so to speak, may not specifically apply here.

Nonetheless, I think Luke 19 has strong implications to this topic.

Actually, concerning the Gentiles, and specifically the Household and the Kerygma, we have a passage in Scripture that I find very meaningful.

_And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; *he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household*._ Acts 11:13-14 emphasis mine


----------



## Herald

Cesar,

*Acts 11:13-14* 13 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, 'Send to Joppa, and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 

We are left to conclude one of two things: A) All of Cornelius' household would be saved. B) The gospel (rhema, lit. 'word') was being presented by which those who would hear and believe (by faith), in this case Cornelius and his household, would be saved. 

Exegetically the latter seems to hold sway. Not, "all your household will be saved" definitive, but "speak words to you by which you will be saved" -- In other words, the means of how you shall be saved. 

Apart from the text there could be some Apostolic revelation by which Peter was able to declare to Cornelius that he and his household were going to be saved that night. If that was the case it does not seem to be normative for the rest of the New Testament. I'm not denying that God works through believing families, but we cannot claim that whole households _will _be saved. That is not our call. How then would we explain goats and sheep coming from the same family? Either the command is firm or the principle is firm. The principle being that God works through families as a customary means of calling His elect, but not exclusively.


----------



## discipulo

I must say that the only clarifying view is in to realize a hermeneutic continuity in the different administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

formulation of Genesis 17:7

_And 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*._

Seed also offspring or descendants 

Our faith must be in God and His Word, not in our own faith, decision to raise our children or in the belief of our household, that would be a deadly shift.

We must accept the Sovereignty of God’s Decrees according to His Will. We must remain depending upon God’s Grace alone.

He is free to place a Esau in our household. Hard as it may be, even then, all things would work together for the good of His Elect.

But if that would be the norm, God would not had given us such Promise.

_Believe in the Lord Jesus, and *you will be saved, you and your household*. _Acts 16:31 NASB

According Romans 3 or 5 all children are born in sin in their adamic fallen nature. 
*But are all children to be seen equal until they profess faith?*
That is terribly close to Arminian prognosis. 
That’s exactly why the Canons of Dort have 1 . 17

_Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended,
*godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children *whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy ._

_For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise *your children *are unclean, but *now they are holy*._ 1 Corinthians 7:14

So if we deny the sanctification of the children of believers, their place in the Covenant and their separation to be part of the Visible Church (Ekklesia is very important here from ek out kaleo called ), we wouldn't take seriously the Promise of God and we would introduce a discontinuity and a fracture in Redemptive History. When in fact the historia salutis is progressive but is always very coherent

_Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, 'On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, *a lamb for each household.* _ Exodus 12:3 NASB

_Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even *Christ our passover *is sacrificed for us _1 Corinthians 5:7 KJV

_For the promise is *for you and for your children *and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself _Acts 2:39 ESV

emphasis mine


----------



## satz

Thoughts:

The fact that the children of believers may be holy and blessed in some sense, and are not to be treated in exactly the same manner as the children of unbelievers, does not automatically mean that they are to be baptised. 

Isn't it simply a manner of looking at who God says is to be baptised?

So proving that there is a principle of household salvation in scripture, which I would agree with in general, does not prove that there is a principle of household baptism.


----------



## Herald

Cesar,

This exchange has been profitable. It's shed light on some areas of agreement, but has also underscored our basic covenantal differences. I'm content to have engaged in this discussion so that we more fully articulated our agreements and disagreements. You probably shouldn't have posted that Spurgeon sermon! I've used it as fuel for the fire.  But I'm happy to call you "brother" and appreciate your irenic approach to the argument.


----------



## discipulo

satz said:


> Thoughts:
> 
> The fact that the children of believers may be holy and blessed in some sense, and are not to be treated in exactly the same manner as the children of unbelievers, does not automatically mean that they are to be baptised.



I firmly believe the children of believers are in the Covenant and should be Baptized.

in my opinion that is clear because of that continuity, the Apostle Paul can therefore «inter relate» Circumcision and Baptism mentioning both administrations of the Covenant of Grace.


_For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were *baptized* into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ _1 Cor. 10:1-4

_In him also *you were circumcised *with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ_ Colossians 2:11 See also Romans 4 

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

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


----------



## satz

Thanks, Cesar.

I would not use the particular phase “in the covenant”, I would agree that there is continuity between OT and NT, and that continuity extends to blessings and favor and God shows upon the children of believers.

However, that does not automatically, or logically mean that children ought to be baptized. 

Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made _without hands_, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.

Baptism is found and introduced in the NT so we go to the NT to determine the rules for baptism. Child training and raising up children in the fear of the Lord are found in both testaments so we do look at the OT for rules and guidance on that matter.


----------



## discipulo

satz said:


> I would not use the particular phase “in the covenant”, I would agree that there is continuity between OT and NT, and that continuity extends to blessings and favor and God shows upon the children of believers.
> 
> However, that does not automatically, or logically mean that children ought to be baptized.
> (...)
> 
> Baptism is found and introduced in the NT so we go to the NT to determine the rules for baptism. Child training and raising up children in the fear of the Lord are found in both testaments so we do look at the OT for rules and guidance on that matter.



Thank you too. Well the way I see it is

In the Jewish context where all the household was in the Covenant, with all the bonds of love and confidence that it brought, such a radical change would have to be thoroughly addressed by the Apostles.

But in fact Peter addressing the men of Judea confirms and reassures them that _the promise is for you and your childre_n Acts 2:39 

So he is exactly stating that the Promise for the Household remains unchanged.

Like Joel Beeke writes 

_How could a converted Jew regard the New Covenant as better Covenant, if now his children were to be excluded from God’ dealings with his people no longer receiving a sign of God’s covenant promise?_ (Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism page 58)

So if believing parents were not supposed to have their children baptized, like they would immediately and naturally understand, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or Commandment preventing infant baptism? 

Because the Covenant of Grace, as being inclusive of the Household, is so central and continuous
throughout Redemptive History and in all Covenant Dispensations,

_By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence
prepared an ark *for the salvation of his household* _(Hebrews 11:7).

the Apostles mention and even emphasize the Sacrament of Baptism for the Household.

_The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
And after she was baptized, *and her household as well *(_Acts 16:14-15).

_And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately
he was baptized, *he and all his household.* _(Acts 16:33)

In the same passage, a Household baptism is even clearly differentiated

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

from individual Baptisms, that surely also occurred in certain cases, like the Ethiopian in Acts 8 

_I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius_ 1 Corinthians 1:14
(considering Gaius, since Crispus Household is mentioned in Acts 18:8)

*So In my humble opinion the implications in favour of the Baptism administration to the Children of Believers are very clear.*

.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made _without hands_, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.


The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.


----------



## Herald

*Acts 2:38-39* 8 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 

I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely _nothing _to do with _applying _the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> 1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."



Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> *Acts 2:38-39* 8 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
> 
> I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:
> 
> 1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."
> 
> 2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely _nothing _to do with _applying _the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).



in my opinion I see Acts 2:39 as a condensed Covenant proclamation – certainly the Men of Judea would recognize it - please see the parallel with Genesis 17:7

_For the promise is for *you and your children *_Acts 2:39

_I will establish My Covenant *between Me and you and your descendants *_Genesis 17:7

A Covenant Proclamation Peter reinforces in Acts 3:25

_*Ye are the sons *of the prophets, and of *the Covenant which God made with your fathers*, 
saying unto Abraham, *And in thy seed shall all the families *of the earth be blessed._ Acts 3:25

The word for families comes from patria and pater also fathers, meaning paternal descendants, the fathers and the children

_I have made a *Covenant* with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I will establish
*your seed *forever and build up your throne *to all generations*._ Psalm 89:3-4

in my opinion the context of the Kerygma in Acts 2 is actually the Covenant of Grace in the Historia Salutis
where the Household is never absent, like Peter would later recall

_he will declare to you *a message *by which *you will be saved, you and all your household*_. Acts 11:14

As B. B. Warfield bluntly stated in the Polemics of Infant Baptism – link below to the complete article

_The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children._

The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?
Click to expand...


Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to _*God's elect *_is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?
Click to expand...




> Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



If it sounds Arminian, there is not much you can do about it. What exactly in Bill's statement do you disagree with? Is it his choice of the word 'results'?

Edit: Sorry, I cross-posted with Bill.


----------



## Hilasmos

It is possible that the word "for" doesn't imply "results" but glosses as "on account of."


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to _*God's elect *_is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.





Hilasmos said:


> It is possible that the word "for" doesn't imply "results" but glosses as "on account of."



Actually Joel Beeke states that those dismissing the covenantal argument 
ibid page 60 emphasis mine

_by harking back to verse 38, arguing that since Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized," baptism may only follow repentance. *Since infants are not yet able to repent, they ought not to be baptized. To such reasoning we would posit three responses. *

First, the word *"and" *between "repent" and "be baptized" *is a coordinate and not a causal conjunction.* That is to say, although both things are true, there is not necessarily a causal connection between them. "Repent" and "be baptized" are *two coordinate commands*. Acts 2:38 does not say that we are to be baptized because we have repented, *nor does it imply that it is wrong to baptize someone who has not repented.*

Second, *the causal conjunction "for" *at the beginning of verse 39 indicates that *verse 38 is part of a larger thought that is concluded in verse 39.* Attempting to understand repentance and baptism in verse 38 without examining verse 39, therefore, is refusing to listen to the whole text. The word. *"for"* in verse 39 indicates that that verse is giving the reason why we are to repent and be baptized, namely, "*for the promise is unto you, and to your children*, and to all that are afar off." *In other words, those who have received God's promise of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are qualified to be baptized, and, Peter clearly says, that includes them and their children.*

Third, an argument against infant baptism from Acts 2:38 is also an argument against infant salvation. If infants cannot be baptized because they are incapable of repentance and faith, then they cannot be saved for the same reason. The use of such verses as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to argue that repentance and faith are required for baptism also argues that repentance and faith are required for salvation, thereby consigning all infants incapable of repentance and faith to perdition._

*Herman Bavinck *on Reformed Dogmatics vol. 4 page 510 (chapter the Reformation and Baptism) 
also related chapters Infant Baptism and the Validity of Infant Baptism pages 521-532

states very clearly that the Reformers, in times of great debate and pursue for doctrinal clarity away from Romanism,

_for the validity of Infant Baptism they_ (the Reformers n.a.) _
unanimously appealed to Scripture, specifically to its teaching concerning the Covenant of Grace._


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His _means_ flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.



I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.



I haven't seen any confrere put forward the premise in your last sentence, but somebody may have so implied. But that is clearly not a biblical position and I for one disavow it.
And unless a Baptist had done your research either on the PB or in the wider Baptist community, it would not be posible to come to a belief of the relative rate of election in Baptist homes. Since you are the first I have found quantifying the matter in 15 years within a Baptist community, I don't think that many Baptists would even have the data to arrive at your conclusion.


----------



## Herald

Fred Malone writes:



> Again, who is offered the promise of the Spirit through repentance and faith in Christ in Acts 2:38? All those mentioned in v. 39, "you and to your children and to all those who are afar off." But is this an indiscriminate assurance that each of those mentioned will definitely receive the promise? No. Only "as many as the Lord our God will call." Here is the condition for receiving the promise: the effectual calling of God.
> The real question is, to whom does _hosous an_ (as many as) refer? Does _hosous an_ (as many as) refer only to "those afar off" (usually understood to be a reference to the Gentiles), or does it refer to the whole phrase, including "you and your children?" According to the Greek lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich, _hosous an_ introduces a conditional relative clause which denotes the action of the verb as dependent upon some circumstance or condition. This is, namely, the sovereign will of God in effectual calling expressed in the subjunctive of _proskaleo_ (may call). _Hosous_ is the masculine accusative plural for the verb _proskaleo_. And since _teknois_, _humin_, and _pasin_ (children, you and all) are collectively offered the promise by use of the conjunction _kai_ (and), we may refer to these three dative plurals as the compound indirect object. Also, since _teknois_ and _pasin_ are masculine, _hosous an_ (as many as) may legitimately modify both of them. Therefore, all three classes are offered the promise of the Spirit through repentance and faith. Yet, in _hosous an_, the condition of reception by all three must depend on the sovereign effectual calling of God. There is no greater promise to the children of those addressed than to the Jew and Gentile parents present. Not all those addressed received the promise and were baptized, but only those who "received" Peter's word of repentance and faith by God's effectual calling, including the children (2:41).
> One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord's Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.
> Another common objection states that Acts 2:39 must first be read through the eyes of the Abrahamic Covenant. However, it is my belief that the fuller revelation of the New Covenant must define how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in it, rather than letting the Abrahamic Covenant interpret the New Covenant revelation of its fulfillment. It is a principle of interpretation that is in question here. We teach our children this principle by describing the relationship between the testaments with a little rhyme:
> The New is in the Old concealed
> The Old is in the New revealed.​ Acts 2:38,39, and 41 support the principle that New Covenant revelation should define the participants of the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than vice versa. Only those children in the crowd who received Peter's word were baptized. There is no other exegetical possibility in the text and context.
> Regardless of their age, only those who received Peter's word and claimed God's promise were baptized. There is no mention in this passage of infants being baptized along with their parents. In fact, this passage explicitly hinges the reception of the promise of the Spirit upon God's sovereign effectual calling which is evidenced by repentance and faith. These and these only were baptized into the fellowship of the church.
> Acts 2:39 defines the fulfillment of the "promise" only in those who are effectually called by God–those who receive the Word in repentance and faith. These only should be baptized.




disciplo wrote:



> _an argument against infant baptism from Acts 2:38 is also an argument against infant salvation._



The point made in this statement aside, it's problem is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the text. Peter was not speaking about infant salvation, and the fact that the promise is made to those who repent does not contradict either the WCF or 1689 LBC on elect infants. Peter was addressing adult Jews, and his emphasis was clearly on believing the message being delivered.


----------



## discipulo

It seems my oikonomia of the oikos is different 

Well, let’s see, a lot to digest now...


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.
> 
> I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.
> 
> What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."



As I suffer increased exposure to baptism threads here on the PB, I am increasingly reminded of CS Lewis' point about the man in the dark toolshed who can see light through a crack in the wall in one of two ways. He can stand where he is, looking at the beam of light from the outside or he can look out the crack and looking along the beam from the inside, he can see the sun itself. The experience of looking side on at a light beam shining across a dark room is something different from looking out through the crack and seeing the sun. In the same way looking at something from inside is often different than looking at it from outside. I have been involved in both paedo and credo churches along my way and I have a fair idea how the position often appears to people of both views.

From the inside of the Baptist positon, I can tell you at least part of the blessing that a child in a believing home receives. He or she grows up seeing Christianity not only taught but also in some measure, applied. Seeing the gospel applied in home life is a tremendous blessing that not all of us have or had. If the child is converted young, his or her first steps in application are in the home environoment too. And I would be both surprised and disappointed if these points have not been made to you in discussions before my confreres make the necessary comment that this is not the same thing as presuming a child regenerate by virtue of being born into a believing family. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.



The experience of growing up in a believing and practicing Christian home is not an increased curse (in all senses of the word) for the reprobate child. He experiences a kinder, more disciplined way of life than the generality around him and if he practices some of the disciplines and habits thereof, he may find his time in the world to be more enjoyable and less stressful and bitter than it may have otherwise been.

Also as you yourself point out in a previous post, Baptists could well point out that we do not deny that God the Holy Spirit does a good deal of his evangelistic work in households.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.



Ultimately the question is not do our children have special status before God, but rather how and why can Christians biblically recognize whether our children do or do not have that status?

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 07:47:33 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.



If your definition of "bare sign" is where no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the church administers the rites, then I must disagree in both cases. Nothing in the Baptist viewpoint prohibits the Spirit being active in Communion: indeed 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it utterly certain that a work of the Holy Spirit is going on in the sacrament. And as for baptism, it is a plea to God for a good conscience (1 Peter 3:12), and like any genuine prayer, it must offered be by the strength or assistance of the Spririt, as Bunyan notes in his _Discourse concerning prayer_ "that which is not petitioned through the teaching and assistance of the Spirit, it is not possible that it should be "according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26,27) ... There is no man nor church in the world that can come to God in prayer, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. "For through Christ we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph 2:18)."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His _means_ flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either.
Click to expand...

I didn't say evangelism Tim. I said election. Perhaps the person not reading properly is not I.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any confrere put forward the premise in your last sentence, but somebody may have so implied. But that is clearly not a biblical position and I for one disavow it.
> And unless a Baptist had done your research either on the PB or in the wider Baptist community, it would not be posible to come to a belief of the relative rate of election in Baptist homes. Since you are the first I have found quantifying the matter in 15 years within a Baptist community, I don't think that many Baptists would even have the data to arrive at your conclusion.
Click to expand...


OK Tim. It's not scientific. Let me ask you a question: How many children in your congregation remain un-Baptized by the time they are 18 years old?

That is to say, I would like to know, of children that have grown up in the Baptist Church that you attend (which I presume is Reformed Baptist), how many of the children that are at least 18 are not yet baptized? A simple number will do.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 08:44:32 EST-----



Herald said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to _*God's elect *_is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.
Click to expand...


So, the elect repent and are baptized prior to regeneration?

Is Acts 2 the place where Systematic theology is developed?

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 08:58:59 EST-----



timmopussycat said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.
> 
> I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.
> 
> What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I suffer increased exposure to baptism threads here on the PB, I am increasingly reminded of CS Lewis' point about the man in the dark toolshed who can see light through a crack in the wall in one of two ways. He can stand where he is, looking at the beam of light from the outside or he can look out the crack and looking along the beam from the inside, he can see the sun itself. The experience of looking side on at a light beam shining across a dark room is something different from looking out through the crack and seeing the sun. In the same way looking at something from inside is often different than looking at it from outside. I have been involved in both paedo and credo churches along my way and I have a fair idea how the position often appears to people of both views.
> 
> From the inside of the Baptist positon, I can tell you at least part of the blessing that a child in a believing home receives. He or she grows up seeing Christianity not only taught but also in some measure, applied. Seeing the gospel applied in home life is a tremendous blessing that not all of us have or had. If the child is converted young, his or her first steps in application are in the home environoment too. And I would be both surprised and disappointed if these points have not been made to you in discussions before my confreres make the necessary comment that this is not the same thing as presuming a child regenerate by virtue of being born into a believing family.
Click to expand...

The "lights on a wall" is Plato's analogy even if Lewis borrowed it and children are spiritually blind and do not see any dancing shadows if they are reprobate. There is no "blessing" whatsoever in a generic sense if election is as indeterminate as some Baptists insist. Now some have been honest enough to note that God has somehow foreordained that election occurs at a higher rate in believing homes but that is not a consistent Baptist position. It is simply nonsense, above, so speak of generic blessing if one insists a child is not elect. _Oliver Twist_ might warm the heart but, eventually, even Oliver died.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The experience of growing up in a believing and practicing Christian home is not an increased curse (in all senses of the word) for the reprobate child. He experiences a kinder, more disciplined way of life than the generality around him and if he practices some of the disciplines and habits thereof, he may find his time in the world to be more enjoyable and less stressful and bitter than it may have otherwise been.
> 
> Also as you yourself point out in a previous post, Baptists could well point out that we do not deny that God the Holy Spirit does a good deal of his evangelistic work in households.
Click to expand...

A canard. I'm sure the reprobate child will look back with fondness on his Christian years while he's in Hell, especially judged for repudiating the Son of God who was held forth every week. We're not talking about your best life now.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately the question is not do our children have special status before God, but rather how and why can Christians biblically recognize whether our children do or do not have that status?
Click to expand...

You're right and the Scriptures recognize that their status is that they are holy.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your definition of "bare sign" is where no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the church administers the rites, then I must disagree in both cases. Nothing in the Baptist viewpoint prohibits the Spirit being active in Communion: indeed 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it utterly certain that a work of the Holy Spirit is going on in the sacrament. And as for baptism, it is a plea to God for a good conscience (1 Peter 3:12), and like any genuine prayer, it must offered be by the strength or assistance of the Spririt, as Bunyan notes in his _Discourse concerning prayer_ "that which is not petitioned through the teaching and assistance of the Spirit, it is not possible that it should be "according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26,27) ... There is no man nor church in the world that can come to God in prayer, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. "For through Christ we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph 2:18)."
Click to expand...

The Baptistic view of the Sacraments is well known historically. They deny Sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. I just got done with Satz in this very thread pointing that out. You only highlight the error above in your retrospective look at what you believe the Holy Spirit _did_ but not what Christ through the Holy Spirit is _doing_ and _will do_ through the Sacraments. You can't even admit that Baptism confers membership in the New Covenant.


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.
> 
> I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.
> 
> What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."
> 
> I thought Douglas Kelly made a great point in Systematic Theology II on the RTS iTunes. He noted that he often goes to some Churches and hears all about what the ordinances are _not_ (thinking of the Lord's Supper) but then the minister stops and never explains what it _is_. It seems that Baptists are really good at saying what their children are not and not very good at fleshing out what that "blessing" consists of when it comes time to give account for it.
> 
> As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.
> 
> Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.
Click to expand...


QUOTE=Semper Fidelis;520659]


Herald said:


> Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?



Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

I thought Douglas Kelly made a great point in Systematic Theology II on the RTS iTunes. He noted that he often goes to some Churches and hears all about what the ordinances are _not_ (thinking of the Lord's Supper) but then the minister stops and never explains what it _is_. It seems that Baptists are really good at saying what their children are not and not very good at fleshing out what that "blessing" consists of when it comes time to give account for it.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.[/QUOTE]

Rich, Hello. Have not interacted with you for awhile,so let me jump in here
you said ;


> I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.


 This is a valid observation. It is an error to assume either position, yet it seems to me that many parents react emotionally rather than scripturally. 
Children are meant to be a blessing in the home. A believing parent instructs his children as the scripture requires.God does work in households and clearly inter-marraige with unbelievers does not further this work.
A baptist parent does not have to assume, or presume his child is in or out of God's covenant as salvation is of the Lord in any case.
All are born in Adam, and in need of new birth. We are to instruct our children That we are all sinners, and that Jesus came to save sinners.
At a point in time the Holy Spirit enables a person to repent and believe
Furthermore we are to instruct them that 


> 12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.


 you also comment;


> What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home.


 To be blessed to be in a believing home is to have all the same blessings for the most part as most padeos would say their children have,as you have pointed out in your obsevation among baptist churches.

you said this;


> It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.


 Rich, I would agree with you on this because it is a true statement. Being around the word preached is a blessing or a curse.


> 14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> 
> 15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> 
> 16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
> 
> 17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


 This same sentiment however is preached in faithful padeo pulpits as well. On sermonaudio I have heard David Silverisdes and others preach that children of padeos who despise the gospel will not escape the judgment of God. Failing to "improve on their baptism" will be a curse,and no blessing. The principle spoken of false prophets and false teachers will also apply to apostates.


> 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
> 
> 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


 I never considered any of my children as heathen's , or the infamous vipers in diapers. But as we are all conceived in sin, and born in Adam, in need of the new birth. We have over time sought to be open an honest with them.
When my children sin I know why they sin. My wife and I explained to them why this happens,and that only In Christ can sin be dealt with savingly.
We know that God saves who he will in His time.We are confident that God works through means so we seek to be faithful in our presentation to our children.
Every parent who believes wants all of their children in heaven,mentally , emotionally, spiritually, in every way a believing parent wants their children to be saved.
The gospel promise is to all that believe, as many as the Lord shall call,effectually. We know and believe that promise as it is found fully in Christ, not apart from him.
I am confident that half of my children are "safely folded" resting In Christ. I am still concerned for the other half that while not outwardly denying Christ verbally, seem to give no indication of having laid hold of the things that accompany salvation.


> 9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.



You mentioned something about 80% of baptists having their children baptized by 18yrs old. I would not dispute this, and sometimes I lament what i see take place,ie, the parents wanting to "emotionally feel better" about the condition of their children before God. So the first time the child repeats the name Jesus they are whisked off to a baptismal tank for immersion I have more respect for the padeo position believing in a covenant continuity circ/bap then for the parent wanting to push for baptism as if it saved rather than Christ.
I have not taken a poll but i have spoken with many young people who said that they were baptized at the urging of family members or friends to do something- profess, confess, raise the hand, walk the aisle , then get baptized. I would not defend any of these physical and carnal, emotional plea's.
Some of these individuals later on will explain that they really did not grasp what was at issue.
Praise the Lord that he is sovereign and He opens the heart when he wills to.
All that being said, I do believe that a Spirit wrought profession and confession of faith, followed by baptism is proper. Both types of profession exist. [carnal and false] [ spiritual and true] 

As most padeos wait until their children give similar evidence to allow them to the Lord's table, I do not think we are as far apart practically, as we might be in our doctrinal stances.


----------



## satz

Semper Fidelis said:


> Now some have been honest enough to note that God has somehow foreordained that election occurs at a higher rate in believing homes but that is not a consistent Baptist position.



Rich,

Given that baptists hold to, as you have said, that baptism is not sacremental but rather an ordiance of obedience, why is this an inconsistent position?

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 12:36:47 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.
> 
> Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.



I was responding to Cesar's point that those verses thought that baptism and circumcision were interrelated. I do not see that in those verses. In fact, I don't see that either verse is dealing with the actual acts of circumcision / baptism. Paul is, it seems to me, using the imagery of immersion / cutting off that baptism or circumcision would produce in his readers to make a point.

I was not attempting to suggest any blanket method for interpreting scripture about baptism / circumcision.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His _means_ flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say evangelism Tim. I said election. Perhaps the person not reading properly is not I.
Click to expand...


No, that's not it. I failed to make what I thought was a self-evident point. Since God uses means and since both credo and paedo parents tell their children about Jesus it is not surprising that such household evangelism is the means by which God brings his elect children into professing discipleship. So it is not surprising that household evangelism is one of the means by which God reaches his elect.



Semper Fidelis said:


> [OK Tim. It's not scientific. Let me ask you a question: How many children in your congregation remain un-Baptized by the time they are 18 years old?
> 
> That is to say, I would like to know, of children that have grown up in the Baptist Church that you attend (which I presume is Reformed Baptist), how many of the children that are at least 18 are not yet baptized? A simple number will do.



I couldn't say offhand, not having done the research, but I don't have any grounds for thinking your informal poll may be atypical. As I just showed, it is quite likely God works in this way. 

And I will let Herald answer your inquiry to him. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> The "lights on a wall" is Plato's analogy even if Lewis borrowed it and children are spiritually blind and do not see any dancing shadows if they are reprobate.



Lewis' beam of light in the toolshed is not quite the same as Plato's light in the cave, and neither he nor I use it the idea in the same way as Plato, nor am I using it as Lewis did. I am just expressing my obseration that an intellectual position seen from within that position is often not the same thing as that position seen from without. I am not meaning to imply anything beyond this as far as the particular subject of our discussion is concerned. To try to make my sole point without reference to theology: you may have noticed that many of Lenin's "useful idiots" did not have much acquaintance with Communism while many of the fiercest denouncers of Communism have been those who experienced living under it. In the same way I often find paedo critics of credo positions often missing the point, because they are looking at the credo position from the outside, and it is only my decade-long experience of life within paedo churches that give me a degree of understanding that sometimes lets me avoid the same mistake in reverse by seeing the paedo position, in a measure from within it.



Semper Fidelis said:


> [There is no "blessing" whatsoever in a generic sense if election is as indeterminate as some Baptists insist. Now some have been honest enough to note that God has somehow foreordained that election occurs at a higher rate in believing homes but that is not a consistent Baptist position.



It may not be consistent Baptist but my assertion that the election rate may be expected to be higher in Christian homes is based however on two Scriptural premises that you yourself would affirm: (that God uses means to bring people to regeneration, and that when his word goes forth it will produce fruit) together with an observation you will not deny: that believing parent teach the faith to their children.



Semper Fidelis said:


> It is simply nonsense, above, so speak of generic blessing if one insists a child is not elect. _Oliver Twist_ might warm the heart but, eventually, even Oliver died. ... A canard. I'm sure the reprobate child will look back with fondness on his Christian years while he's in Hell, especially judged for repudiating the Son of God who was held forth every week. We're not talking about your best life now.



Here we once again approach the "common grace" debate. I don't want to say much on this beyond the fact that there is indubitably a sense in which God is "kind to the ungrateful and the evil" (Luke 6:35,36). Since a reprobate deserves nothing more than instant death after first sin, any postponement of that judgment and any other benefit a reprobate receives before that judgemne is executed is objectively a momentary blessing, however it might be perceived in hindsight. And the momentary blessings of being raised around practiced Christianity are real if momentary for the reprobate.

Moreover, your "canard" won't fly. You asked the Baptists to explain what we meant by thinking a Christian upbringing can be a blessing and you did not specify whether the blessing was momentary or eternal. After I give you an explanation you cannot reject it by narrowing the originally stated terms of discussion. I agree with you that there is no eternal blessing and indeed an intensification of regret for the reprobate in blessings when viewed in hindsight from hell, but I cannot deny that there are real temporal blessings associated with Christian upbrinings that reprobates will experience.



Semper Fidelis said:


> You're right and the Scriptures recognize that their status is that they are holy.



Whether holy in that context means "regenerate" or something else is something that Paul does not tell us in the context. Since we don't believe that pagan husbands are made regenerate by marrying Christian wives, and since "made holy" is used of unbelieving husbands in the immediately preceding verse, I question whether the meaning regenerate can be supported as Paul's intended meaning of "made holy" when that word is used of the children. Since John tells us it is those who have faith who have the right to be called children of God and Paul tells us it is those who have faith who are the children of Abraham, we do not have the right to assume any is regenerate without a profession of faith.



> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your definition of "bare sign" is where no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the church administers the rites, then I must disagree in both cases. Nothing in the Baptist viewpoint prohibits the Spirit being active in Communion: indeed 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it utterly certain that a work of the Holy Spirit is going on in the sacrament. And as for baptism, it is a plea to God for a good conscience (1 Peter 3:12), and like any genuine prayer, it must offered be by the strength or assistance of the Spririt, as Bunyan notes in his _Discourse concerning prayer_ "that which is not petitioned through the teaching and assistance of the Spirit, it is not possible that it should be "according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26,27) ... There is no man nor church in the world that can come to God in prayer, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. "For through Christ we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph 2:18)."
Click to expand...




Semper Fidelis said:


> The Baptistic view of the Sacraments is well known historically. They deny Sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. I just got done with Satz in this very thread pointing that out. You only highlight the error above in your retrospective look at what you believe the Holy Spirit _did_ but not what Christ through the Holy Spirit is _doing_ and _will do_ through the Sacraments.



I was responding to your comment "no activity of the Holy Spirit present" not to the concept of "sacramental union" in church history. And I hold no brief for Baptist shibboleths that cannot be supported by Scripture or necessary consequence deductions derived therefrom.



Semper Fidelis said:


> You can't even admit that Baptism confers membership in the New Covenant.



I don't want to state that baptism confers membership in the New Covenant. It doesn't.
Since New Covenant members 
have God's law written on their hearts
will be God's people and know him
and will have their sins forgiven
and their iniquities remembered no more,
Then, members of the new covenant must be the elect/regenerate and I am not about to assert that all who are baptized are elect. 

Do you want to call every baptized individual elect and regenerate?
If you say that Baptism confirms membership in the New Covenant, you must do so. And the consequence is, for example, (unless you deny the validity of Roman Catholic baptism) that you must call regenerate both Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels who were baptized Roman Catholics, and apply the same label to "Protestant" Hermann Goering, all of whom opposed Christianity when alive and met their ends by suicide.


----------



## Herald

*Acts 2:37-39* 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 

Peter's audience had just heard the gospel preached. I don't think any of us is going to deny that.

While _pistis _is not used in v. 38, _metanoia _does not exist without it. Peter could have easily said, "Have faith and be baptized" or "believe and be baptized." But considering the nature of his audience, he probably used _metanoia _to stress that they needed to turn from dead Judaism, because:



> Acts 2:36 "...God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified."


That Peter said, "for the forgiveness of your sins" reinforces the soteriological nature of this passage.

I see absolutely _nothing _in this passage that even hints at Arminianism, unless my construct is such that I consider all endued with a sort of prevenient grace, and all had equal opportunity to respond. But as human instruments who are proclaiming the gospel, the call is general in scope, even though the result will be specific to the elect.


----------



## discipulo

I think very honestly, that keeping the mutual respect and love we owe each other, there are a lot of loose ends already, that should be deepened for mutual benefit.



Herald said:


> One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires.



So, if we take matters separately, we may skip the purpose of comparing Scripture with Scripture, as the focusing on Acts 2 seems to draw very different conclusions from different authors, and from several of us.

We may well be focusing on the 2 opposite sides of the coin, so to speak, the repentance, belief, side and the covenant formula side, mentioning the children, when we should clarify both. Since both are not contradictory but rather have complementary aims.

So again I ask, how could for the Men of Judea, the mentioning of _the unto your children_ in Acts 2 be exactly to state the opposite of what they would expect, that now in a Better Covenant, extending in scope, to the Gentiles, would contract in promise and blessing, since now they wouldn’t have covenant inclusion by birth?

How could they understand it that way only by the grammatical conjunction of the words, _unto you and to your children_, when in fact it brought such resemblance to the Covenant formulation of Genesis 17:7, that they so high esteemed? 

If Peter really wanted to clearly draw a line there, to suddenly differentiate the entry in the NC in full contrast to all former Administrations, and in opposition to their prior understanding of Redemptive History, would that be enough? 

How would that be consistent with the Kerygma of Acts 3:25, with its covenant proclamation including a generational promise? 

_*Ye are the sons *of the prophets, and *of the Covenant which God made with your fathers*, 
saying unto *Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed*_. Acts 3:25

the word for families comes from patria and pater as fathers, meaning paternal descendants, the fathers and the children - _and for all who are far off _- the earth with its gentiles

And then the articulation of Oikos in the Kerygma of Acts 11:14

_He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you *and all your household.*_ Acts 11:14
with the emphasis kai and pas all

Then we must continue a correct exegesis of this, as I pointed before, the Oikos - Household is similar to both NT and the OT (_But as for me *and my household,* we will serve the LORD_ Joshua 24:15 as the Septuagint also makes crystal clear)

Again like with Peter mentioning the children, if Paul and Luke wanted to make clear that only individual believing adults should be baptized, how could they use repeatedly associated with Baptism, such an inclusive word Household?

Specially so, since their understanding of Oikos was an inclusive unit, both for Jewish and Mediterranean Gentiles, and with all its centrality in OT Redemptive History.

Being already Household - Oikos - an inclusive consistent unit, the family, the different mentions of Baptism in the Oikos context necessarily lead to a collective family understanding of the Sacrament (again as it was with Circumcision), notice that Luke even has the need to reinforce that scope of the administration of Baptism to the Household with the words kai and pas all.

_and immediately he was baptized, *he and all his household*._ Acts 16:33 kai and pas all


_What then? you will say, is there no difference between the Old and the New Testaments? What is to become of the passages of Scripture in which they are contrasted as things differing most widely from each other? I readily admit the differences which are pointed out in Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no respect from their established Unity._

Calvin Institutes Book 2 Chapter 11 - 1


----------



## Herald

> So again I ask, how could for the Men of Judea, the mentioning of _the unto your children_ in Acts 2 be exactly to state the opposite of what they would expect, that now in a Better Covenant, extending in scope, to the Gentiles, would contract in promise and blessing, since now they wouldn’t have covenant inclusion by birth?
> 
> How could they understand it that way only by the grammatical conjunction of the words, _unto you and to your children_, when in fact it brought such resemblance to the Covenant formulation of Genesis 17:7, that they so high esteemed?



Cesar, I'm not so quick to leave the text in order to answer your question. Peter called on the these men of Judea to "repent and be baptized." Let's agree for the sake of argument that these men were acquainted with the baptism of John. If so, then baptism for repentance itself would not have been a totally foreign concept. The uniqueness of this baptism was in what it identified, "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." We know that forgiveness of sins is both _sola gratia _and _sola fide_. Considering the soteriological nature of the text, I assume both are contained with the _metanoia _of Acts 2:38; but even if not the explicit intent of Peter, our greater understanding of soteriology forces it's way into "forgiveness of sins."

I reiterate what Malone wrote:



> One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord's Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.



We can't lift from this account just the part that supports our argument. _In toto_ we see baptism administered after repentance and faith (regardless of when the former took place), the promise extended to the hearer (first generation and all proceeding generations) based on like faith in Christ, and those who had believed and were baptized partaking of the Lord's Supper (v. 42). In this passage are both ordinances (sacraments) of the church -- baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

So, beyond the parsing of nouns and verbs spoke by Peter, the men of Judea also saw the ordinances applied and the continued preaching of the gospel _after _they came to faith:

*Acts 2:40 * 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 

They were not left to convene a meeting to try and decipher what Peter meant. They saw it lived in the continued teaching of the Apostles and the close fellowship of the saints.

The remainder of your post dovetails with it's beginning, so it is answered above.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> *Acts 2:37-39* 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
> 
> Peter's audience had just heard the gospel preached. I don't think any of us is going to deny that.
> 
> While _pistis _is not used in v. 38, _metanoia _does not exist without it. Peter could have easily said, "Have faith and be baptized" or "believe and be baptized." But considering the nature of his audience, he probably used _metanoia _to stress that they needed to turn from dead Judaism, because:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:36 "...God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified."
> 
> 
> 
> That Peter said, "for the forgiveness of your sins" reinforces the soteriological nature of this passage.
> 
> I see absolutely _nothing _in this passage that even hints at Arminianism, unless my construct is such that I consider all endued with a sort of prevenient grace, and all had equal opportunity to respond. But as human instruments who are proclaiming the gospel, the call is general in scope, even though the result will be specific to the elect.
Click to expand...


I asked a simple question Bill. Does the passage teach, systematically, that a person receives the Holy Spirit _after_ repentance and baptism? Secondly, I asked you if Acts 2 is where you go for your systematic understanding of the passage.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 08:27:45 EST-----



timmopussycat said:


> Do you want to call every baptized individual elect and regenerate?
> If you say that Baptism confirms membership in the New Covenant, you must do so. And the consequence is, for example, (unless you deny the validity of Roman Catholic baptism) that you must call regenerate both Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels who were baptized Roman Catholics, and apply the same label to "Protestant" Hermann Goering, all of whom opposed Christianity when alive and met their ends by suicide.



Yet another canard. Let's divert the issue by begging the question a bit, shall we?

I'll end my interaction with you on the subject by noting that the nature of your canards is to re-state the case and then complain: "But you didn't say what kind of blessing...." I'm interested in serious interaction. Since most Baptists who use the idea of "blessing" are thinking of much more than Johnny gets to be brought up in a Baptist instead of a Muslim town I'll leave it to the discerning reader to judge.

The people in Jeremiah's day heard plenty of the Word of God but it fell on the soil and compacted it as it were. There is simply no room for a Baptist understanding of "blessing" for a child in a home given the status that the child has in their theology.

Also, since you depart on so many points from historic theology, I really don't much care whether you believe my characterizations are "representative". I've had as much time as you claim to have around paedo Churches around run of the mill Baptists. Even your fellow Baptists are undermining your claims that I'm misrepresenting by putting forth ideas. Since none of you represents the Confessional position then one position is as good as another as well as several Baptist's experiences over the one.

It is a cop out to duck the question about youths baptized in your Church.


----------



## Herald

Rich,

The Holy Spirit is received at regeneration. I do not form systematic theology from Acts 2.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 09:39:44 EST-----



Herald said:


> *Acts 2:38-39* 8 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."
> 
> I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:
> 
> 1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."
> 
> 2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely _nothing _to do with _applying _the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).



Rich, I didn't quite understand your earlier question about stating this in a way that doesn't seem too Arminian. I had to sit there are stare at it to finally see it for your perspective. 

Of course, the Holy Spirit is given at regeneration. Forgiveness of sins takes place at the same time. Peter was explaining the benefits of repentance -- one of which is forgiveness of sins. I wrote my original post the way I did as a refutation against one of disciplo's posts, not as a treatise on soteriology.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to call every baptized individual elect and regenerate?
> If you say that Baptism confirms membership in the New Covenant, you must do so. And the consequence is, for example, (unless you deny the validity of Roman Catholic baptism) that you must call regenerate both Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels who were baptized Roman Catholics, and apply the same label to "Protestant" Hermann Goering, all of whom opposed Christianity when alive and met their ends by suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another canard.
Click to expand...


Your remark is yet another canard that won't fly. Jeremiah's new covenant specifically promises regeneration to those with whom it is made. If baptism confirms membership in the NC the consequence I pointed out is good and necessary.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Let's divert the issue by begging the question a bit, shall we?
> 
> I'll end my interaction with you on the subject by noting that the nature of your canards is to re-state the case and then complain: "But you didn't say what kind of blessing...." I'm interested in serious interaction. Since most Baptists who use the idea of "blessing" are thinking of much more than Johnny gets to be brought up in a Baptist instead of a Muslim town I'll leave it to the discerning reader to judge.



Did you, in previous serious discussions, ever ask a Baptist to define the blessings they meant in eternal terms only, or did you not? If you did not do so in those discussions you may well have gotten an answer like mine. And if you did exclude the temporal in your earlier questioning, why did you not do so here? I am not a mind reader.



Semper Fidelis said:


> The people in Jeremiah's day heard plenty of the Word of God but it fell on the soil and compacted it as it were. There is simply no room for a Baptist understanding of "blessing" for a child in a home given the status that the child has in their theology.



The people in Jeremiah's day were not the prophecied members of the new covenenant. Peter's hearers were. Since you want a serious discussion, please try to avoid "straw man" exegetical errors which, like this one, argue that you either do not understand what the issue is or haven't fully comprehended the point to which you are replying. And to say that there is "no room for a Baptist understanding of "blessing" for a child in a home given the status that the child has in their theology" is simply a begging of the question. It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their theology." Unfortunately for such "theologians", Christ and the Apostles came along and made changes to the current theology which made room for Christian baptism. Our problem is that we must establish from Scripture the exact scope of those changes.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Also, since you depart on so many points from historic theology, I really don't much care whether you believe my characterizations are "representative".



Taking the WCF as representative of historical orthodoxy, I differ from it only on baptism and church government. (I am not sure one can say that the WCF articulates a full position on EP even though I know the latter was the default view of at least a majority of divines. Likewise I don't think the Westminster Standards formulate a full anti-"charismatic position – I still have an enquiry into the moderators requesting sources in the standards for such.)



Semper Fidelis said:


> I've had as much time as you claim to have around paedo Churches around run of the mill Baptists. Even your fellow Baptists are undermining your claims that I'm misrepresenting by putting forth ideas. Since none of you represents the Confessional position then one position is as good as another as well as several Baptist's experiences over the one.



Please watch your words, I don't "claim" to have spent almost a decade in paedo churches: I did spend that decade there. And did you spend your time among Reformed or run of the mill Baptists? As you may know, that often makes a difference in the Baptist faith you encounter. Second, nothing I have written on baptism is in tension with the OLBC which says nothing against activity of the Holy Spirit in the ordinance.



Semper Fidelis said:


> It is a cop out to duck the question about youths baptized in your Church.



I'm not ducking it. If you specifically want me to do the research in a community where I am not involved in children's ministry and this factoid is not kept track of, give me a little time before accusing me of ducking the question: it will take me a week or two to get the answer for you. I merely pointed out that there is no reason to believe your poll is incorrect when carried out more scientifically in the broader Baptist community and I gave you my reasons for thinking so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their theology."


Well said. Calvin and I would agree on this point.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made _without hands_, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.
Click to expand...


While some Baptists use Rom 6:4 to draw an implication of the mode of Baptism, such usage of that Scripture was not incorporated into the LBC and hence is not a confessional premise.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 12:00:05 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their theology."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. Calvin and I would agree on this point.
Click to expand...


I think you may have misunderstood me, but that's my fault. I should have written "It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their [the Jews'] theology."


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> Cesar, I'm not so quick to leave the text in order to answer your question. Peter called on the these men of Judea to "repent and be baptized." Let's agree for the sake of argument that these men were acquainted with the baptism of John. If so, then baptism for repentance itself would not have been a totally foreign concept. The uniqueness of this baptism was in what it identified, "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." We know that forgiveness of sins is both _sola gratia _and _sola fide_. Considering the soteriological nature of the text, I assume both are contained with the _metanoia _of Acts 2:38; but even if not the explicit intent of Peter, our greater understanding of soteriology forces it's way into "forgiveness of sins." .



Sure, we can agree grounded on Romans 2:4 that Sola Gratia causes that Metanoia.



Herald said:


> I reiterate what Malone wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. *However,* the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord's Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can't lift from this account just the part that supports our argument. _In toto_ we see baptism administered after repentance and faith (regardless of when the former took place), the promise extended to the hearer (first generation and all proceeding generations) based on like faith in Christ, and those who had believed and were baptized partaking of the Lord's Supper (v. 42). In this passage are both ordinances (sacraments) of the church -- baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Click to expand...


In CREC there is Paedo-communion and also Reformed Baptists, could that be, in a Leibnitz sort of way, the best of all possible worlds? 

I must say that I am not convinced that Acts 2 in light of Acts 3, and all the Oikos matter could derive on that *However*, however I don’t know enough to contest it.

But you will understand that for myself, I will rather rely on Joel Beeke’s 20 pages on Acts 2:30s I am aware we are connecting the dots in a different way here.

But there is another matter that I think it’s vital, and was already mentioned. It has to do with the 3rd response of Beeke, on infant salvation before the age of reason. 

On this I will rely mostly on Prof David Engelsma – The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers.

Even more than his mentor Herman Hoeksema, Englesma in my opinion has the right balance between Abraham Kuyper presumptive regeneration and Klaas Schilder conditional covenant. Engelsma instead of both extremes formulates Promised Regeneration. 

I must say that Klaas Schilder had a very dated theology to respond to very a specific Dutch Pastoral context, so has been very misunderstood and greatly misused, let alone been high jacked by FV.

To better understand Klaas Schilder I strongly recommend 
Always Obedient – Essays on the Teachings of Klaas Schilder edited by J. Geertsema. parentheses sponsored by P&R 

But I would like to understand something vital, since from a Baptist perspective, children before professing faith are not inside the NC, so are not meant to be baptized and are not members of the Visible Church, what is then the Biblical basis for stating both total depravity and the salvation of children of believers before the age of reason?

This also has very important pastoral implications like former posts already shown. But please also share, everything you find related, concerning the proper state / condition of the children of believers.
I believe we also have to debate the implications of Infant Baptism, Sacramental Grace, Sign and the Thing Signified, the importance of a child being Sealed, its Efficacy, etc. Also mentioned earlier.

_The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, 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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time_ WCF 28.VI


----------



## Herald

Cesar, I don't believe we are at odds over elect infants being saved. Those elect infants who die in infancy may ever have the opportunity to display the evidence of their faith. Indeed, my own confession states:



> 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. (1689 LBC 10.3)




The point is that Acts 2 has nothing at all to do with infants being saved in infancy. The text clearly describes those who profess their faith (Acts 2:41).


----------



## discipulo

Herald said:


> Fred Malone writes:



As I already wrote, some arguments of Malone are way above my league, so to speak. So concerning Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone, these critical analysis, in my opinion, answer properly the matter of Acts 2 and others, PDFs attached.

Joseph Richard Nally A Brief Critique of Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone

http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/jos_nally/th.jos_nally.baptism.disciples.pdf

Matthew McMahon The Rejection of Baptism of Disciples alone – an analysis of Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone

The Rejection of the* Baptism of Disciples Alone



Herald said:


> Cesar, I don't believe we are at odds over elect infants being saved. Those elect infants who die in infancy may ever have the opportunity to display the evidence of their faith. Indeed, my own confession states:



Sure, probably that was not the right way to address it. 

Election is in the Sovereign and Eternal Decree of God, so yes all elect children will be saved. But if that is the only thing we can derive from God’s Word, I would say we must conform to have the same hope and assurance concerning the children of believers as towards the children of non believers. Is that Biblical? Of course not!

But why then? On what basis? If the children of believers are not in the Covenant and not part of the Visible Church, what is then the basis to pray with our children? to present them to Church in their infancy? To have hope of their salvation?

_See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven._ Mathew 18:10

So if God in His Word makes specific promises and claims to the children of believers then we must understand that God is, in His Sovereignty, trusting His elect children to believing parents and christian households.

This is still affirming the Sovereignty of God in His Election, Free and Independent from any condition or prognosis.

_Because one matter is subordinate to other, doesn’t make them contradictory, that was a Medievalistic concept. So Covenant Doctrine is in *subordination* to the Doctrine of Predestination, but that *is not a contradiction*.
As Karl Barth oddly tried to prove, putting Calvin against Calvinism._

see *Lillback, The Binding of God, Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology.*
Dr. Peter A.Lillback is a PCA Elder and President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. 

So we must take God at His Word since _He cannot deny Himself _ 2 Timothy 2:13

We don’t presume regeneration, but we should presume election on the basis of promised regeneration.

_Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, *you and your household*._ Acts 16:31

_And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, *Permit the children to come to Me*, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these._ Luke 18:15-16

They are to be presumed to be the elect unless, at some point, they demonstrate otherwise.

Because God’s relation to men is Covenantal, and that is in the scope of God’s Condescension. So the relation of God to His people always has its origin on God’s willingness to condescend. In the beginning God, God's Grace is always first !

WCF VII 1 _by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant._

_We walk by faith not by sight_, we must trust the promises of God and obey its implications.

To wait for professed faith in order to accept that those children of believers are finally in the New Covenant, when the NC is an administration of the Eternal Covenant of Grace, exhaustively stated in Scripture and compared in its unity to other administrations, is, In my humble opinion, a clear contradiction of Covenantal Truth.

_For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise *your children *are unclean, but *now they are holy*._ 1 Corinthians 7:14

emphasis mine


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I asked a simple question Bill. Does the passage teach, systematically, that a person receives the Holy Spirit _after_ repentance and baptism? Secondly, I asked you if Acts 2 is where you go for your systematic understanding of the passage.



Just some commentary on this passage. 

Calvin


> Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Rom_10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (Joh_5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.



Gill


> and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from Act_2:42 they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles; see Act_19:5.



I have always understood this part of the passage to indicate some gift the Spirit would give to the believer for his work in the body of Christ. We are all given gifts to operate as a body. I think I stand in good company in my understanding.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 09:43:50 EST-----

One thing that I believe that is missing is how does the New Covenant define the children of promise. ie. covenant children.

Who is the seed or offspring Christ shall see?



> (Isa 53:10) 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.



Christ defines what his Covenant Family is. 



> (Mat 12:47) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
> 
> (Mat 12:48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
> 
> (Mat 12:49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
> 
> (Mat 12:50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
> 
> 
> 
> (Luk 8:19) Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
> 
> (Luk 8:20) And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
> 
> (Luk 8:21) And he answered and said unto them, *My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.*





> (Joh 1:12) 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:
> 
> (Joh 1:13) *Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God*.




Paul then expounds on who the children of God are.




> (Rom 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
> 
> (Rom 9:7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, *In Isaac shall thy seed be called.*
> 
> (Rom 9:8) That is, *They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed*.
> 
> (Rom 9:9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.



The children of Promise are the brethren and family of God.



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



The New Covenant child is one who is born from above. Those who are in Christ. These are the brethren. If one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not one of his until such a time that he is born from above. Christ the second Adam is his head and Father.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

What this underlines, as usual, is the divorce in Baptistic theology between the people in the OT and the NT that the NT itself repudiates.

Every time I read a Baptist quote Galatians as above, I cringe. Abraham wouldn't have recognized himself in the characterization of what he thought his family was about.

What I find striking about this theology is how a Baptist can repeatedly speak about the New Covenant in the abstract, separate it from the visible Church, and then return to the discussion as if anything that was just noted has any bearing upon the ordinances of the Church. I suppose it's simply repeated so much that it is believed that the more you affirm that the New Covenant is with the Elect that the less it is that the hidden things belong to the Lord.

Even if one grants the repeated insistence that the New Covenant consists of the Elect, more work has to be done to prescribe how it is that a visible Church acts in human history with Church men who have to read the Word of God and not try to peer into the mind of God.

For instance, there has never been a time in human history when God did not save His people through union with Christ. It was His grace through and through and the Gospel has been delivered from _faith to faith_ that the just shall live by faith. Yet, that being the case, God used visible sacraments (or ordinances if you insist) to direct the eyes and ears of His elect toward Him even as they did not know who was/wasn't elect among them.

The Baptist has to do more, then, than simply note that an elect exists and it's called the New Covenant. Since the Old Covenant that contained types and shadows was used of God to bring people to Christ, there is a problem that there is now no Covenant that actually intrudes into time and space. That is to say that the NC is completely ideal as far as man understands but none of the ordinances can actually be said to be administrations of the New Covenant because a mixed multitude exists even in Baptist Churches.

This is the irony of baptism debates: for all the insistence that the NC is with the elect, the Baptist doesn't even believe that baptism confers membership to the NC. Thus, the activity of the Church stands, as it were, outside of direct relationship with the NC and, in fact, this present "dispensation" is "Covenant-less" with respect to the administration of the ordinances.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe you are painting a straw man here Rich. In fact the ordinances require examination before God and also are a means of grace to the church in this quest that you are trying to illuminate.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 10:16:47 EST-----

Let me add some more thought here real quickly. The body of Christ is what is portrayed and examination is meant to help one recognize whether or not one is in Christ or not. They draw us back to Union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. It is based upon the cup of the New Covenant in his blood.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 10:21:56 EST-----

Just some scripture.



> (2Co 13:5) Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?





> (1Co 11:18) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
> 
> (1Co 11:19) *For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.*
> 
> (1Co 11:20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
> 
> (1Co 11:21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
> 
> (1Co 11:22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
> 
> (1Co 11:23) For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
> 
> (1Co 11:24) And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
> 
> (1Co 11:25) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
> 
> (1Co 11:26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
> 
> (1Co 11:27) Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
> 
> (1Co 11:28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
> 
> (1Co 11:29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> 
> (1Co 11:30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
> 
> (1Co 11:31) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
> 
> (1Co 11:32) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
> 
> (1Co 11:33) Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
> 
> (1Co 11:34) And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.



In fact the Lord's supper is to help distinguish between the reprobate and the brethren in my understanding.


----------



## discipulo

That is mostly true, but is it the whole truth?
Brother I was baptized as an adult after my conversion.
Unfortunately I was not raised in a Christian family and I was an atheist till I was 19. So Paedos also believe in Credo Baptism, of course.

But Norseman, can you please answer.
Were all the Circumcised Children in the OT in the Covenant?
Were all of those God’s children?
Were all elect?
How did God see all those children?

_And you took *your sons *and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered *my children *and sacrificed them to the idols _Ezekiel 16:20-21

Bill was using Agustine’s quote: the New is in the Old concealed: the Old is in the New revealed.
But the NT again and again points us to former admin. of the CoG to explain the NC.
It explains Sacraments, in your words Ordinances, in light of the former Passover and Circumcision.
If we don’t have the same Hermeneutical Approach we will never agree on this.
In my humble opinion BR introduce a Dispensational cleavage in the Oikonomia of the NC.
You mention those passages, but is it different in the NC?
But what is it New in the NC? Justification by faith? Regeneration? No
So should now children of believers be kept out of the Covenant?
A Better Covenant, extending in scope to the Gentiles, must not contract to the most «sacred unit», the family.
That is what Oikos Baptism is all about.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe you are painting a straw man here Rich. In fact the ordinances require examination before God and also are a means of grace to the church in this quest that you are trying to illuminate.


Can you show me where I have claimed, above, that the ordinances do not require examination?

What I stated was that the administration of the ordinance is disconnected from the New Covenant proper. The Church can, at best, approximate what it thinks the Holy Spirit has done but it is the Holy Spirit that has joined to the New Covenant prior to the ordinances and not because of them.

What do you mean by means of grace exactly?



> Let me add some more thought here real quickly. The body of Christ is what is portrayed and examination is meant to help one recognize whether or not one is in Christ or not. They draw us back to Union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. It is based upon the cup of the New Covenant in his blood.



This is introspective, however, and is not due to the fact that the Covenant is in the midst of the person. For all he knows, the believer is either self-deceived or is the only true believer in the Church. The ordinance itself, then, is a memorial for him but there is no communion with any other physical person in the building.

There is a very good reason why God uses physical objects that direct our minds to spiritual realities and, I believe, without a sacramental understanding of this then the bare memorial strips away real grace and leaves the believer with introspection - looking to himself for fruit to ascertain if they are really elect. This is poison for assurance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

discipulo said:


> That is mostly true, but is it the whole truth?
> Brother I was baptized as an adult after my conversion.
> Unfortunately I was not raised in a Christian family and I was an atheist till I was 19. So Paedos also believe in Credo Baptism, of course.



We are not discussing whether one should be in the church and not be baptized. Your point is mute here.



discipulo said:


> But Norseman, can you please answer.
> Were all the Circumcised Children in the OT in the Covenant?
> Were all of those God’s children?
> Were all elect?
> How did God see all those children?



He saw some in relation to Ishmael and some in relation to Isaac. God saw some in the Abrahamic covenant with civil promises and others with civil and spiritual. Look at the differences between Ishmael and Isaac. There were promises made to Abraham pertaining both in his covenant. Ishmael was not included in the Covenant of Grace as you can see in Genesis 17. God establishes his covenant with Isaac and not with Ishmael.



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





discipulo said:


> _And you took *your sons *and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? You slaughtered *my children *and sacrificed them to the idols _Ezekiel 16:20-21



I see what you are saying but I don't think it addressed the issue at hand in light of what I revealed.



discipulo said:


> Bill was using Agustine’s quote: the New is in the Old concealed: the Old is in the New revealed.
> But the NT again and again points us to former admin. of the CoG to explain the NC.
> It explains Sacraments, in your words Ordinances, in light of the former Passover and Circumcision.



The antitype has come. The seed has been fulfilled in Christ. The antitypes are done away with. We have a better Covenant now. The old is passed away as it is called a ministry of death. 

You might want to look at Rich's and my discussion on the Abrahamic Covenant. Remember this discussion we just had. 

I know you read it.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/split-why-i-am-now-paedo-thread-41627/#post515858



discipulo said:


> If we don’t have the same Hermeneutical Approach we will never agree on this.



I understand. We will probably never agree. 



discipulo said:


> In my humble opinion BR introduce a Dispensational cleavage in the Oikonomia of the NC.
> You mention those passages, but is it different in the NC?
> But what is it New in the NC? Justification by faith? Regeneration? No
> So should now children of believers be kept out of the Covenant?
> A Better Covenant, extending in scope to the Gentiles, must not contract to the most «sacred unit», the family.
> That is what Oikos Baptism is all about.



You have flattened out the Covenants too much. I recommend you read Owen on Hebrews chapter 8 and consider what the scriptures say in Jeremiah 31.



> (2Co 3:6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
> 
> (2Co 3:7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
> 
> (2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
> 
> (2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
> 
> (2Co 3:10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
> 
> (2Co 3:11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.





> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> (Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.





> (Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> (Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> (Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
> 
> (Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
> 
> (Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
> 
> (Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
> 
> (Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.



-----Added 1/6/2009 at 11:00:21 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> The Baptist has to do more, then, than simply note that an elect exists and it's called the New Covenant. Since the Old Covenant that contained types and shadows was used of God to bring people to Christ, there is a problem that there is now no Covenant that actually intrudes into time and space. That is to say that the NC is completely ideal as far as man understands but none of the ordinances can actually be said to be administrations of the New Covenant because a mixed multitude exists even in Baptist Churches.
> 
> This is the irony of baptism debates: for all the insistence that the NC is with the elect, the Baptist doesn't even believe that baptism confers membership to the NC. Thus, the activity of the Church stands, as it were, outside of direct relationship with the NC and, in fact, this present "dispensation" is "Covenant-less" with respect to the administration of the ordinances.



When one participates in the ordinances, does that necessarily mean he is a Covenant member and a Covenant child of God? Does the ordinance lose its significance and power because of the one who drinks or eats unworthily? What is a means of Grace to you? Because one who is unworthy drinks or is baptized does not render the Covenant itself null and void. It only means they trample under foot the person and work of Christ. They are blasphemers. And I believe Paul spoke to this issue in 1 Cor. 11. We do not make it a Covenant-less ordinance as you speak of. We affirm the Covenant of God by it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thank you for confirming what I just wrote Randy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thank you for confirming what I just wrote Randy.



So Rich... Are reprobates a part of the New Covenant? I think you would say yes where the scriptures would say no.



> (Eph 2:8) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
> 
> (Eph 2:9) Not of works, lest any man should boast.
> 
> (Eph 2:10) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
> 
> (Eph 2:11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
> 
> (Eph 2:12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
> 
> (Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
> 
> (Eph 2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
> 
> (Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
> 
> (Eph 2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
> 
> (Eph 2:17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
> 
> (Eph 2:18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
> 
> (Eph 2:19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
> 
> (Eph 2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
> 
> (Eph 2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
> 
> (Eph 2:22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.



I do believe our hermeneutic is different. You are trying to put New wine into old wines skins. You are trying to put a new patch of cloth over old fabric and are doing harm to the material instead of recognizing that the old should be done away with as we now have a new.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

You can quote the Scriptures on this point all you like. All you do is underline my point above yet again. Read: The New Covenant is with the Elect alone. Really? I guess you assume that every time you read something about the benefits of union with Christ in the Covenant of Promise that it establishes the case. It does not.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> You can quote the Scriptures on this point all you like. All you do is underline my point above yet again. Read: The New Covenant is with the Elect alone. Really? I guess you assume that every time you read something about the benefits of union with Christ in the Covenant of Promise that it establishes the case. It does not.



Well, I guess we will find out when that which is perfect is come. Aye? I still see through a glass darkly.


----------



## MOSES

Concerning Acts 2 passage.

I think that one thing that many fail to take into consideration when looking at this passage is this:

_22 “Men of Israel...this Jesus,..you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men_

The context of these words is set in the temple and the back drop of the OC system...now these men, Israel, guilty of murder ask this:

_37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”_


Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do. The OC does not have a sacrifice, a ceremony, a covering, etc..for those guilty of murder. They, while in the temple where sacrfices were made, ask "what shall we do?" Outside of the NC there is nothing for them to do. But, in the NC there is a sacrifice that is sufficient for them.
Thus Peter says:

_Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins_

That for which the guilty men of Israel could not be done under the OC can be done in the NC..
Thus this contrast and comparison in the context, between the OC temple system in thier midst, and the HS ministering in a "new way" in thier midst, clarifies, in my opinion, NC baptism.
And points to the sacramental nature of it.

This is far different then John's baptism...a jewish only baptism of preperation (cleansing)..
This new "Christian" baptism is set up in direct replacement, according to the context as I stated above, to the ceremonial 'temple' system which was insufficient for these men.

Thus, in my opinion, the denying of this 'ceremonial' 'sacramental' aspect of NC baptism is one of the mistakes that many in the "baptist" camp make. 
The OC ceremonial system was not instituted as a way of "active" outward obedience by men when they felt compelled...it was instituted as a mandatory corporate administration of the covenant.
Thus, baptism too should be administered in the same madatory corporate way...
As Peter say's

_be baptized every one of you_ acts 2:38

This is not a compelling of one to "active" participation in the NC...no more then the OC system did not compell. This is a commandment in regards to the Covenant's administration.

I don't think the independent, active, self obedience, type nature of American Baptist culture, is really what is in view in this text. But rather, the passive CORPORATE administration of the covenant (albeit, in a "new way")


----------



## discipulo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You have flattened out the Covenants too much. I recommend you read Owen on Hebrews chapter 8 and consider what the scriptures say in Jeremiah 31..



Thank you brother for the references. My meagre  

Doesn't Hebrews 8 mentions the megas and the mikros  

in my opinion it is no flattening, that’s a nice word, brother, only progressive revelation. now and not yet, and more now so to speak.
So progressive revelation, and Christ, Gen 3:15 protoevangelion, the Rock in the Desert, etc, bringing the fulfilment of the Kingdom.

Oscar Culmann Christus und die Zeit

Herman Ridderbos The Coming of the Kingdom.

Dr. Richard Pratt explains how Jeremiah 31 only has its fulfilment in the Eschaton

JEREMIAH 31: INFANT BAPTISM IN THE NEW COVENANT

The Antithesis is never between Administrations of the CoG, as Luther thought of the OT. It is between Law and Grace (this has no Antinomianism / Legalism bias) so the Second Adam Christ, as our Federal Head, fulfilled the perfect obedience to the Law.

The NC abolishes the Cerimonial Law that is the Hebrews 8 – 10 context.

Hebrews 8 and Owen, why do I have the feeling that you’re into James R. White 

Owen is always welcome 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> So Rich... Are reprobates a part of the New Covenant? I think you would say yes where the scriptures would say no.



You must agree that to maintain the Persvrc.of the Saints (as I know you do) in a narrowed covenantal scope NC, only to adult professed believers (one should avoid regeneration mentioning then) the scriptural admonitions against apostasy and covenant breaking become a difficult exegetical exercise. I would say.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I know little of James White. I have only read one book by him on the KJV controversy and listened to his series on the New Paul Perspective. I have discussed your understanding with others on the board. I disagree with your presuppositions. And no I don't think that Covenant breaking is difficult. I am divorced. And apostasy has been discussed here as well. I have no problem with it any more than the parable of the seeds. 

The text in Jeremiah says it all. They are forgiven and he remembers their sins no more. It isn't like a Covenant He made with their fathers. There is a different Covenant Head and mediator. It is new.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 03:57:06 EST-----

BTW, Either you are not reading what I am writing or you are negligent in how I have discussed the covenants and how they administer or minister.


----------



## Herald

> Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do.



If you're referring to the codified Law -- correct. But God was as much a God of mercy and grace during the OC as He is during the NC.

2 Samuel 12:1-13 is a perfect example of a sin that there was no remedy for under the Law. David threw himself on the mercy of God. This is not the only example. To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.


----------



## MOSES

Herald said:


> Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the codified Law -- correct. But God was as much a God of mercy and grace during the OC as He is during the NC.
> 
> 2 Samuel 12:1-13 is a perfect example of a sin that there was no remedy for under the Law. David threw himself on the mercy of God. This is not the only example. To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.
Click to expand...



Yes...I was speaking of the "codified" law; specifically the ceremonial system itself, in saying:


moses said:


> The OC does not have a sacrifice, a ceremony, a covering etc..for those guilty of murder





Herald said:


> To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.



Note: appealing to the "limitations of the Law" is something that the NT writers do quite often; formulating entire doctrines.
I personally believe that the ACTs 2 passage begins as an example of this "appeal" process (in a way)...and thus does not exceed the intent, but is part of the intent.


----------



## Herald

MOSES said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guess what, under the OC there is absolutely nothing that these men can do.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're referring to the codified Law -- correct. But God was as much a God of mercy and grace during the OC as He is during the NC.
> 
> 2 Samuel 12:1-13 is a perfect example of a sin that there was no remedy for under the Law. David threw himself on the mercy of God. This is not the only example. To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...I was speaking of the "codified" law; specifically the ceremonial system itself, in saying:
> 
> 
> moses said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OC does not have a sacrifice, a ceremony, a covering etc..for those guilty of murder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> To appeal to the limitations of the Law as a way of making your point is, In my humble opinion, exceeding the intent of the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note: appealing to the "limitations of the Law" is something that the NT writers do quite often; formulating entire doctrines.
> I personally believe that the ACTs 2 passage begins as an example of this "appeal" process (in a way)...and thus does not exceed the intent, but is part of the intent.
Click to expand...


Agree to disagree. In my humble opinion within Acts 2 appealing to the limitations of the Law, in the manner you have prescribed, is not supported by the text.


----------



## MOSES

Herald said:


> Agree to disagree. In my humble opinion within Acts 2 appealing to the limitations of the Law, in the manner you have prescribed, is not supported by the text.



Herald
I hope you don't mind if I take a shot at stating my position here in an attempt to lessen our disagreement.

If a scripture commands someone to do A) and B) *for the forgiveness of sins*, and A and B is not in exact accordance with the law...then consequently there must be a limitation in the law that is being appealed to (though perhaps not directly), but only IN REGARDS TO the original audience, which in the Acts 2 case was devout jews.
Note: this same appeal would not apply to us being we are not under the ceremonial law. But it does fit with the context as well as Peter's direct audience.

again, these jews were commanded to do something for the forgiveness of sins. That something was not prescribed in the ceremonial law. Therefore, in this case, the law is limited, and the one doing the commanding of that which is new (Peter) is by consequence appealing to the limitation of the law (in an indirect way). 


Would you perhaps agree that there is at least a sort of "indirect" appeal to the limitation of the law in this portion of scripture? Or perhaps that this text could justify a sermon on teaching the insufficiency of the law in this regard?
OR..do you see no limitation, no appeal to the limitation, on the law at all in this scripture?

Thanks


----------



## Herald

> Would you perhaps agree that there is at least a sort of "indirect" appeal to the limitation of the law in this portion of scripture? Or perhaps that this text could justify a sermon on teaching the insufficiency of the law in this regard?
> OR..do you see no limitation, no appeal to the limitation, on the law at all in this scripture?


Shawn, I do not believe Peter's sermon directly or obliquely deals with the limitation of the Law. We can extrapolate that the sin of murder had no remedy under the Law, but that was not the intent of Peter's message. I wrote earlier that while there was no remedy under the Law for murder, there was the appeal to God's mercy. I used David's sin in ordering the murder of Uriah, and his subsequent repentance, as an example.

Brother, while you can certainly "lift" out of the passage some good preachable material (i.e. the limitation of the Law), the intent of the passage is to A) Expose the sin of the Jews (2:36) ~and~ B) Call on them to repent and believe (2:21, 38, 40, 47). 

In my lengthy dialog with Cesar (discipulo), I repeatedly brought the discussion back to the clear teaching of the text. In my humble opinion some participants in this thread are imposing their covenant continuity construct over this passage and conflating that with the plain normative meaning of the text. If you take the time to catch up on the thread, you'll see that much of the argument is coming full circle. 

Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't think we can ignore the desperation of the pleas in Acts 2.

The "Men and Brethren, What shall we do?" is a desperate question. These men realized they had just put the Son of God to death. Whether or not there is remedy under the Law for the murder of a man is debatable (I believe Psalm 53 actually demonstrates that David's forgiveness is not strictly forgiveness based on the strictness of the Law but upon grace).

What cannot be argued, however, is that there is a remedy under the Law for the murder of the _Son of God_. Whatever else you want to draw from Acts 2, I think we need to keep straight why the men were so cut to the heart on this point. How would you react if you realized you just denied the Son of God, put Him to death, and mocked Him while you were doing so? Given the time between Passover and Pentecost (as well as their requirement to be there for the former), these men were around for the Passover and couldn't have missed the News. I believe the reason that these hearers believed that day was, in no small part, the intercession of Christ for them while suffering on the Cross.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't think we can ignore the desperation of the pleas in Acts 2.
> 
> The "Men and Brethren, What shall we do?" is a desperate question. These men realized they had just put the Son of God to death. Whether or not there is remedy under the Law for the murder of a man is debatable (I believe Psalm 53 actually demonstrates that David's forgiveness is not strictly forgiveness based on the strictness of the Law but upon grace).
> 
> What cannot be argued, however, is that there is no remedy under the Law for the murder of the _Son of God_. Whatever else you want to draw from Acts 2, I think we need to keep straight why the men were so cut to the heart on this point. How would you react if you realized you just denied the Son of God, put Him to death, and mocked Him while you were doing so? Given the time between Passover and Pentecost (as well as their requirement to be there for the former), these men were around for the Passover and couldn't have missed the News. I believe the reason that these hearers believed that day was, in no small part, the intercession of Christ for them while suffering on the Cross.



Rich, I concur. My response to Shawn had to do _specifically _with the intent of the text in relation to the limitation of the Law.


----------

