# Feelings on paedobaptism



## AThornquist

This is not in any way meant to be a credo vs paedobaptism thread, so please don't let it turn into one. My issue is fairly simple: 

As one who has credobaptist convictions, what is a proper response to a paedobaptist brother who joyfully announces that he baptized his infant child? Our friend "Marrow Man" is a good immediate example of this. My first response to such a brother is to be joyful with him and celebrate the fact that he has obeyed the conviction set on his heart. That is not to say that _I necessarily agree_ with the conviction but the circumstances are not the appropriate ones for me to express my opinion, obviously. Does my first response make me a crummy baptist? Should I keep silent? Or if I am told directly do I just say, "Oh" and not worry about it?

Any help here would be great.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I do understand your question. I think it is analogous to a situation I recently faced in which a friend of mine had his infant son dedicated in his EFCA church. 

Questions to ask yourself:

1. Is it a good thing that the Lord has given this friend of yours a child? (Yes.)
2. Is it a good thing that the Lord has placed this child in a believing home? (Yes.)
3. Is it a good thing that this friend and his wife are committed to raising this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord? (Yes.)

So it seems to me that you have many things for which you should rejoice. I understand that you disagree with your friend's understanding in this area - as I do with my friend. But in this case, I'd be thankful for these truly good things and bear in mind that while the baptism issue is important, it is not a cardinal doctrine. There is a time and place to express disagreements and differences, but when your friend is rejoicing about something that even you would agree reflects many good things, I'd say that then is NOT the time to rain on his parade. 

So when I was told of my friend's dedication of his son, I shared his joy that God had brought him a son and I encouraged him to be faithful to raise his son in the fear and admonition of the Lord. (Trust me, he already knows what I think of infant dedication, so I don't need to bring it up at this point.... and I'm guessing in your case that your paedobaptist friend knows your position as well.)

Hope that helps.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

> 9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
> 
> Romans 12:9-13 (ESV)



Submitted for your consideration....


----------



## Marrow Man

Friend, I would not expect you agree with my convictions. Whatever is not of faith is sin. My thread was not meant to force the theology of infant baptism on anyone (indeed, that was not the primary point of the post) but simply to share in my joy with our child. 

I do not think you are a crummy Baptist at all. I do think, though, that anyone expressing disagreement would at this point lose in the court of proper opinion. To turn just a joyous moment into a opportunity for a theological dual would be improper.

OTOH, you have raised a valid question. Baptists might disagree with Presbyterians on the issue, but one does not (I hope) view the other as heretical, just in error (i.e., not a soul-jeopardizing error). But what if a Roman Catholic had posted a similar thing and then claimed that his child's original sin was washed away and he/she was essentially "saved"? Would we then be obligated to comment otherwise?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> while the baptism issue is important, it is not a cardinal doctrine.


 
"Cardinal" -- "on which something hinges." Does nothing hinge on the doctrine of baptism?


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> while the baptism issue is important, it is not a cardinal doctrine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cardinal" -- "on which something hinges." Does nothing hinge on the doctrine of baptism?
Click to expand...

 
Oy vey.


----------



## Iconoclast

Andrew,
We can rejoice in that we see the joy and intent of padeo parents to place before their child the promises contained in the gospel. We understand The different model they believe to be the teaching of scripture. I sort of translate what they are saying into how I understand things to be based on the scripture.
The more we interact on these threads we can see a similarity in how we view instructing our children,and also that we both realize that all children of believers that are going to be saved will in God's time be brought to a saving knowledge of truth.
That fact that many times God is pleased to work in households in the children of believers is a great blessing.
Sometimes I see credo parents desire baptism for their offspring at a very early age, and I have a similar feeling towards it.


----------



## au5t1n

Andrew, I have known other Baptists who rejoiced when a friend had his child baptized, so you are not alone. It may be a different kind of rejoicing for a Baptist than for a paedo, but it is there nonetheless.


----------



## Herald

Andrew,

I understand the premise of your question and I appreciate it. When I read brother Tim's Facebook status on having baptized his daughter, I actually smiled. I wasn't agreeing that his daughter was the proper recipient of baptism, but as Ben said in his third point:



> 3. Is it a good thing that this friend and his wife are committed to raising this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord? (Yes.)



Considering the health concerns little Grace has endured in her short life, I rejoiced with my brother over the fact that his daughter is being raised by godly parents who love the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course I disagree over the baptism issue, but it is not necessary for me to smack my Presbyterian brethren over the head with it every time they baptize one of their children. I can rejoice in the birth of a child and the knowledge that child will be exposed on a daily basis to the Gospel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Moderator Note

The OP asked that this not be a debate. Please keep it that away. 

I actually rejoice in the fact that God can use something that is in error to be a means of grace. We do it all the time when we share Christ in an imperfect way. I do hold a high view of Baptism and the Church. I am not paedo. I rejoice with those who rejoice and try to carry the burdens of those who are suffering. I myself have landed in all kinds of different seasons of life. I rejoice for the life of the child and the fact that the parents consider God's Covenant of Grace as something of utmost importance. 

Now concerning a prior question of RCC baptism and the understanding that they are washing away original sin by application of physical Baptism, I would have to say that I do not rejoice in any manner of this deception. It doesn't consider the Covenant of Grace nor the 5 solas so it is a different animal all together.


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The OP asked that this not be a debate. Please keep it that away.
> 
> I actually rejoice in the fact that God can use something that is in error to be a means of grace.



Error? What exactly are you trying to say, friend? Didn't think this was supposed to be a debate. 

J/K

I heard someone Baptist (James White, I think) describe what a joyous blessing it was for him to baptize his own two children (both teenagers/young adults). This is what I was alluding to -- the joy of a father being able to baptize his child. It is a truly special blessing. For all of the (relatively minor) struggles and disappointments that I might have experienced in the ministry, this is definitely a blessing which I cannot express in words. And though I would not agree with James White on his view of baptism or the nature of the church, I can know share somewhat in understanding the joy he experienced.

One more note: I should have noted earlier that it would be quite unusual for a RC to experience what I experience -- that is, a priest being able to baptize his own child.


----------



## MW

The reality is that antipaedobaptists see this particular issue as reason enough to separate from paedobaptists and maintain their own communion. Let's put away the sentamentality for a moment and view the original question with something like biblical nerve. If one can rejoice that a brother is following his convictions, that one should also find his rejoicing in consistently carrying through his own convictions, 2 Cor. 1:12, which means he should stand up for what he believes and tell his brother that his action of baptising his child is the reason why he does not maintain communion with him, and until he ceases from this action the two of them can never come to terms and join in communion according to biblical precept. At least then each would know where the other stands and teaching could be judged by the fruit it produces.


----------



## DMcFadden

As a Baptist for longer than most of you have been alive . . .

I rejoice in God's gift of a child to (weird ole crazy) Marrow Man. I celebrate his bringing his daughter under the covenant sign and committing to raise her in the Lord. My exegetical disagreements, notwithstanding, this is wonderful news! As one who baptized most of his own kids, I share the joy with Tim. What a wonderful experience.

BTW - ALL doctrines have consequences. However, moving from an exegetical disagreement to pronouncing those with whom we disagree "errorists" in eternal danger would be akin to claiming that the "crime" of speeding is equal to the "crime" of murder. Even if I am 100% correct 100% of the time, I doubt that 100% of those who disagree with me are in eternal jeopardy.


----------



## Montanablue

I think you're missing the point. As a credo-baptist, I don't rejoice that the child is being baptized. However as Ben, Bill, and PuritanCovenentar said, I rejoice for the life of the child and that the child is being raised by godly parents in the "fear and admonition of the Lord." I wouldn't imagine that our paedo-baptist brothers and sisters would expect us to rejoice in the actual act, but we can at least share in joy and thanksgiving for the child and its place in a believing family and community of believers.

Edit: I crossposted with Dennis and he said it better.


----------



## MW

Here is the original question:

"As one who has credobaptist convictions, what is a proper response to a paedobaptist brother who joyfully announces that he baptized his infant child?"

The question does not relate to the birth of a child, or the rearing of the child in a Christian home, but to the baptism of a child. If I have "missed the point" it would be owing to the fact that "the point" is not "the point" of the original question.


----------



## AThornquist

Thanks a lot for the responses; it's particularly helpful to see the perspectives of wiser, godlier men who are in similar or identical circumstances. I'm much more assured that my joy is not misplaced.

Have a blessed Lord's day, everyone.


----------



## Scott1

Perhaps one way of coming to terms with it might be to understand that, as long as it is a biblical reformed church, the child is really being baptized based on the (examined) faith of at least one parent.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Here is the original question:
> 
> "As one who has credobaptist convictions, what is a proper response to a paedobaptist brother who joyfully announces that he baptized his infant child?"
> 
> The question does not relate to the birth of a child, or the rearing of the child in a Christian home, but to the baptism of a child. If I have "missed the point" it would be owing to the fact that "the point" is not "the point" of the original question.



Matthew,

What is the proper response? It depends on how I, as a Baptist, learn of the announcement. If brother Tim called me on the phone and said, "Bill, rejoice with me. Baby Grace was just baptized." Would that be an appropriate time to launch into a baptism debate? More than likely, knowing that I am a Baptist, brother Tim probably wouldn't make that call. In fact, how many Baptists, outside of internet status updates, are going to know that a Presbyterian parent is baptizing their child? Not that many. Why? Because, for the most part, Presbyterians commune with Presbyterians and Baptists commune with Baptists. It takes a dynamic such as Facebook or the Puritan Board to bring both groups into regular contact. So, when I read Tim's Facebook status update about Grace's baptism, how should I have reacted? I didn't condone the baptism, but I understood that Tim is a brother in Christ, and seeks to maintain a godly home and environment, our difference over baptism notwithstanding.

Now, if Tim called me and asked my opinion on baptizing his daughter, I would be _obligated _to oppose him based on my convictions. But then again, how likely is it that a paedobaptist brother is going to seek my opinion on whether they should baptize their child? The reality is Baptist and Presbyterians co-exist together in the universal church. We have sharp and well defined disagreements, and there are appropriate times to debate them. But can't we rejoice over friends who love the Lord and are seeking to do His will?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DMcFadden

Perhaps reflecting my own shallow understanding of theology . . .

The "differences" leading to a "different" fellowship for theological differences are not all of the same importance, even to those maintaining the value of the "different" fellowship. For instance, my assistant is the wife of a LCMS pastor. 

We AGREE in the funamentals of orthodox theology, as well as inerrancy, creationism, opposing revisionist views of human sexuality, etc. We disagree ENOUGH over baptism and communion that I see the value of separate denominations. She and her husband hold to a view on communion that I do not find taught in the Bible. Only one of us can be correct. Communion is an important doctrine with real consequences. However, it would never cross my mind to lump them in with the JWs, Mormons, or even the mainline libs.

I have MUCH more in common theologically with my LCMS assistant and her pastor husband than I do with the mainline Baptists who recognized my Baptist ordination 32 years ago! For fairly obvious reasons, differences on credo vs. paedo baptism will lead to separate congregations/denominations in the same way that differences over communion will.

Ironically, when I was pastoring a Baptist church, a LCMS minister could have spoken in my pulpit. The rules of the LCMS, however, would not have allowed me the same courtesy. So, yes, I do understand the objection some of our paedo brethren have to the "consistent" logic they think that Baptists "should" have toward brethren with different views. Blessedly, few are so consistent.

So . . . I rejoice at the baptism of every baby in every one of our PB families. But, then again, I'm so muddle headed as to appreciate those of you who hold different eschatological views from mine too.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> Here is the original question:
> 
> "As one who has credobaptist convictions, what is a proper response to a paedobaptist brother who joyfully announces that he baptized his infant child?"
> 
> The question does not relate to the birth of a child, or the rearing of the child in a Christian home, but to the baptism of a child. If I have "missed the point" it would be owing to the fact that "the point" is not "the point" of the original question.



I think I did respond to the question specifically Rev. Winzer. As I noted.....



> I actually rejoice in the fact that God can use something that is in error to be a means of grace. We do it all the time when we share Christ in an imperfect way. I do hold a high view of Baptism and the Church. I am not paedo. I rejoice with those who rejoice and try to carry the burdens of those who are suffering. I myself have landed in all kinds of different seasons of life. *I rejoice for the life of the child and the fact that the parents consider God's Covenant of Grace as something of utmost importance.*



I don't think I am being mamby pamby about it. But I do have a love for my brethren and rejoice in the Covenant of Grace that Christ paid a high price for. It redeems us from our failure in the Covenant of Works. As 1 Corinthians 13 says,.... I can have all knowledge and not have Charity. That is worthless according to Paul. 

So lets not debate it here.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Perhaps reflecting my own shallow understanding of theology . . .
> 
> The "differences" leading to a "different" fellowship for theological differences are not all of the same importance, even to those maintaining the value of the "different" fellowship.


 
A Reformed understanding would take seriously the imperative to be of the same mind and to speak the same things. The idea of separate communions should lead us to work through our differences so that we can agree in the Lord, according to apostolic command. The idea of covering over differences and pretending all is well is contrary to the simplicity and godly sincerity which is part and parcel of biblical rejoicing.


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello Matthew,
you said this;


> The reality is that antipaedobaptists see this particular issue as reason enough to separate from paedobaptists and maintain their own communion.



Matthew, many of us were saved by God ,and from reading the bible we obeyed the command to repent and be baptized in a positive way, in many cases before we were aware of the padeo point of view. 
It was not as if we went about to be anti anything, as much as it was about obeying Jesus.
We come to find out later how others who profess faith in Christ have thought they see the scriptures saying something else. Some study out the differences and change their position, some study and hold on to what they have already held too.
The original post was addressing what to do when we are in the situation, not so much of confronting a parent who has not asked for any confrontation. We are rejoicing in what we can rejoice in , in common.
We usually get more than enough opportunity to speak to our differences, on many other threads.


----------



## DMcFadden

Just had an epiphany. Most of my "broad evangelical" background is unhelpful. One positive value, however, is the tendency to differentiate the things that NEED to characterize Christians from the things that separate us denominationally. Evangelicals routinely "do ministry" with folks in Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Weslyan churches. The problem, in my opinion, does not have to do with theological differences per se. Rather, it relates to a sectarian mindset. MacArthur and Sproul can "fellowship" despite their real differences ("leaky dispensationalist" vs. somewhat "independent" Presbyterian) because what unites them is more important than what separates them. Neither of them operates with a sectarian mindset (although MacArthur began there decades ago). Those with a sectarian mindset, however, can hardly fellowship with those with whom they have a hair's breath of difference.

Would I wish that we all had a uniformity of understanding on all issues theological? Sure. But I am happy to "settle" for real spiritual unity even where there are not exactly uniform understandings. Same with my marriage, btw. Nearly 36 years of marriage and we still do not agree on all "issues."


----------



## MW

I didn't realise this thread was a time out from reformed perspective to share in meaningless sentimentality. Perhaps future sentimental threads might be placed in the coffee shop rather than a theology forum in order to avoid confusion.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DMcFadden said:


> Same with my marriage, btw. Nearly 36 years of marriage and we still do not agree on all "issues."



Way to go. Good luck on that one. The total agreement thing that is. I know you can do the other till the end. Love covers a multitude of sin.


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> I didn't realise this thread was a time out from reformed perspective to share in meaningless sentimentality. Perhaps future sentimental threads might be placed in the coffee shop rather than a theology forum in order to avoid confusion.


 
I, and apparently others, didn't realize it was "meaningless sentimentality" to posit that while baptism is important, it isn't of supreme importance, and as such we can - in the name of charity and graciousness - rejoice with our brothers and sisters. Furthermore, I, and apparently others, didn't realize that fidelity to our own Reformed beliefs requires that we maintain a combative posture towards anyone - including other Reformed and "essentially Reformed" brethren - who doesn't/don't believe exactly as we do on every point of doctrine.

But I do agree with you that this question would have been better placed in the coffee shop or pastoral concerns forum.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> I didn't realise this thread was a time out from reformed perspective to share in meaningless sentimentality. Perhaps future sentimental threads might be placed in the coffee shop rather than a theology forum in order to avoid confusion.



Matthew, where have I comprised my convictions? I daresay, my Reformed convictions. I know you consider the Baptist schema to not be Reformed, but we've always had that debate in this venue. But as to my baptismal convictions, how does my fidelity towards a brother like Tim in any way appear to be sheer sentimentality? I never said that I rejoice in the baptism of his daughter. My rejoicing is over the fact that he is raising his daughter in a Christian home. I'm not budging one iota on what I believe to accurate to scripture. Please point out to me this sentimentality.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> I, and apparently others, didn't realize it was "meaningless sentimentality" to posit that while baptism is important, it isn't of supreme importance, and as such we can - in the name of charity and graciousness - rejoice with our brothers and sisters.


 
You denied it was a "cardinal" doctrine.

It is hypocrisy to use the fact that we baptise infants as a reason for regarding our churches as impure, and for setting up churches of their own in opposition to ours, and then to rejoice in the baptism of one of our infants. Antipaedobaptists should be made to reckon with the consequences of their actions. A tree is to be judged by its fruits, not by the manure used to fertilise its soil.


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> I, and apparently others, didn't realize it was "meaningless sentimentality" to posit that while baptism is important, it isn't of supreme importance, and as such we can - in the name of charity and graciousness - rejoice with our brothers and sisters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You denied it was a "cardinal" doctrine; if you meant a doctrine of "supreme importance" you should say what you mean and mean what you say.
Click to expand...


I don't want to get in a semantic argument, but I used the term properly. Every dictionary I've ever seen defines "cardinal" in reference to doctrine as being of "prime importance" or something synonymous to that.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew, where have I comprised my convictions? I daresay, my Reformed convictions. I know you consider the Baptist schema to not be Reformed, but we've always had that debate in this venue. But as to my baptismal convictions, how does my fidelity towards a brother like Tim in any way appear to be sheer sentimentality? I never said that I rejoice in the baptism of his daughter. My rejoicing is over the fact that he is raising his daughter in a Christian home. I'm not budging one iota on what I believe to accurate to scripture. Please point out to me this sentimentality.


 
Bill, read the original question and what the brother is rejoicing in.


----------



## Herald

Matthew, in Andrew's defense he said:



> My first response to such a brother is to be joyful with him and celebrate the fact that he has obeyed the conviction set on his heart. That is not to say that _I necessarily agree_ with the conviction but the circumstances are not the appropriate ones for me to express my opinion, obviously. Does my first response make me a crummy baptist? Should I keep silent? Or if I am told directly do I just say, "Oh" and not worry about it?



It seems to me that Andrew was _unsure _of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> It seems to me that Andrew was _unsure _of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?


 
If the OP pertained to raising a child in a Christian home, I could understand the question. It pertains to baptising a child. That is the point to which I have directed my comments.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Andrew was _unsure _of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP pertained to raising a child in a Christian home, I could understand the question. It pertains to baptising a child. That is the point to which I have directed my comments.
Click to expand...


Is not raising a child in a Christian home a part of the Covenant Child perspective in the Paedo formula? I thought that was a major part of it? I rejoice in that part of it. I will always rejoice when a child is raised in the admonition of the Lord. 

Now I am about to enter debate. The OP stated that he didn't want debate and I can easily go into the Covenant of Grace, the non elect in relationship to that, election, and so forth. Let's just start a new thread if that is where this is headed. I rejoice that a child will be taught and admonished in the Lord. That is more than most children in this world will ever truly experience. Especially in a Turkish (old term) country.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The OP stated that he didn't want debate


 
The OP said there should be no debate on "credo vs paedobaptism." There has been no debate of that subject.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Andrew was _unsure _of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the OP pertained to raising a child in a Christian home, I could understand the question. It pertains to baptising a child. That is the point to which I have directed my comments.
Click to expand...


Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?


----------



## Marrow Man

I would strongly discourage starting another credo v. paedo thread. It's not as if we are going to convince one another of our particular views and it will likely end with strong words. I suggest we stick to the original question of this thread, which I believe has been answered.

I will again emphasize that my Facebook statement was only that I had baptized my daughter and it was a great privilege as a father and a pastor. No statement was made as to whether it was an infant baptism or an adult baptism. The issue should be whether a father rejoices if he is able to baptize his child. Rejoice with me in that is all I ask. Or don't, if that's your inclination. But I'd rather it be the former. 

Bill, I appreciate your comments above, dear friend. To me, that reflects the very best perspective that a Baptist might have toward a Presbyterian brother over this issue.


----------



## AThornquist

Herald said:


> Matthew, in Andrew's defense he said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My first response to such a brother is to be joyful with him and celebrate the fact that he has obeyed the conviction set on his heart. That is not to say that _I necessarily agree_ with the conviction but the circumstances are not the appropriate ones for me to express my opinion, obviously. Does my first response make me a crummy baptist? Should I keep silent? Or if I am told directly do I just say, "Oh" and not worry about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Andrew was _unsure _of how he should react. If Andrew, or any Baptist, is actually rejoicing in the baptism of an infant, then you wouldn't be the only one to see the disconnect between conviction and sentimentality. On the other hand, a few of us have offered counsel and commentary that doesn't contain ambiguity. Do you consider it sentimentality to rejoice that a child is being raised in a Christian home even though we are not compromising our theological conviction on the matter of baptism?
Click to expand...

 
Thank you, Bill. You understood my intentions correctly. Matthew, I apologize if I wasn't clear enough, though I thought I had been since most understood my situation. Regardless, as others have said my instinctual joy is not at all from the act of infant baptism itself but rather the intentions of the parents and the providence of God. Ultimately my question was, as Bill said, posed because I was unsure of how to feel.

About debating: though I did not intend for this thread to be a debate and in fact did not expect there to be one (what was I thinking?!), I wouldn't mind it being used for that purpose. This thread has been edifying to me and I appreciate that greatly.

[Edit - I cross-posted with Tim. And by the way Tim, I'm really sorry for using the baptism of your little one as my example without asking. I hope I didn't take anything away from what I hope has been a joyous event for you by causing a disagreement over its validity or how it should be perceived or whatever. I simply thought that it was a decent example since others could relate. Again, I apologize.]


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Congratulations Pastor Philips on the baptism!


----------



## jogri17

I prefer to put my thoughts crudely. When I see credos not baptize their children I just think in my head they should be reprimanded by angels for spiritual child neglect. And I'm sure the creodo friends think ''Joe, some day yours going to horrible spiritually abuse your child with water''. we can be friends just not attend the same church. But all credos and all paedeos (unless your a kuyperian or federal visionist) want their children to repent and believe the promises of God in the Gospel. And you don't baptism to do that. You need the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit par the predication de la parole.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Were any of you raised by Godly people of one baptismal persuasion and when you grew up you embraced the opposite side of the argument from those who raised you? How did you deal with that? I was raised by Godly creedo baptists and I am a paedo baptist. I don't really know what to do about it. Sometimes I feel a bit ashamed because they know I disagree with things they have believed all their lives.


----------



## Marrow Man

I was raised in a credo church and am now paedo.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Marrow Man said:


> I was raised in a credo church and am now paedo.


 
What did your parents think of you embracing paedo and how did you deal with having that doctrinal difference with them?


----------



## Marrow Man

It hasn't been a bone of contention. My dad is deceased, and my mom still goes to that country Baptist church I grew up in. Credo is all she's ever known for the most part. She has asked questions about infant baptism (actually, more about mode than anything else). My wife's parents drove up for the baptism, but my mom did not come -- I didn't really invite her because I didn't want it to be an issue. I mentioned the baptism, but she gave no indication she really wanted to come.


----------



## au5t1n

I was also. I am sure many of us were raised in the other camp from our own. It hasn't really been an issue with my parents, although maybe my dad will have something to say when I'm married and it becomes important.


----------



## Herald

I suppose you could say I was paedo when I was a Roman Catholic. Since I became a believer I've been credo. I was on the teeter totter in 2005/2006, but the issue was settled shortly thereafter.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Herald said:


> I suppose you could say I was paedo when I was a Roman Catholic. Since I became a believer I've been credo. I was on the teeter totter in 2005/2006, but the issue was settled shortly thereafter.


 
What settled it for you?

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> It hasn't been a bone of contention. My dad is deceased, and my mom still goes to that country Baptist church I grew up in. Credo is all she's ever known for the most part. She has asked questions about infant baptism (actually, more about mode than anything else). My wife's parents drove up for the baptism, but my mom did not come -- I didn't really invite her because I didn't want it to be an issue. I mentioned the baptism, but she gave no indication she really wanted to come.


 
It rarely ever comes up but my grandparents ( I was raised by them. My grandpa was a Southern Baptist pastor for over 40 years) look at me with a bit of dissapointment when it does. They think that it makes people who aren't saved think they are. In addition they say that baptism is supposed to be by full immersion instead of sprinkling or pouring, so they think that our baptism are invalid. But I just try to change the subject and move on because it hurts to have contention with them. They are relieved that I left teh RCC though! That was certainly a low point with them. They thought they had raised a fool for awhile.


----------



## Herald

For me, the pivot on which my Baptist convictions solidified was the nature and administration of the New Covenant. Once I became convinced that their was a discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant & the New Covenant everything else
fell in line. Obviously there is more detail to my decision, but the discontinuity of the Covenant was the major contributing factor.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Herald said:


> For me, the pivot on which my Baptist convictions solidified was the nature and administration of the New Covenant. Once I became convinced that their was a discontinuity between the Abrahamic Covenant & the New Covenant everything else
> fell in line. Obviously there is more detail to my decision, but the discontinuity of the Covenant was the major contributing factor.


 
What do you mean by a discontinuity? I thought that there were two people on earth Israel and the reprobate. As Christians are we not grafted into Israel? As I understand it the seed of Abraham is spiritual but it is still the seed of Abraham because it is of saving faith. As Abraham was in Christ by his faith so are his seed in Christ by their faith and that seed now includes people from all over the world not just Israel.

Does a covenantal disconnect need to occur to make creedo baptist covenant theology operate? I have not heard of this before.


----------



## Herald

I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this. 

Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Herald said:


> I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.
> 
> Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.


 
I think I understand you. You are saying that there is a change between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, but the only change is the sign of the covenant. You believe that now the sign of the covenant is not circumcision but baptism and that it is limited in administration to those who have professed faith in Christ. So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?


----------



## DMcFadden

I guess having been socialized in broad evangelical circles and educated in the same, most of my close friends disagreed with each other on a number of these issues (e.g., baptism, eschatology, Lord's Supper, spiritual gifts today) that we wore out in late night bull sessions. Discovering early on that we were not likely to change the others' minds, and concluding that we had more in common than separated us, there was never the mindset I hear echo in some threads on the PB. We did not deny the salvation of one another or express horror at the intramural "family" differences among us. I am currently exploring the baptism issue without any sense of "betrayal" of my roots (even though it would probably, and rightly, cost me my job if a shift comes). During the last five years my view of eschatology has shifted from historic premil to amil. Again, in my circles this is not the life-and-death matter that it appears to be for some of our PB folks.

This is not some "sentimental" latitudinarianism either. A Baptist should pastor a Baptist church and a Presbyterian a Presbyterian church. Ideas do have consequences. If one changes views, they should change "jobs" and churches as well (preferably voluntarily, but by compulsion if necessary). But, then, again, I have never understood "liberal" Republicans either. A "RHINO" should have the courage of their convictions and join the DEMs.

But, when it comes to a father baptizing his daughter, the differences separating an orthodox evangelical credo-baptist and paedo-baptist are relatively irrelevant to the issue at hand. Celebrate with your brother his great joy, even if it is that turkey Marrow Man.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

DD2009 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.
> 
> Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand you. You are saying that there is a change between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, but the only change is the sign of the covenant. You believe that now the sign of the covenant is not circumcision but baptism and that it is limited in administration to those who have professed faith in Christ. So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?
Click to expand...



Dave,

Just to explain the Reformed Baptist position (and not debate the issue) I would just say that the Credo only position believes that there is only ONE Covenant of Grace and that it only consists of members who are elect. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants both administered promises that pertained to the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. There were promises made concerning both the elect and non elect. For instance Abraham was given promises concerning Ishmael even though he was rejected concerning the Everlasting Covenant in Genesis 17. Both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administered promises that were national, civil, and ceremonial which are not administered in the New Covenant. That is where the discontinuity is attributed. We all hold to some level of discontinuity between the covenants but the level of discontinuity is something that is debated. For the Reformed Baptist we believe that the New Covenant is purely of the Covenant of Grace. 

Just explaining it. If you want to see this debated start a new thread or do a search concerning these Covenants.


----------



## Herald

DD2009 said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mobile right now so I can't do the discussion justice. There are two classes of people. That's not the issue. The issue is the temporal administration of the NC. The sign of the AC was applied to all males born into the covenant nation. The sign did not guarantee saving faith to the one who received the sign. Therefore, the sign of the AC had all to do with national identity, not saving faith. The sign pointed to God's promise only. The NC is made made only with those who believe, and only includes those who believe. Imposters are in the ranks, but they are illegitimate and not members. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews helped me understand this.
> 
> Again, I'm typing this on Tapatalk, so my time is limited. I'll try to address it later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand you. You are saying that there is a change between the Abrahamic covenant and the New Covenant, but the only change is the sign of the covenant. You believe that now the sign of the covenant is not circumcision but baptism and that it is limited in administration to those who have professed faith in Christ. _*So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?*_
Click to expand...


Exactly. Children born into believing households are not members of the New Covenant. There certainly are blessings of the New Covenant community that are conveyed to them by the very fact they are born into believing households. They will be exposed to the family of God (the church), and hear the Gospel presented within their family and the church. As their family displays the reality of the Spirit in their lives, a child born into such a household will be an eye witness. When the day comes that they place their faith in Christ, they will become members of the New Covenant, and also its temporal administration. In other words, they will be spiritually part of the New Covenant, and able to participate as physical members of the New Covenant within the church. 

The above is what I believe. Randy gave a good admonition; we are obviously not debating this topic. If you wish to carry this discussion further, feel free to start a new thread for that purpose.


----------



## JML

DD2009 said:


> Were any of you raised by Godly people of one baptismal persuasion and when you grew up you embraced the opposite side of the argument from those who raised you? How did you deal with that? I was raised by Godly creedo baptists and I am a paedo baptist. I don't really know what to do about it. Sometimes I feel a bit ashamed because they know I disagree with things they have believed all their lives.


 
My whole family is paedo. I came to the credo position in college and remain the only credo. How do I deal with that? The sad thing is that both positions are abused. I have known credo baptists to baptize any professor even if they show no sign of true repentance. I also have family members who don't even go to church who bring in their infants to be baptized. I deal with the latter constantly with my family. That is something that I definitely want no part of. Personally, I don't have anyone in my family that is faithful to church or to right gospel doctrine, so I don't really know how to answer that question because I would probably deal with it differently if they seemed to be godly.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?


 
In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.
Click to expand...


Mmmm. I don't see how baptism changes the implication of Psalm 127:3-5. 

Speaking only for myself, I can rejoice over a child being raised in a Christian home because the promise of the forgiveness of sins applies to all who believe the Gospel (Acts 2:39, 40); and where better to be exposed to the Gospel than in a Christian home?


----------



## Marrow Man

I'm just glad this didn't turn into a debate...


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Speaking only for myself, I can rejoice over a child being raised in a Christian home because the promise of the forgiveness of sins applies to all who believe the Gospel (Acts 2:39, 40); and where better to be exposed to the Gospel than in a Christian home?


 
Bill, how can there by any such creature as a "Christian home" according to the antipaedobaptist understanding of the new covenant? You are working with borrowed capital.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,
I think you and I have discussed this enough to know that this is not true by now. I am not sure what to make of this statement. Are you saying that we do not believe that there is a true Isreal? 

*I think this needs to be another thread. Do I have permission to make another thread about this Rev. Winzer?
*
Not saying that I will devote a lot of time to it but think this is a misconception or misunderstanding.


----------



## Herald

Marrow Man said:


> I'm just glad this didn't turn into a debate...


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I can rejoice over a child being raised in a Christian home because the promise of the forgiveness of sins applies to all who believe the Gospel (Acts 2:39, 40); and where better to be exposed to the Gospel than in a Christian home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, how can there by any such creature as a "Christian home" according to the antipaedobaptist understanding of the new covenant? You are working with borrowed capital.
Click to expand...


The RB understanding of the New Covenant does not take away from qualifying Christian parents as a Christian home. Children are born into a family that already exists. The authority in the home stems from the father. Application of a sign or not does not change the organic make up of the home. The child still needs to come to faith in Christ. There is no presumptive regeneration when a child is born to Christian parents. However, the child born to Christian parents is exposed constantly to the proclamation of the Covenant of Grace. Even if the child does not believe it does not negate the faith of the parents, nor the authority of the father. Israel was a holy nation even though the people were idolaters.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> The RB understanding of the New Covenant does not take away from qualifying Christian parents as a Christian home. Children are born into a family that already exists. The authority in the home stems from the father. Application of a sign or not does not change the organic make up of the home.


 
The child is either God's heritage, i.e., covenant blessing, or he is not. God owns the child as His own or He does not. What you have described, Bill, is a home which has Christian parents into which children are born; you have said nothing about the nature of the child which is born into this home. There is nothing about your view of the new covenant which gives any substance to the idea of a "Christian home."


----------



## Herald

I defined the Christian home as stemming from the parents, not the children. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> *I think this needs to be another thread. Do I have permission to make another thread about this Rev. Winzer?*


 
Randy, you have permission to start as many threads as it takes to unsay what you have said in this thread.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

PuritanCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, if I may inquire; how would you answer the question I posited had the OP been about raising a child in a Christian home?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Psalm 127; but sadly that also would form no part of an antipaedobaptist's rejoicing because they don't believe the promises pertaining to Abraham's offspring are any part of the new covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> I think you and I have discussed this enough to know that this is not true by now. I am not sure what to make of this statement. Are you saying that we do not believe that there is a true Isreal?
> 
> *I think this needs to be another thread. Do I have permission to make another thread about this Rev. Winzer?
> *
> Not saying that I will devote a lot of time to it but think this is a misconception or misunderstanding.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> I defined the Christian home as stemming from the parents, not the children. I'll leave it at that.


 
But Ps. 127 does nto leave it at that. Hence, as stated, the antipaedobaptist cannot rejoice in the gift of children in the terms of this Psalm.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> I defined the Christian home as stemming from the parents, not the children. I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Ps. 127 does nto leave it at that. Hence, as stated, the antipaedobaptist cannot rejoice in the gift of children in the terms of this Psalm.
Click to expand...


But it is not clear that Ps 127 holds that the blessing of children mentioned there is an exclusive blessing for the children of Abraham or is one of God's "blessings" that he distributes beyond his covenant people - like the rain falling on the just and the unjust.

And getting back to the question of the original post, a credo baptist may indeed rejoice in a paedobaptism for it signifies that the parents are more likely to raise that child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord than not. And even credo's know that a child being raised in such an atmosphere is something the Holy Spirit has often used as a means of bringing a child to close with Christ. 

While we may recognize the potential danger of growing up unwittingly a false professor in such situations, we may balance that recognition by rejoicing in the great opportunity such a child will have to learn about Jesus, to be challenged to seek and find him, and to learn early the benefits of applying godly wisdom to life - all of which are tremendous blessings in their own right.


----------



## Herald

For what it's worth, and just for clarification, I wasn't rejoicing in a paedobaptism; I rejoice over any child born of Christian parents. That child will be exposed to the message of the Gospel, which is the means of salvation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think this needs to be another thread. Do I have permission to make another thread about this Rev. Winzer?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, you have permission to start as many threads as it takes to unsay what you have said in this thread.
Click to expand...

That was funny. Not sure I would unsay anything. LOL I took this as a funny. 

Looks like it turned into a debate or two anyways. So let it run it's course.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (Psa 127:3) Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.



Is this not true for those in a Covenant setting as well as those who are not?


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> The RB understanding of the New Covenant does not take away from qualifying Christian parents as a Christian home. Children are born into a family that already exists. The authority in the home stems from the father. Application of a sign or not does not change the organic make up of the home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child is either God's heritage, i.e., covenant blessing, or he is not. God owns the child as His own or He does not. What you have described, Bill, is a home which has Christian parents into which children are born; you have said nothing about the nature of the child which is born into this home. There is nothing about your view of the new covenant which gives any substance to the idea of a "Christian home."
Click to expand...

 
Doesn't Ps 127 refer to a universal heritage, not a covenantal one?

Calvin:



> The majority of mankind dream, that after God had once ordained this at the beginning, children were thenceforth begotten solely by a secret instinct of nature, God ceasing to interfere in the matter; and even those who are endued with some sense of piety, although they may not deny that He is the Father and Creator of the human race, yet do not acknowledge that his providential care descends to this particular case, but rather think that men are created by a certain universal motion. *With the view of correcting this preposterous error, Solomon calls children the heritage of God*, and the fruit of the womb his gift; for the Hebrew word שכר, sachar, translated reward, signifies whatever benefits God bestows upon men, as is plainly manifest from many passages of Scripture. *The meaning then is, that, children are not the fruit of chance, but that God, as it seems good to him, distributes to every man his share of them.* _Commentaries_




----------------

Sorry, Randy and I cross posted.


----------



## Marrow Man

The covenant name of God is used, so that needs to be factored in. 

But I'm just glad He saw fit to distribute a child to me and the Missus.


----------



## KMK

Marrow Man said:


> The covenant name of God is used, so that needs to be factored in.


 
I noticed that Gill agrees with you.



> As all success, safety, and the blessings of life, depend on the providence of God; so this very great blessing is a gift of his; having children, and those good ones, as the Targum interprets it; for of such only can it be understood: so, in a spiritual sense, the children of Christ, the antitypical Solomon, are the gifts of his heavenly Father to him; his portion and inheritance, and a goodly heritage he esteems them...so regenerate persons are a reward to Christ, of his sufferings and death... _Commentaries_


----------



## MW

Please read the Psalm in canonical context. Deuteronomy 28 makes it clear that building houses, watching the city, sleep, children, and honour in the face of enemies are blessings of the covenant. Strangers of the covenant are not "beloved," nor do they receive an "inheritance" and "reward" from God. They are not "happy."


----------



## timmopussycat

Although God's covenant name was used primarily in relationship to Israel after Mount Sinai, it also occurs in relation to all men before that covenant was made. Significantly, it used in the Genesis creation (Gen 2) and pre-and post-diluvial accounts until at least the aftermath of the flood. With YHWH being specifically identified as the author of all the comon blessing men receive by virtue of creation in Gen 2, the presence of God's covenant name in Ps. 127 is insufficient to determine whether or not a specific covenantal blessing was what Solomon intended.


----------



## Iconoclast

David ,
You asked this :


> So you do not believe that the children of believers are in covenant. Is this a correct statement?


 David we are not sure if they are in or not. The model of physical circumsicion placing someone in an outward and physical "administration" of the OC. was not continued.
Acts 15 states this.
New birth .... not physical birth brings someone into the covenant, so therefore it is not a breakable covenant. We look for God to place them savingly in the church,adopting them as His own ....by the work of Spirit baptism.
The same persons given by the Father to the Son are those who are adopted. As we do not know who God has indeed elected, we raise our children to know what is at issue.
One reason for some of the confusion here, is correctly understanding the promise of Acts 2:30-39..... there is additional Divine commentary given in Acts 13:23-41.

The promise is the promise of psalm 16 given to Jesus, and us in Him. Those who believe, as many as God shall call. It is not a guarantee to the children of believers.
They have the advantage of living with saints 1cor7:14. But they can and will believe and be part of the actual church when God places them in it.


> 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
> 
> 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
> 
> 10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
> 
> 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
> 
> 12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
> 
> 13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
> 
> 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
> 
> 15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
> 
> 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
> 
> 17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.



David, I do not claim to speak for all RB"s but I am trying to show what some of the thinking is. You can see how this differs from the model that you might be following at this time.
Our differences exist, but we are looking for the common faith of brethren for whom our Lord died. If you have some doctrinal error now, or I have some doctrinal error now, we can love each other in the Lord for who we shall be on the last day


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> David we are not sure if they are in or not.


 
Hebrews 6:17, 18, "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."

The idea of a covenant theology which leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion is contrary to the very nature of a covenant.


----------



## timmopussycat

BTW Calvin also noted another reason that the men who were blessed were men in general and not specifically those in covenant when he wrote: "The knowledge of this doctrine is highly useful. The fruitfulness even of the lower animals is expressly ascribed to God alone; and if He would have it to be accounted his benefit that kine, and sheep, and mares conceive, how inexcusable will be the impiety of men, if when he adorns them with the honorable title of fathers, they account this favor as nothing." Here God may use the blessing of children to cause reprobates to be even further without excuse.

And "speak with the enemies in the gate" is not referring to the covenant blessing of victories over enemies in battle, but to success in a legal proceeding that could be taking place either within Israel or without it for, as Calvin notes "In ancient times, as is well known, judicial assemblies were held at the gates of cities. He therefore here speaks of the gate, as if in the present day one should speak of the bench, or the courts, or the senate." In contemporary battles you did not speak to your enemies in the gate; if you met them there you fought them. 

"

---------- Post added at 04:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> David we are not sure if they are in or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 6:17, 18, "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."
> 
> The idea of a covenant theology which leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion is contrary to the very nature of a covenant.
Click to expand...


It is those who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us who may certainly avoid confusion or doubt. But the question that is not a part of the OP (and which I will not debate here) is whether those who have not yet fled to that refuge may rightly share in that consolation before they do so.

Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology necessarily leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand. Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to the question of where others presently appear to stand, as neither CT claims to identify those who are reprobate with certainty, nor those who are assuredly elect. The most we can say is that some (other) people appear to be elect but we can't go further than that.


----------



## MW

Matthew Poole: 



> Children; which he mentions here, partly because they are the chief of all these blessings, and partly because all the forementioned toil and labour is in a great measure and most commonly undertaken for their sakes. Are an heritage of the Lord; they come not from the power of nature, and from a man's conversation with his wife, or with a multitude of wives or concubines, which Solomon had, but only from God's blessing; even as an inheritance is not the fruit of a man's own labour, but the gift of his father, or rather the gift of God, both enabling and inclining his father to give it to him. His reward; not a reward of debt merited by good men, but a reward of grace, of which we read Rom 4:4, which God gives them graciously, as Jacob acknowledgeth of his children, Gen 33:5. And although God give children and other outward comforts to ungodly men in the way of common providence, *yet he gives them only to his people as favours*, *and in the way of promise and covenant*.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology necessarily leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand. Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to where others stand.



No, they don't. You may want to acquaint yourself with the teaching of reformed covenant theology before you begin another share your ignorance session.


----------



## Herald

Note to Baptists: Beware of arguing for the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant _within _the Old Covenant framework. Reformed and Particular Baptists would gladly confirm the continuity of the covenant within it's existing construct. It's when the New Covenant was initiated that the discontinuity became evident.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology necessarily leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand. Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to where others stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. You may want to acquaint yourself with the teaching of reformed covenanmt theology before you begin another share your ignorance session.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with brother Matthew. Baptismal positions aside, Reformed Covenant Theology presents no ambiguity in relation to where a person stands in Christ.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> David we are not sure if they are in or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 6:17, 18, "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."
> 
> The idea of a covenant theology which leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion is contrary to the very nature of a covenant.
Click to expand...


For the RB there should be no confusion on the issue. Those who are in covenant with God (through the New Covenant) are those who have placed their faith in Christ. Paedos and Credos will disagree because of the baptism issue, but both camps should have no confusion as to where they stand.


----------



## Iconoclast

Matthew,
You posted this;


> The child is either God's heritage, i.e., covenant blessing, or he is not. God owns the child as His own or He does not.


 I agree with this statement and the view I hold remains consistent with it.
Bill,
I have *no doubt* as to the condition of those in the NC.


> 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
> 
> 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
> 
> 16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
> 
> 17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
> 
> 18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
> 
> 19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
> 
> 20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
> 
> 21And having an high priest over the house of God;
> 
> 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.


 I was just saying we do not know if are children are or are not included in either Heb.6:9-17 or Hebrews 10:10-25.
Matthew with a breakable covenant can say they are in today,and out tommorow. We wait and look for evidence of saving faith,the child confessing Christ and a saving belief in Him.
I know of no *salvation of persons*where they do not persevere. I do not doubt at all the objective truth of full atonement of the elect , at whatever age they are.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> I know of no *salvation of persons*where they do not persevere. I do not doubt at all the objective truth of full atonement of the elect , at whatever age they are.


 
We have been here before. Your theology is not reformed. Salvation is not a-historical.


----------



## timmopussycat

Herald said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology necessarily leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand. Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to where others stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. You may want to acquaint yourself with the teaching of reformed covenanmt theology before you begin another share your ignorance session.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have to agree with brother Matthew. Baptismal positions aside, Reformed Covenant Theology presents no ambiguity in relation to where a person stands in Christ.
Click to expand...

 
Before you agree too quickly, you may want to read or re-read the entirety of what I wrote. Which was:

"It is those who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us who may certainly avoid confusion or doubt. But the question that is not a part of the OP (and which I will not debate here) is whether those who have not yet fled to that refuge may rightly share in that consolation before they do so.

Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology necessarily leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand. Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to the question of where others presently appear to stand, as neither CT claims to identify those who are reprobate with certainty, nor those who are assuredly elect. The most we can say is that some (other) people appear to be elect but we can't go further than that." 

As I was trying to say, it is not reformed covenant theology that present the ambiguity I was referring to but the application of that theology to persons other than ourselves. Because we know only our own hearts from the inside and not those of other people, we may have a higher degree of assurance about our own state than we may have about any other person's state. While recongnizing that it is neither the only, nor the fundatmental test, comparing what I can observe of my own heart with 1 John's "tests of life" and discerning signs of the "inward evidences of those graces unto which these promises were made" does give me some additional grounds for assurance in my own case that are necessarily lacking when I consider the state of anybody else. 

The ambiguities I was referring to with appliying covenant theology to assess where others stand are twofold. First, is the problem presented for one's CT by pb (or for that matter) cb children and adults who appear to be regenerate for a time, then fall away. For a time such people may appear to have all external marks of the regenerate and may even have thought themselves to be so, yet covenant theology gives us no way to tell whether people's profession is genuine unless they perseve to the end – and we know that not all professors do so persevere. Although some who go out do return to faith, thereby proving themselves only backsliders, some do not come back at all. Second, (and why I said the two CT's have different measures of ambiguity when to the question of where others presently appear to stand), is that Cb's looking at infants have an additional problem in that we see enough Scriptural data that (at the very least) renders it impossible to prove by GNC that presently unbelieving infants of believing parents must be automatically recognized as members in the new covenant. They may be elect or they may not, but we have no grounds to make even a presumptive call one way or another until and unless they profess or deny the faith.

If anyone can show me that any recognized writer on covenant theology claimed to be able to infallibly identify certain individual persons as indubitably elect while those individuals were yet living, rather than identifying the Biblically stated conditions of heart or behaviour that accompany election, I will accept the rebuke as deserved.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If anyone can show me that any recognized writer on covenant theology claimed to be able to infallibly identify certain individual persons as indubitably elect while those individuals were yet living, rather than identifying the conditions of heart or behaviour that accompany election without applying such conditions to particular persons, I will accept the rebuke as deserved.


 
The question itself warrants rebuke because it presupposes that reformed covenant theology is concerned with identifying individuals as elect or reprobate.


----------



## Herald

Timmopussycat said:


> Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology *necessarily *leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand.



Why the word "necessarily"? That word engenders some amount of doubt. 



Timmopussycat said:


> Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to the question of where others presently appear to stand, as neither CT claims to identify those who are reprobate with certainty, nor those who are assuredly elect. The most we can say is that some (other) people appear to be elect but we can't go further than that.



Let's boil this down in order to make it simple. Are you saying that we don't know with certainty that another person is saved? Both camps readily admit that there are false sheep in the fold. I'm not sure certainty is something we need to strive for. Both sides are looking for the evidence of faith among a professed believer (Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 2:10; 1 JN. 1:7). Instead of certainty being focused on the individual, the certainty rests with God, that all who "will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 10:13). As a minister of the Gospel, I accept with certainty the promise that a person is what they claim to be. Their baptism ratifies their profession. I accept that. 



Timmopussycat said:


> As I was trying to say it is not the reformed covenant theology that present the ambiguity I was referring to but the application of that theology to persons other than ourselves. Because we know only our own hearts from the inside and not anothers, we may have a higher degree of assurance about our own state than we may have about any other person's state. We know how well we do on 1 John's "tests of life" when we examine our own hearts, but we cannot examine anothers heart to see how well he does.



Your writing appears to take a dim view of the promise to those who believe. It seems to cast a pale of suspicion on the profession of others. If your emphasis is on the immutability of God's promise to those who believe, then there will no need to raise this flag of suspicion. Sufficient enough is the warning of Jude and John on those who leave the faith. The fact that they repudiate the faith is proof of their apostasy. As far as examining another; we are able to examine both profession and works (Eph. 2:10; Jas. 2:17; 1 JN. 4:2). If the profession and works are apparent why should we maintain a seed of doubt?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can show me that any recognized writer on covenant theology claimed to be able to infallibly identify certain individual persons as indubitably elect while those individuals were yet living, rather than identifying the conditions of heart or behaviour that accompany election without applying such conditions to particular persons, I will accept the rebuke as deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question itself warrants rebuke because it presupposes that reformed covenant theology is concerned with identifying individuals as elect or reprobate.
Click to expand...

 
My question presumed no such thing: I know full well that reformed covenant theology is not so concerned with coming up with lists of elect and reprobate because that is one of the secret things God has reseved to himself. But another part of the reason CT avoids even making the attempt is the measure of ambiguity that results when some unwise person even tries to do so which is why I could state that I would accept the origial rebuke only if someone could show a recognized writer on CT making the attempt.

---------- Post added at 07:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------




Herald said:


> Timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither pb covenant theology or cb covenant theology *necessarily *leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion as to where they themselves stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the word "necessarily"? That word engenders some amount of doubt.
Click to expand...


Some of us do doubt our own cases from time to time. I was trying to point out that it wasn't the theology itself that was at the root. Necessarily can be dropped, if you wish. 



Herald said:


> Timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to the question of where others presently appear to stand, as neither CT claims to identify those who are reprobate with certainty, nor those who are assuredly elect. The most we can say is that some (other) people appear to be elect but we can't go further than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's boil this down in order to make it simple. Are you saying that we don't know with certainty that another person is saved? Both camps readily admit that there are false sheep in the fold. I'm not sure certainty is something we need to strive for. Both sides are looking for the evidence of faith among a professed believer (Gal. 5:22, 23; Eph. 2:10; 1 JN. 1:7). Instead of certainty being focused on the individual, the certainty rests with God, that all who "will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (Rom. 10:13). As a minister of the Gospel, I accept with certainty the promise that a person is what they claim to be. Their baptism ratifies their profession. I accept that.
Click to expand...


And as a former deacon who was charged on occasion with interviewing professors for baptism and membership I also accepted that the person was what they claimed to be when they asked for baptism and membership. In some cases, upon deeper acquaintance over many years I may grow increasingly confident that particular individuals are likely regenerate. But my confidence can never be absolute until death.



Herald said:


> Timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I was trying to say it is not the reformed covenant theology that present the ambiguity I was referring to but the application of that theology to persons other than ourselves. Because we know only our own hearts from the inside and not anothers, we may have a higher degree of assurance about our own state than we may have about any other person's state. We know how well we do on 1 John's "tests of life" when we examine our own hearts, but we cannot examine anothers heart to see how well he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your writing appears to take a dim view of the promise to those who believe. It seems to cast a pale of suspicion on the profession of others. If your emphasis is on the immutability of God's promise to those who believe, then there will no need to raise this flag of suspicion. Sufficient enough is the warning of Jude and John on those who leave the faith. The fact that they repudiate the faith is proof of their apostasy. As far as examining another; we are able to examine both profession and works (Eph. 2:10; Jas. 2:17; 1 JN. 4:2). If the profession and works are apparent why should we maintain a seed of doubt?
Click to expand...

 
If profession and works are present in another, I assume faith is present. But my assuarnce simply cannot be not absolute because the bible passages you refer to tell me that some can and do go out from time to time. I don't think I take a dim view at all of God's promises to those who do believe: on a practical level if there is a difference between us at all, it is that I may be a bit more self consciously aware that I do not have absolute knowledge about who does and does not truly believe.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no *salvation of persons*where they do not persevere. I do not doubt at all the objective truth of full atonement of the elect , at whatever age they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been here before. Your theology is not reformed. Salvation is not a-historical.
Click to expand...

 
My theology is biblical and reforming. Salvation is of the Lord. The bible defines it, not the reformers, and their "historical" take on what it is. Last week you made a statement that all of the children were saved?/// in what sense? What historical construct enables you to make such a statement? Saved in that they will never be lost?
I am glad the reformers corrected many of the errors of Rome. Sometimes I believe they did not go far enough in some things. 
I do not think the reformers were apostles however. Anyone who does not follow lock step with them you reject. That you are free to do. I reserve the right to look at what they offer and see what actually squares with the bible. When it agrees with the bible I accept it. When the language of some of the reformers and their followers does not match the language of the Apostles, I will go with the apostolic language.
The theology I see in the bible does not require me to explain away text after text saying it does not mean what it appears to mean. Then claim good and "necessary inference" requires us to fill in the blanks.
Some of you who have vowed to uphold the three forms of unity cannot see outside the box.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> My theology is biblical and reforming. Salvation is of the Lord. The bible defines it, not the reformers, and their "historical" take on what it is. Last week you made a statement that all of the children were saved?/// in what sense? What historical construct enables you to make such a statement? Saved in that they will never be lost?



To what statement are you referring?



Iconoclast said:


> The theology I see in the bible does not require me to explain away text after text saying it does not mean what it appears to mean.


 
But you do explain away text after text. Over and again the New Testament reproves, rebukes, and exhorts with all long-suffering and doctrine, laying before the new covenant people of God the threat of apostasy and the necessity of heeding God's covenant warnings. You reject this significant and important element of its teaching, and have repeatedly maintained that the elect only are in the new covenant.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> My question presumed no such thing: I know full well that reformed covenant theology is not so concerned with coming up with lists of elect and reprobate because that is one of the secret things God has reseved to himself. But another part of the reason CT avoids even making the attempt is the measure of ambiguity that results when some unwise person even tries to do so which is why I could state that I would accept the origial rebuke only if someone could show a recognized writer on CT making the attempt.



Appealing to election and reprobation was your criterion for covering your own error. God's covenant is what is revealed. Either it assures us of God's promises or it doesn't. You are the one who has cast doubt on that fact. Why don't you simply own up to the fact that you do not know the implications because you don't really understand the subject you are dogmatising about?


----------



## timmopussycat

Iconoclast said:


> The theology I see in the bible does not require me to explain away text after text saying it does not mean what it appears to mean. Then claim good and "necessary inference" requires us to fill in the blanks.
> Some of you who have vowed to uphold the three forms of unity cannot see outside the box.



Dear brother, I would most earnestly urge you not to throw out the tool of "good and necessary inference" because of abuses that some may have made of it. It is one of God's and the Reformation's greatest gifts to His bible believing church and it can be employed with great profit. In practice, the concept if not the term, may be found in the LBC's "necessarily contained." (LBC 1:6) I could wish that Christians made it a practice to restrict discussion of contraversial subjects to direct Scriptural statments or those provably necessarily consequent. Some might argue that such a practice would be impossible to do, and I agree that it might not be possible for many disputed matters of opinon among Christians where the Scriptural evidence is such as to allow no final resolution. But in cases where differing doctrinal understandings are such that believers cannot have ecclesiastical fellowship with one another, then I believe that using only Scripture and provably consequent GNC statements will not only quickly produce less heat, more light on what is at issue and what may or may not be provable, but using such approaches are the only way we can clear ourslves from charges of unjustifiable schism: if we can't prove our divisions are necessary consequences of Scriptural truth, how else can they be justified in the face of the NT's repeated command for unity among believers? (As Armourbearer has rightly noted earlier in the thread; a" Reformed understanding would take seriously the imperative to be of the same mind and to speak the same things. The idea of separate communions should lead us to work through our differences so that we can agree in the Lord, according to apostolic command.")

Such an approach by no means reduces the role of historical theology and the great theologians of the church. Their work comes in at its proper place which is their demonstrations that proposition x is a GN consequent of Scripture. 

I also find it a very helpful discipline to try to shape my approach to Christian discussions in this way.

---------- Post added at 07:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question presumed no such thing: I know full well that reformed covenant theology is not so concerned with coming up with lists of elect and reprobate because that is one of the secret things God has reseved to himself. But another part of the reason CT avoids even making the attempt is the measure of ambiguity that results when some unwise person even tries to do so which is why I could state that I would accept the origial rebuke only if someone could show a recognized writer on CT making the attempt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appealing to election and reprobation was your criterion for covering your own error. God's covenant is what is revealed. Either it assures us of God's promises or it doesn't. You are the one who has cast doubt on that fact. Why don't you simply own up to the fact that you do not know the implications because you don't really understand the subject you are dogmatising about?
Click to expand...

 
You are missing a point. Yes, God's covenant is revealed, yet that revelation includes, as Herald has documented, the fact that some will appear to be of us for a time but will not ultimately prove to be so. A good and necessary consequence of that point of Divine revelation is that while we trust God's promises to those who believe, we can't have absolute assurance that all who profess faith do truly believe. So we need to be careful not to confuse God's promises which are absolute, with the separate question of who it is that truly believes them, something we can't absolutely know. 

Your original reply to Iconoclast made a similar error when you implicitly charged him with holding to a form of CT that "leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion" when what was at issue was not the CT itself but its application to chidren of believers.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Gods covenant is revealed and the revelation includes, as Herald has documented, the fact that some will appear to be of us for a time but will not ultimately prove to be so. A good and necessary consequence of that point of Divine revelation is that while we trust God's promises to those who believe, we can't have absolute assurance that all who profess faith do truly believe. Which is why I pointed out originally that you were confusing CT with its application and the two aren't the same thing.


 
The unbelief of men does not make the faith of God of none effect. Again, you don't understand covenant theology. I urge you to study it, learn about it, and become competent before dogmatising about it so as to avoid a scenario where you are sharing your ignorance.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me give you all a look at John Tombes in Genesis 17. If we are going to start with Abraham and the faith once delivered to the saint I believe we need to start there. I do not believe that Ishmael was ever considered to be a part of the Covenant of Grace (the Everlasting Covenant) but he was a member of the Covenant of Circumcision which separated him from the world concerning promises that God made concerning him as a non-elect person in the Abrahamic Covenant. 


I believe Dr. Mike Renihan has done us a great service here. 



> John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 Edit Blog Entry
> 
> I have been discussing Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic Covenant on the Puritanboard.com. In light of this Dr. Mike Renihan recommended to me a portion of his book ‘Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes’. I just thought I would take the time to type out the section on Genesis 17 and the introduction to the Exegetical Arguments (With Dr. Renihan’s permission) and post it in a blog so I could reference it more quickly and make it accessible to others. I leave you with only a portion of his exegetical arguments. I think he does bring to light some good points concerning the biblical covenants, continuity, and discontinuity.
> 
> Be Encouraged,
> Randy Martin Snyder
> 
> Exegetical Arguments
> 
> The eleven exegetical arguments are primarily negative polemics against infant baptism. Tombes usually presented a paedobaptist position in syllogistic form, then proceeded to show how the argument was flawed. At the outset, a word must be said as regards such a methodology. First, Tombes is setting out arguments for infant baptism as an Antipaedobaptist in order to refute them. This approach seems therefore tainted with question-begging. However, it was the typical scholastic methodology of the day – to set out an argument in a plain and straightforward manner proceeding immediately to deal with objections. Tombes was laying these objections before his peers for their consideration. It was a consistent method that Tombes had used since his early days in considering the matter. The arguments presented to the committee of the Assembly of Divines as the Exercitation were honest attempts to know the truth of this issue. This inquiry to the Assembly came out of an earlier meeting, as Tombes recalled:
> Whereupon when in a meeting of Ministers in the City of London, the question was propounded what Scripture there was for infant-baptisme, I told my brethren plainly, that I doubted there was none. This occasioned the Dispute Doctor Homes speakes of which happened about January 1643…. Not long after that Conference, my most loving and reverend Father in law Master Henry Scudder fearing the event of this matter, after some writing betweene us, advised me to draw up the reasons of my doubts, and he undertook to present them to the Committee chosen (as I conceived it) to give satisfaction about the point, which I conceived might well be the leave of the Parliament, as the appointing the Assembly to give satisfaction about some doubts in taking the Covenant.(7)
> 
> It was not Tombes’s purpose to make controversy for its own sake, but to discover the truth in an important matter as regarded the reformation of his Church. Tombes was guilty, however, of naïveté. He expected that an honest attempt to discover truth would be met with the same. He sought either refutation or affirmation on a point of doctrine and nothing else. By publishing his views, he had everything to lose and the Church’s reformation to gain. His submission was a quest for open and honest debate upon a theological point.
> Secondly, the form of the argument was very rigid. Tombes, at times, oversimplified the position he was refuting. However, he always continued to give mounds of evidence for his case, positively and negatively presented.
> The syllogism was an accepted part of the seventeenth century academic debate. At Oxford, it was a remnant of late medieval Scholasticism that survived the Renaissance. This methodology used philosophical categories and logic to serve theological reflection. The main thrust of the argument presented is not always readily apparent. In Tombes’s analysis of the issues he refers continually to these syllogistic building blocks borrowed from the scholastical methodology.
> Tombes, with very little introduction, started:
> The present Tenet, according to which Infant-Baptisme is preached, is, that the Infants born of a Believer, are universally to be baptized. This Doctrine and Practise conformable, is made doubtfull to me, by these arguments.”(8)
> 
> 
> Tombes’s Starting Point and the Argument from Genesis 17:7
> 
> The first argument is one that examines the case for infant baptism from the interest of believer’s children in the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 17:7. It also serves as the all-important starting point for Tombes’s theological reflection:
> Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
> Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
> Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
> 
> Tombes’s first exegetical argument is a comprehensive, yet properly basic argument designed to examine any and all of the biblical evidence for infant baptism. The remaining arguments are applications of the first to specific Scriptures, theological constructions or historical precedents. He then used his conclusions to support the doctrine or practice of paedobaptism:
> The Minor is proved by examining the places that are brought for it, which are these: Genesis 17.7. etc. Acts 2.38,39. 1 Cor. 7.14. Mark 10.14, 16. Acts 16.15,32. 1 Cor. 1.16. The Argument from Genesis 17.7, etc. is almost the first and the last in this business; and therefore is the more accurately to be examined….(10)
> 
> Tombes often added colour to the debate with maxims and Latin phrases. The fist argument did not escape his cutting wit. Speaking of the argument for infant baptism from Genesis 17:7, etc., he added:
> …*ut it hath so many shapes, that I may here take up that Speech, With what knot shall I hold shape-shifting Proteus?”(11) But in the issue, it falls into one or other of these forms…(12).
> 
> Tombes went on to build his foundation against the interest of believer’s children in the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. He did not give multiple forms of the opposing argument; rather, one form from which he drew four sub-arguments. He thus supported his refutation of the one argument from Genesis 17:7. This was an application of his overriding principle expressed in Argument One - that there is no Scripture to warrant the baptizing of infants. He continued with another syllogism as if arguing for paedobaptism:
> Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
> Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees.
> Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (13)
> 
> Tombes added, “The Minor is proved from Genesis 17:7. where God promiseth to Abraham, I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee”. (14)
> 
> Tombes proceeded to four sub-arguments that he believed exposed the basic assumptions of the greater argument presented. By way of introduction to his main point, they were: (1) The Covenant with Abraham is not identical to the Gospel (New) Covenant; (2) Abraham’s seed has more than one meaning; (3) the promise of the Gospel has always been the same irrespective of the age; and (4) Some were circumcised who had no part in the promise made to Abraham. These four parts were intended to undermine the credibility of infant baptism by way of analogy from the Abrahamic Covenant to the New, or in Tombes’s phraseology, the “Euangelicall” or “Gospel Covenant”.(15) These also form the foundation of all of Tombes’s arguments. They were points that were nonnegotiable for him. It is important to see the detail in these sub-arguments in order to understand his inferences within other constructions. Tombes kept coming back to two foundational points, (1) the lack of positive instruction in special revelation for the practice of infant baptism, and (2) to an alternative ( and creative) explanation of the biblical texts which became the foundation of his emerging covenantal and credobaptistic theology.
> On the first of the sub-arguments, Tombes declared;
> 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel; Ergo. (16)
> 
> 
> Explaining his distinction between the evangelical (Evangelicall) and domestic (Domestique) or civil (Civill) promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, Tombes implied there were some spiritual promises and some physical or material promises that had to be distinguished. Tombes explained what he means by “Euangelicall promises”:
> That was Euangelicall which we read, Genesis 17.5. I have made thee a father of many nations; and that which we find, Gen 15.5 so shall they seed be; in which it is promised, that there shall be of all Nations innumerable that shall be Abrahams children by believing, Rom. 4.17,18. It was Euangelicall, which we find in Gen 12.3 & Gen. 18.18. and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed; for in these is promised blessing to Believers, of whom Abraham is father, Gal. 3.16. Acts 3.25 (17)
> 
> Tombes immediately proceeded to the “Domestique” or “Civill” promises:
> Domestique and Civill promises were many; of the multiplying the seed of Abraham, the birth of Isaac; of the coming of Christ our of Isaac; the bondage of the Israelites in Egypt, and deliverance thence; of possessing the Land of Canaan, Gen 15.13,18. Gen. 17.7, 8.15,16. Act. 7.4,5,6,7,8. and many other places. (18)
> 
> The distinction is between the spiritual blessings which accrue to believers as believers which are called evangelical, and physical (or natural) consequences pertaining to Abraham’s descendants as domestic (or civl); between a spiritual seed brought about by heavenly activity and a natural seed brought about by the earthly procreative act.
> Tombes continued to legitimize this distinction as he involved a rigorous trinitarianism in his defence to clarify and balance the issues of continuity and discontinuity within the two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and the same issues as regards other covenants.
> Yea, it is to be noted, that those promises which were Euangelicall, according to the more inward sense of the Holy ghost, do point at the priviledges of Abrahams House, in the outward face [sense} of the words; whence it may be well doubted, whether this Covenant made with Abraham, may be called simply Euangelicall, and so pertain to Believers, as Believers. There were annexed to the Covenant on Mount Siani, sacrifices pointing at the sacrifice of Christ, and yet we call not that Covenant simply Euangelicall, but in some respect.(19)
> 
> Therefore, because of the distinction asserted and shown, that the Abrahamic Covenant is not one and the same with the new or Gospel Covenant, Tombes went on to answer the remaining three of this original four questions that paralleled the concerns already stated, “(2) Who is the seed? (3) What is the promise? (4) What of those who were circumcised who had no part in Abraham’s covenant”? Tombes moved to his second sub-point:
> Secondly, The seed of Abraham is many wayes so called: First, Christ is called the seed of Abraham, by excellency, Gal 3.16. Secondly, all the Elect, Rom. 9.7 all believers, Rom. 4.11,12. 16.17,18, are called the seed of Abraham, that is spiritual seed. Thirdly, there was a natural seed of Abraham, to whom the inheritance did accrue; this was Isaac. Gen. 21.12. Fourthly, a natural seed, whether lawfull, as the sons of Keturah, or base, as Ishmael, to who the inheritance belonged not, Gen. 15.5. But no where do I find, that the Infants of Believers of the Gentiles are called Abrahams seed, of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed, the promise recited, is meant, but in a different manner thus; that God promiseth, he will be a God to Christ, imparting in him blessing to all nations of the earth, to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Euangelicall benefits, to the natural seed inheriting, in domestick and politicall benefits.(20)
> 
> Tombes extended the blessings of the New Covenant back upon the Abrahamic covenant in both aspects of the covenant - spiritual and civil. He saw this as part of the fulfillment of the New Covenant expressed in the time before Christ. He attempted to explain himself as he answered the question as regards the nature of the promise in his third sub-point;
> 3. That the promise of the Gospel, or Gospel-covenant, was the same in all ages, in respect of the thing promised, and condition of the covenant, which we may call the substantiall and essentiall part of that covenant, to wit, Christ, Faith, Sanctification, Remission of sins, Eternall life; yet this Euangelicall covenant had divers forms in which these things were signified, and various sanctions, by which it was confirmed: To Adam, the promise was made under the name of the seed of the Woman, bruising the head of the Serpent; to Enoch, Noah, in other forms; otherwise to Abraham, under the name of his seed, in whom all nations should be blessed; otherwise to Moses, under the obscure shadows of the Law; otherwise to David, under the name of a successor in the kingdome; otherwise in the New Testament, in plain words, 2 Cor. 3.6. Heb. 8.10. It had likewise divers sanctions. The Promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of circumcision, and by the birth of Isaac; to Moses by the Paschall Lamb, and the sprinkling of Blood on the [door], the rain of Mannah, and other signs; to David by an oath; in the New Testament, by Christ’s blood, 1 Cor. 11.25. Therefore circumcision signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel, according to the form and sanction of the covenant with Abraham, Baptisme signifies and confirms the same promise according to the form, sanction and accomplishments of the new Tesmament…. (21)
> 
> Tombes admitted that each of these covenants has a sign to confirm the promise made. However, he maintains a distinction between the specific sign of circumcision given in the Genesis 17 covenant given to Abraham as part of that specific covenant and the specific sign of baptism given in the New Covenant. He went on to contrast other aspects of these covenants to demonstrate there was not a quid pro quo relationship between them. There was some continuity; there was also discontinuity. If they were identical in all things, they would be the same in essence, character and name. Since there was at least one difference, the sign, it was, for Tombes’s theological opponents, fallacious to impose a view of radical continuity between the covenant made with Abraham and the covenant brought about by Christ, the New Covenant. Tombes continued by looking at the elements involved:
> …[N]ow these forms and sanctions differ many wayes, as much as concerns our present purpose in these: First, circumcision confirmed not Evangelicall promises, but also Politicall; and if we may believe Mr. Cameron, in his Thesis, of the threefold Covenant of God. Thesi. 78. Circumcision did primarily separate the seed of Abraham from other nations, sealed unto them the earthly promise; Secondarily, it did signifie sanctification. But Baptisme signifies only Evangelicall benefits. Secondly, circumcision did confirm the promise concerning Christ to Come out of Isaac’ Baptisme assures Christ to be already come, to have been dead, and to have risen again. Thirdly, circumcision belonged to the Church, constituted in the House of Abraham, Baptisme to the Church gathered out of all nations; whence I gather, that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptisme, in signing the Euangelicall covenant; nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of the other.(22)
> 
> For Tombes, circumcision sealed an earthly promise and identified Abraham’s seed as set apart to God for God’s purpose. A great part of that purpose was in the Incarnation of Christ from the line of Isaac. Tombes was not denying Isreal’s prized position as God’s special ancient people, he was affirming it. However, for Tomes, it was important to understand the pre-incarnational Covenants in the brighter light of the fulfillment in the New Covenant. Salvific aspects of the New Covenant were found in types and shadows within the older covenants (especially the Abrahamic), but their primary purpose was to anticipate the day when God would bring redemption. The New Covenant, however, looked back to the reality of redemption accomplished and applied. I was through these New Covenant glasses that Tombes saw the salvific aspects of all antecedent covenants. In Tombes’s theological scheme, circumcision was the sign of the former, pointing to among other things, the spiritual realities that will be certain possession of Abraham’s spiritual seed. Baptism looks back at what has been done by the mediator of the New Covenant for his people and is the sign of the latter.
> Tombes demonstrated even more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and new Covenants while anticipating the question as regards the subjects of circumcision:
> 4. That some there were circumcised, to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong; of Ismael, God had said, that his covnenant was not to be established with him, but with Isaac; and yet he was circumcised, Gen. 17.29, 21.25 Rom. 9.7,8,9. Gal. 4.29,30. the same may be said of Esau; All that were in Abrahams house, whether strangers, or born in his house, were circumcised, Gen. 17.12,13. of whom nevertheless, it may be doubted, whether any promises of the covenant made with Abraham, did belong to them; there were other persons, to whom all, or most of the promises of the covenant pertained, that were not circumcised; this may be affirmed of the females coming from Abraham, the Infants dying before the eighth day, of just men, living out of Abrahams house, as Melchisedech, Lot, Job. If any say that the females were circumcised in the circumcision of the Males, he saith it without proof; and by like, perhaps greater, reason it may said, that the children of Believers are baptized in the persons of their own parents, and therefore are not to be baptized in their own persons. But it is manifest that the Jewes comprehended in the covenant made with Abraham, and circumcised, were nevertheless not admitted to Baptisme by John Baptist, and Christs Disciples, till they professed repentance, and faith in Christ. Hence I gather, first, that the right to Euangelicall promises, was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those, but Gods’ precept, as is expressed, Gen. 17.25. Gen. 21.4. Secondly, that those terms are not convertible, [federate and to be signed].(23)
> 
> Tombes’s conclusions were drawn from the positive, declarative use of circumcision and baptism in Scripture. His rigid adherence to the meaning of texts as God’s words for his people, and his governing principles for all matters of faith and practice, compelled him to demand positive evidence for paedobaptism beyond mere theological constructions. Tombes demanded some evidence from “God’s precept” for the practice. He also saw more discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant through the assertion “those terms were not convertible”. By “convertible”, Tombes meant, synonymous. There may be some similarities; yet great differences remained.
> In review, Tombes’s original, foundational argument was stated thus:
> Major Premise: That which hath not testimony in Scripture for it, is doubtful
> Minor Premise: But this Doctrine of Infant-Baptisme, hath no testimony of Scripture for it;
> Conclusion: Ergo, it is doubtful. (9)
> 
> Applying this argument to Baptism, he suggested a second:
> 
> 
> 
> Major premise: To whom the Gospel-covenant agrees, to them the sign of the Gospel-covenant agrees also.
> Minor premise: But to Infants of Believers the Gospel-covenant agrees.
> Conclusion: [A]nd consequently Baptisme. (25)
> 
> After giving the four reasons above why this is not exegetically or theologically accurate, he concluded his first and most fundamental argument.
> Whereupon I answer to the Argument: First, either by denying the Major, if it be universally taken, otherwise it concludes nothing: or by granting it with this limitation; it is true of that sign of the covenant which agrees universally in respect of form and sanction, to them that receive the Gospel, but it is not true of that sign of the covenant, which is of a particular form or sanction, of which sort is circumcision.
> Secondly, I answer by denying the Minor, universally taken, the reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith, which are not known to us, but by profession, or speciall Revelation.(26)
> 
> Here, Tombes, in a summary, has given his refutation of the argument from Genesis 17:7. He denied the Major premise to be universal. Circumcision was a particular part of a particular covenant made with Abraham. Circumcision fits within the structure of that narrow convenantal application to Abraham’s descendants physically. It was a sanction or stipulation from God to Abraham for his house through procreation. Baptism, for Tombes, was a covenantal stipulation through the New Covenant because of, and not antecedent to, regeneration.
> However, with Tombes’s conclusion there is this explanatory comment, “[T]he reason is, because those children only of believing Gentiles, are Abrahams Children, who are his spiritual seed, according to the election of grace by faith….”(27) The true children of Abraham are those who are brought into his family through an act of God.
> 
> Taken from…….
> 
> Pp 69 -78
> 
> 
> Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes
> 
> An untold story from Puritan England
> *


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 1. The Covenant made with Abraham, is not a pure Gospel-covenant, but mixt, which I prove; The Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt, some Euangelicall, belonging to those to whom the Gospel belongeth, some are Domestique, or Civill promises, specially respecting the House of Abraham, and of Israel; Ergo.



Acts 3:25, 26, "Ye are *the children* of the prophets, and *of the covenant which God made with our fathers*, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, *in turning away every one of you from his iniquities*."

The "children of the covenant" enjoyed the evangelical promise of being turned away from their iniquities; ergo, the promise to be the God of the children of believers is an evangelical promise and the substance of the covenant of grace.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gods covenant is revealed and the revelation includes, as Herald has documented, the fact that some will appear to be of us for a time but will not ultimately prove to be so. A good and necessary consequence of that point of Divine revelation is that while we trust God's promises to those who believe, we can't have absolute assurance that all who profess faith do truly believe. Which is why I pointed out originally that you were confusing CT with its application and the two aren't the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The unbelief of men does not make the faith of God of none effect. Again, you don't understand covenant theology. I urge you to study it, learn about it, and become competent before dogmatising about it so as to avoid a scenario where you are sharing your ignorance.
Click to expand...


I affirm as strongly as you that the Lord knows those who are his and man's unbelief cannot make it of none effect. But it was God himself who told us that some who appeared to be of us would leave us thereby proving to be not of us.

Now if I have misunderstood that charge you are attempting to make, please explain it more clearly for I am at a loss to think of anything else you might mean.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> The unbelief of men does not make the faith of God of none effect.


 
I'm sorry to interrupt but I need to ask a question. Are you saying that there are some that will be saved who don't ever have saving faith, such as an unreached native on an island in the pacific or something like that? I thought all the elect would certainly have faith because faith is the primary evidence of election. Billy Grahm started to say recently that some would be saved even though they don't believe in Jesus and people are getting mad about it. I don't think that's what you mean but I just want to clarify.

The following verse tells us that faith is a necessary proof of salvation:

John 3:36 KJV
[36] He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.


----------



## py3ak

*Romans 3:3 (AV)*

_For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?_


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I affirm as strongly as you that the Lord knows those who are his and man's unbelief cannot make it of none effect. But it was God himself who told us that some who appeared to be of us would leave us thereby proving to be not of us.


 
This has nothing to do with knowing who are in and who are out of the covenant. Anthony's statement is, "David we are not sure if they are in or not." My response was that this is contrary to the very nature of a covenant, which is to certify who are the beneficiaries of God's promise. Your response, spoken as if you knew what you were talking about, is that "Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to the question of where others presently appear to stand." But anyone who knows covenant theology knows that it pertains to what God has revealed for man's salvation. To suggest that there are measures of ambiguity is to undermine the very reason why God has covenanted His promise.


----------



## MW

DD2009 said:


> I'm sorry to interrupt but I need to ask a question. Are you saying that there are some that will be saved who don't ever have saving faith, such as an unreached native on an island in the pacific or something like that? I thought all the elect would certainly have faith because faith is the primary evidence of election. Billy Grahm started to say recently that some would be saved even though they don't believe in Jesus and people are getting mad about it. I don't think that's what you mean but I just want to clarify.


 
I think it would make an interesting study in the psychology of religion to ask why you feel the need to ask this question, but I will forbear. No, my statement has nothing to do with your concern. The fact is, that some failing to obtain the blessing promised in the covenant is no indication that the promises themselves are unsure.


----------



## Iconoclast

Matthew,
Sorry if i am getting a little fiesty in my responses. I enjoy much of what you post. You have a great degree of gift and sometimes I do not seem to be able to communicate well enough to address the concern that i have with some of your posts. Most of the time I am content to learn from you. Sometimes however I believe you are not seeing something in scripture, but if a reformer has not seen it that way, it cannot have merit in your eyes.
Here is the other post from a thread on union with Christ, you said this. 2-23-10


> On this particular subject, as it pertains to union with Christ and salvation, I am not referring to infants being externally in the covenant, but actually saved in the covenant of grace by Christ. The antipaedobaptist "sign" declares that they have no part nor lot in salvation by union with Christ.
> Yours sincerely,


You cannot say that the water you administer actually saves them,or places them in union with Christ.In contrast to the credo sign,that you dismiss. You cannot be saying that! 
If you were talking about elect infants alone, your comment is no different from my comment earlier in this thread What did you mean by your comment?/
You were responding to my post number 17 that in part said this;


> Believing that someone is only "in" the covenant by Spiritual birth and applying an external sign afterward does by its nature seem as if we leave the infants out.
> If God has saved them they are "in" without having the external sign just as an adult who believes by God given faith is "in" even before any external sign is administered. the witholding of the external sign would not hinder this,if as I contend Spirit baptism applied at new birth is indeed essential. We do not leave them out as much as we leave them in God's hands. We do not tell them they are in,or out but that new birth is required.




Before that awhile ago,you claimed that an individual cannot be saved unless/until he is baptized and accepted into local church membership. Several of us agreed with you that church membership is the norm, God does save us unto service in a local assembly. 
I will admit and am thankful that your constant emphasis on the corporate aspect of salvation is an area that I need to grow in my understanding of. I just do not think it is an either or situation. My individual sin was paid for., but not mine only. All sins of the elect were also paid for.also. The church is a called out assembly of saved individuals knit together for God's purpose.. 
God saved me by his word, I saw my guilt before a Holy God,The Spirit quickened me to where I could welcome the word. It was months before i found a bible based church and followed the command of scripture to be baptized.
I could not put the bible down. God used His word, granted me repentance and faith. I believed by God's grace.
There is a point in time when you go from death to life. I did not have a stop watch, or write down the day or hour but I know God saved me. I asked Him for mercy and forgiveness of my sins, He answered allowing me to believe the bible as it is in truth.

Tim, thank you for your cautioning me;


> Dear brother, I would most earnestly urge you not to throw out the tool of "good and necessary inference" because of abuses that some may have made of it. It is one of God's and the Reformation's greatest gifts to His bible believing church and it can be employed with great profit. In practice, the concept if not the term, may be found in the LBC's "necessarily contained." (LBC 1:6)



I got a bit heated up,and was more referring to abuses of it.
More than half of my library is made up from books by the reformers and padeo's.
I just need to take a deep breathe and calm down a little bit


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I affirm as strongly as you that the Lord knows those who are his and man's unbelief cannot make it of none effect. But it was God himself who told us that some who appeared to be of us would leave us thereby proving to be not of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has nothing to do with knowing who are in and who are out of the covenant. Anthony's statement is, "David we are not sure if they are in or not." My response was that this is contrary to the very nature of a covenant, which is to certify who are the beneficiaries of God's promise.
Click to expand...


Anthony's statement pertained to the case of children of elect parents, presumably infants, of whom, cb CT premises neither automatically include such within the covenant nor exclude them as necessarily reprobate. Consequently, it remain impossible to certify that they are among the beneficiaries of God's promise until and unless they profess belief. 




armourbearer said:


> Your response, spoken as if you knew what you were talking about, is that "Both ct's however do leave different measures of ambiguity when they are applied to the question of where others presently appear to stand." But anyone who knows covenant theology knows that it pertains to what God has revealed for man's salvation. To suggest that there are measures of ambiguity is to undermine the very reason why God has covenanted His promise.



As I keep on saying, the unambiguous nature of God's covenanted promise to his people is not in question, but whether infants in particular cases can be identified as being among his people. 

Hebrews 6:17, 18, "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."

Infants lack, for a season, the capability to understand the immutability of his counsel when that is shown forth, as well as the ability to flee for refuge and lay hold of the hope. And it is only to those who can do these things that God offers the strong consolation abovementioned.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to interrupt but I need to ask a question. Are you saying that there are some that will be saved who don't ever have saving faith, such as an unreached native on an island in the pacific or something like that? I thought all the elect would certainly have faith because faith is the primary evidence of election. Billy Grahm started to say recently that some would be saved even though they don't believe in Jesus and people are getting mad about it. I don't think that's what you mean but I just want to clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would make an interesting study in the psychology of religion to ask why you feel the need to ask this question, but I will forbear. No, my statement has nothing to do with your concern. The fact is, that some failing to obtain the blessing promised in the covenant is no indication that the promises themselves are unsure.
Click to expand...

 
I wanted to ask it as a clarification, because you are a pastor with authority and I want to make sure that myself and others don't think you are saying that some people will be saved even though they don't believe in Christ when the bible clearly says that the wrath of God abides upon those who don't believe in Christ. Someone could read that think that's what you said and then go off and fall into error like Billy Graham did.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no *salvation of persons*where they do not persevere. I do not doubt at all the objective truth of full atonement of the elect , at whatever age they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have been here before. Your theology is not reformed. Salvation is not a-historical.
Click to expand...

 
Do you then disagree with this?


> Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
> 1._____ Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved, seeing the gifts and callings of God are without repentance, whence he still begets and nourisheth in them faith, repentance, love, joy, hope, and all the graces of the Spirit unto immortality; and though many storms and floods arise and beat against them, yet they shall never be able to take them off that foundation and rock which by faith they are fastened upon; notwithstanding, through unbelief and the temptations of Satan, the sensible sight of the light and love of God may for a time be clouded and obscured from them, yet he is still the same, and they shall be sure to be kept by the power of God unto salvation, where they shall enjoy their purchased possession, they being engraven upon the palm of his hands, and their names having been written in the book of life from all eternity.
> ( John 10:28, 29; Philippians 1:6; 2 Timothy 2:19; 1 John 2:19; Psalms 89:31, 32; 1 Corinthians 11:32; Malachi 3:6 )
> 2._____ This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of his Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
> ( Romans 8:30 Romans 9:11, 16; Romans 5:9, 10; John 14:19; Hebrews 6:17, 18; 1 John 3:9; Jeremiah 32:40 )
> 
> 3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
> ( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )


----------



## Herald

"_What we have here is a failure to communicate._" Cool Hand Luke

Unless the continuity-discontinuity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants are being debated on their respective merits, I'm amazed that the consensus of this thread is a collective "you don't get it." The paedo position has been articulated by Rev. Winzer. My disagreement with the continuity of the covenants notwithstanding, Rev. Winzer has articulated the Westminster position clearly, articulately, and consistently. I don't intend to throw my Baptist brothers under the bus, but I have not heard the same convincing argument from the Baptist side. Not every Baptist who claims to be covenantal, from a Baptist perspective, understands Baptist covenantalism, or doesn't know how to adequately articulate it. I'm seeing that in this thread. It's a hard thing to say, because I may be misunderstood. I am not seeking to set myself up as some sort of covenantal scholar, but I'm convinced that some Baptists need to bone up on their theological understanding. If they don't then these discussions are like bringing a knife to a gunfight. 

There is a convincing and consistent Baptist covenantal theology. Our confession supports it. Unfortunately, there is a lack of exhaustive scholarly research in this area. We have older writings by Gill, Dagg, and Spurgeon. Waldron and Barcellos authored a competent work in, "A Reformed Baptist Manifesto." More research and writing needs to be done on this topic from Reformed Baptist scholars. In the meantime Baptist Covenant Theology should be approached seriously. We do ourselves a disservice when we go off like Lone Ranger theologians. I admit my own shortcomings in scholarship. I'm learning more all the time. I recommend a hiatus from these threads unless you have a handle on the topic. This is just my opinion.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> David we are not sure if they are in or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 6:17, 18, "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."
> 
> The idea of a covenant theology which leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion is contrary to the very nature of a covenant.
Click to expand...

 
Rev Winzer,

That's a great passage. Can you give a clear explaination to everyone why the children who are in covenant because they are baptized children of baptized believers are not all elect? 

One would naturally think that the promises of God would guarantee salvation to all those baptized in his name. The Baptists believe that all those who are baptized in their tradition are saved because they have declared publically that they trust in Christ. I'm sure it is understood by them that there will be a few false brethren who receive baptism and make a false confesssion of faith, but they granted their baptism based on their criteria being met that gives them the comfort that the baptism is given to a believer and not wasted on a reprobate. They object to our side because from their point of view there is no determination if the child will ever come to faith where their people are baptized because they have come to faith. So it looks to them like we are baptizing reprobates and calling them Christians.


----------



## Brian Withnell

DMcFadden said:


> As a Baptist for longer than most of you have been alive . . .
> 
> I rejoice in God's gift of a child to (weird ole crazy) Marrow Man. I celebrate his bringing his daughter under the covenant sign and committing to raise her in the Lord. My exegetical disagreements, notwithstanding, this is wonderful news! As one who baptized most of his own kids, I share the joy with Tim. What a wonderful experience.
> 
> BTW - ALL doctrines have consequences. However, moving from an exegetical disagreement to pronouncing those with whom we disagree "errorists" in eternal danger would be akin to claiming that the "crime" of speeding is equal to the "crime" of murder. Even if I am 100% correct 100% of the time, I doubt that 100% of those who disagree with me are in eternal jeopardy.


 

I like this. To me there are things that are infallible (the scripture); things that I believe are inerrant which every Christian must believe or be in jeopardy of their soul (the historic creeds); things which I believe correct and worthy of separating into distinctive local bodies, but not without error (the confessions); and things which are worth discussion, but which I find no convincing evidence must be in any of the three prior categories (is the Lord's table to use unleavened bread, or leavened bread).

There are important differences that rise to heresy (and have been pronounced such by the whole church). There are differences upon which I would question the salvation of someone if upon those items they disagreed. There are questions upon which I would separate myself from a church if there were any possibility of attending a church that more closely aligned with those beliefs I hold to be the system of doctrine contained in the scripture, and differences which I can accept with charity.


----------



## timmopussycat

Bill, I agree we do have a failure to communicate here, and I am quite at a loss to understand why. 

The one point I am trying to do is deny Rev. Winzer's charge that it is cb covenant theology itself that leads to causing doubt or confusion in the case of our uncertainty whether particular infants are (likely) in or not in the covenant of grace. I argue instead that the necessary time of waiting is not due to cb theology itself, but to the inability of infants to manifest the signs by which the LBC identifies Christian believers. For one thing, an infant simply cannot profess with the mouth. By necessary consequence it would seem then, according to the LBC, that infants can neither be accepted as a candidate for baptism (29:2) nor church membership (26:2), nor be recognized as a visible saint (26:2) until they can communicate. Those who can communicate, who can profess "the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation", will never find their theology leading them to doubts or confusion in their own cases.

What I am amazed at is that Rev. Winzer appears simply not to see that (on cb premises) this inevitable time of uncertainty cannot be blamed on cb theology, but is an inevitable and temporary consequence of infants inability to communicate. What I also don't understand is how anyone can think that any cb covenant theology could discuss what happens if one attempts to apply the LBC's distinguishing marks of Christians to the special case of infants and come up with a significantly different result. Are you aware of any CBCT that either engages in such a discussion yet claims that the problem doesn't exist, or who claims that the problem doesn't exist on other grounds? If you are, I would appreciate at least knowing who the writer is and where he discusses the point.

And I should also note that such cb times of uncertainty are similar to those experienced by pb parents later on when a soewyat older child first professes the faith then backslides. While the pb parents believes their child to be in covenant, they know that some who go out are truly reprobate. Until their child comes back they will be inevitably be faced with an existential uncertaintly as to which condition their child is actually in. But neither Rev. Winzer nor I would blame the uncertainty those parents are facing on pb theology, but rather on circumstances attending the child in question.

---------- Post added at 03:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------




DD2009 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> David we are not sure if they are in or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 6:17, 18, "Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."
> 
> The idea of a covenant theology which leaves people in a state of doubt and confusion is contrary to the very nature of a covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev Winzer,
> 
> That's a great passage. Can you give a clear explaination to everyone why the children who are in covenant because they are baptized children of baptized believers are not all elect?
> 
> One would naturally think that the promises of God would guarantee salvation to all those baptized in his name. The Baptists believe that all those who are baptized in their tradition are saved because they have declared publically that they trust in Christ. I'm sure it is understood by them that there will be a few false brethren who receive baptism and make a false confesssion of faith, but they granted their baptism based on their criteria being met that gives them the comfort that the baptism is given to a believer and not wasted on a reprobate. They object to our side because from their point of view there is no determination if the child will ever come to faith where their people are baptized because they have come to faith. So it looks to them like we are baptizing reprobates and calling them Christians.
Click to expand...

 
David, may I make a couple of clarifications? I think many, if not most, Baptists would say the second clause of your third sentence somewhat differently "We baptize those who 'actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ.'" (LBC 29:2) And no, to us it does not look to us as though, in every case where you baptize infants you are "baptizing reprobates and call[ing] them Christian." Knowing, as we do, that many of those who grow up in Christian homes will truly called by the Holy Spirit to faith in Christ as they grow up, or in later years, we can say that you are premature and that in some cases you may be baptizing the unregenerate, but we can go no further than that. 
Hope this helps


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Here is the other post from a thread on union with Christ, you said this. 2-23-10
> 
> 
> 
> On this particular subject, as it pertains to union with Christ and salvation, I am not referring to infants being externally in the covenant, but actually saved in the covenant of grace by Christ. The antipaedobaptist "sign" declares that they have no part nor lot in salvation by union with Christ.
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot say that the water you administer actually saves them,or places them in union with Christ.In contrast to the credo sign,that you dismiss. You cannot be saying that!
> If you were talking about elect infants alone, your comment is no different from my comment earlier in this thread What did you mean by your comment?
Click to expand...


Anthony, I was making the point that those who exclude infants from union with Christ are actually denying the salvation of infants since the salvation of infants depends on union with Christ. At no point did I say, "that all of the children were saved."


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Do you then disagree with this?
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints
> 1._____ Those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto, can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved
Click to expand...

 
I don't disagree, but this is different from saying that someone once "saved" is always "saved." What you have quoted states that "those whom God hath accepted in the beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, and given the precious faith of his elect unto" shall persevere. Please read 1 Cor. 10; Heb. 10; and 2 Pet. 2, amongst many other passages of Scripture, to see what the Holy Spirit reveals concerning those who have "escaped the world."


----------



## MW

DD2009 said:


> That's a great passage. Can you give a clear explaination to everyone why the children who are in covenant because they are baptized children of baptized believers are not all elect?


 
Very simply -- the secret things belong to the Lord, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children. The covenant of grace is revealed to bring us into possession of God's blessings. We do not ask, am I elect? but, What has God promised? God has promised to be a God to believers and their children. Believers do not ask if their children are elect, but lay hold of the precious promise of God and bring them up in covenant with Him, looking for His grace to bring that promise to fulfilment in their lives.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Anthony's statement pertained to the case of children of elect parents, presumably infants, of whom, cb CT premises neither automatically include such within the covenant nor exclude them as necessarily reprobate. Consequently, it remain impossible to certify that they are among the beneficiaries of God's promise until and unless they profess belief.



You continue to speak of elect and reprobate. Please go and read your own Baptist Confession, chapter 7. Section 3 specifically says that "This covenant is revealed in the gospel." It also says, "it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality." First, then, we must understand the covenant in terms of "revealed grace," whatever one thinks of paedobaptism; and secondly, we must not exclude any from participation in this "revealed grace." How an antipaedobaptist deals with the second point is something he must wrestle with, but he should never affirm that infants as infants are outside the covenant of grace.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony's statement pertained to the case of children of elect parents, presumably infants, of whom, cb CT premises neither automatically include such within the covenant nor exclude them as necessarily reprobate. Consequently, it remain impossible to certify that they are among the beneficiaries of God's promise until and unless they profess belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to speak of elect and reprobate. Please go and read your own Baptist Confession, chapter 7. Section 3 specifically says that "This covenant is revealed in the gospel." It also says, "it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality." First, then, we must understand the covenant in terms of "revealed grace," whatever one thinks of paedobaptism; and secondly, we must not exclude any from participation in this "revealed grace." How an antipaedobaptist deals with the second point is something they must wrestle with, but they should never deny that infants as infants are outside the covenant of grace.
Click to expand...


Once again we have failures to communicate, this time two. First I do not deny that the covenant of grace is revealed by the gospel and that it is by the gospel alone that all who were destined to life receive it. But I do not yet see how understanding the gospel in terms of revealed grace necessarily forces cb's to abandon a temporary uncertainty that is inevitably consequent on infants being unable to manifest the marks of a visible saint.

Second, somehow you are concluding from what I said that I hold that infants as infants are necessarily outside the covenant of grace. That is an incorrect conclusion to draw: in fact, I tried to forestall that conclusion by using the words "cb CT premises. . . nor exclude as necessarily reprobate." I was not saying that all infants are automatically in the C of G nor that all are reprobate: rather my intended point was that we simply can't know _from the nature of the attendant circumstances_ whether a particular infant is or is not a likely member of the C of G, thus justifying Iconoclast's statement "we don't know" against your charge that cb theology leaves people in a state of doubt or confusion.

To say it plainly: even if elect infants cannot and do not experience the intellectual reception and comprehension of the gospel while infants and are thus temporarily excluded from direct experience of its blessings while in that state, I wholeheartedly affirm that they remain elect infants inside the covenant of grace whom their Heavenly Father will bring to conscious faith and gospel obedience at the time that seems best to him.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Once again we have failures to communicate, this time two. First I do not deny that the covenant of grace is revealed by the gospel and that it is by the gospel alone that all who were destined to life receive it. But I do not yet see how understanding the gospel in terms of revealed grace demands an abandonment of the uncertainty consequent to infants being unable to manifest the marks of a visible saint.



Well, if the covenant of grace is revealed (and hopefully proper acknowledgment will now be given to that point) then it follows that those in the covenant of grace must be a revealed fact. There can be no uncertainty except where people refuse to acknowledge what is revealed.



timmopussycat said:


> Somehow you are concluding from what I said that I am stating that infants as infants are necessarily outside the covenant of grace. Rather, my intended point was that we simply can't know _from the nature of the attendant circumstances_ whether a particular infant is or is not a member of the C of G.



Again, one would need to deny that the covenant of grace is a matter of revelation and choose rather to pry into the secret will of God in order to be left in any doubt as to who is in the covenat of grace.



timmopussycat said:


> To say it plainly, I do not and cannot exclude anyone at anytime from such particpation, it is God himself who has done so - for if we are at all biblical, we must admit that not all human beings are elect and that God himself makes that choice.


 
Well, this sets aside God's revelation in order to appeal His sovereignty, which is not at all in keeping with the reformed view of revelation.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> How an antipaedobaptist deals with the second point is something he must wrestle with, but he should never affirm that infants as infants are outside the covenant of grace.





> 1689 LBC Chapter 7 - God's Covenant
> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, *it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.





> 1689 LBC Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> 3.* Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit*; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



Elect infants can only be saved through the Covenant of Grace. Are all infants elect? The inclusion of the phrase "elect infants" could infer that not all infants are elect. The WCF phrases it this way:



> WCF Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.



Baptism does nothing to either confirm or influence the elect standing of infants. The paedo view of New Covenant membership is another matter; but Baptists would concur that elect infants dying in infancy are, as I said earlier, saved through the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again we have failures to communicate, this time two. First I do not deny that the covenant of grace is revealed by the gospel and that it is by the gospel alone that all who were destined to life receive it. But I do not yet see how understanding the gospel in terms of revealed grace demands an abandonment of the uncertainty consequent to infants being unable to manifest the marks of a visible saint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if the covenant of grace is revealed (and hopefully proper acknowledgment will now be given to that point) then it follows that those in the covenant of grace must be a revealed fact. There can be no uncertainty except where people refuse to acknowledge what is revealed.
Click to expand...


I question whether who is in the covenant of grace is necessarily demonstrated merely by the covenant of grace being itself a revealed fact. For what is also revealed in Scripture is that certain marks will accompany true belief in all cases and false profession (for a time) in some cases. While no one doubts that all who truly believe are members of the covenant of grace to be a revealed fact, it is an equally revealed fact that not all who profess belief truly believe. And we are Scripturally required to examine ourselves to make sure the latter possibilty is not true of us. 



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow you are concluding from what I said that I am stating that infants as infants are necessarily outside the covenant of grace. Rather, my intended point was that we simply can't know _from the nature of the attendant circumstances_ whether a particular infant is or is not a member of the C of G.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, one would need to deny that the covenant of grace is a matter of revelation and choose rather to pry into the secret will of God in order to be left in any doubt as to who is in the covenat of grace.
Click to expand...


I am neither denying that the c. of g. is a matter of revelation nor prying into the secret will of God. God has told his church the marks of a visible saint. Unless someone manifests the marks of a visible saint we have no grounds to think that he is elect even though he in fact may be, and later, will be seen (finally in heaven) to glorified human eyes to be elect. Infants while infants are unable to manifest those marks.



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say it plainly, I do not and cannot exclude anyone at anytime from such particpation, it is God himself who has done so - for if we are at all biblical, we must admit that not all human beings are elect and that God himself makes that choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this sets aside God's revelation in order to appeal His sovereignty, which is not at all in keeping with the reformed view of revelation.
Click to expand...


On second thought, I edited this sentence out before seeing your reply because it starts an unnecessary red herring, but to answer your charge, I do not think I am setting aside God's revelation here since I don't see anywhere in it where he gives markers that enable us to identify any group of particular infants as being automatically within the covenant of grace. (As I understand matters, this is standard cb CT). All I was saying is that if an infant is, in fact, unregenerate, it was God has fixed that choice not me. Nor was I saying that I know that choice, in fact like you, I deny any possibility of knowing the secret will of God. Finally, I was not using God's soverignity to attempt to trump a point he has revealed, not even the standard pb point that claims revelatory status for its claim that infants of believing parents must be treated as inside the c. of g., for we were not discussing that point. Rather we were discussing _whether, on cb premises, _ Iconoclast's original rejoinder was justified.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Baptism does nothing to either confirm or influence the elect standing of infants. The paedo view of New Covenant membership is another matter; but Baptists would concur that elect infants dying in infancy are, as I said earlier, saved through the Covenant of Grace.


 
Thankyou, Bill, for your efforts to clarify the confessional Reformed Baptist view. I don't think any clarity in dscussion can be reached while people attempt to defend antipaedobaptist views from an unconfessional perspective. There are inherent issues which must be admitted on both sides. Attempts to do away with those issues in order to make an air tight argument for one's position is not helpful.


----------



## timmopussycat

Herald said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How an antipaedobaptist deals with the second point is something he must wrestle with, but he should never affirm that infants as infants are outside the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC Chapter 7 - God's Covenant
> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, *it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> 3.* Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit*; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elect infants can only be saved through the Covenant of Grace. Are all infants elect? The inclusion of the phrase "elect infants" could infer that not all infants are elect. The WCF phrases it this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism does nothing to either confirm or influence the elect standing of infants. The paedo view of New Covenant membership is another matter; but Baptists would concur that elect infants dying in infancy are, as I said earlier, saved through the Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...

 
 
And I particularly affirm that elect infants dying in infancy are saved through the c of g. It should have been unnecessary to say this, but people seem to jump to to incorrect conclusions from reading my posts.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I question whether who is in the covenant of grace is necessarily demonstrated merely by the covenant of grace being itself a revealed fact. For what is also revealed in Scripture is that certain marks will accompany true belief in all cases and false profession (for a time) in some cases. While all who truly believe are members of the covenant of grace is a revealed fact, it is equally a revealed fact that not all who profess belief truly believe. And we are Scripturally required to examine ourselves to make sure the latter possibilty is not true of us.



Again, the unbelief of some does not make the faith of God of none effect. The covenant of grace is not nullified by the fact that some to whom it is administered are unbelieving. Hence there is no ambiguity in who are members of the covenant of grace.



timmopussycat said:


> I am neither denying that the c of g is a matter of revelation nor prying into the secret will of God. God has told his church the marks of a visible saint. Unless someone manifests the marks of a visible saint we have no grounds to think that he is elect even though he in fact may be, and later, will be seen (finally in heaven) to glorified human eyes to be elect. Infants while infants are unable to manifest those marks.



Again, the elect in the mind of God is not relevant to discerning the revealed grace of His covenant. It would have been well if you had have actually gone and studied this subject before embarking on defending you know not what. It is not just Presbyterians, but Baptists also, who speak of the covenant of grace as revealed grace. Waldron: "A covenant, as shown above, is a sworn promise, an oath-bound promise" (Exposition, 110). Now, if you could come to grasp that fact, and discuss the subject with that clear definition in mind, we would not be subject to any more confusing appeals to a covenant of grace which is hidden in the mind of God.


----------



## Herald

timmopussycat said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How an antipaedobaptist deals with the second point is something he must wrestle with, but he should never affirm that infants as infants are outside the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC Chapter 7 - God's Covenant
> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, *it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> 3.* Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit*; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elect infants can only be saved through the Covenant of Grace. Are all infants elect? The inclusion of the phrase "elect infants" could infer that not all infants are elect. The WCF phrases it this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism does nothing to either confirm or influence the elect standing of infants. The paedo view of New Covenant membership is another matter; but Baptists would concur that elect infants dying in infancy are, as I said earlier, saved through the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I particularly affirm that elect infants dying in infancy are saved through the c of g. It should have been unnecessary to say this, but people seem to jump to to incorrect conclusions from reading my posts.
Click to expand...


Tim,

What made you think my post was necessarily about you? I was simply adding clarification to the discussion from a Confessional Baptist perspective.


----------



## timmopussycat

Herald said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> How an antipaedobaptist deals with the second point is something he must wrestle with, but he should never affirm that infants as infants are outside the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC Chapter 7 - God's Covenant
> 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, *it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace*, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 LBC Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> 3.* Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit*; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Elect infants can only be saved through the Covenant of Grace. Are all infants elect? The inclusion of the phrase "elect infants" could infer that not all infants are elect. The WCF phrases it this way:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WCF Chapter 10 - Of Effectual Calling
> III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism does nothing to either confirm or influence the elect standing of infants. The paedo view of New Covenant membership is another matter; but Baptists would concur that elect infants dying in infancy are, as I said earlier, saved through the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And I particularly affirm that elect infants dying in infancy are saved through the c of g. It should have been unnecessary to say this, but people seem to jump to to incorrect conclusions from reading my posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> What made you think my post was necessarily about you? I was simply adding clarification to the discussion from a Confessional Baptist perspective.
Click to expand...

 
Nothing. But I have seen some other people take what I have said elsewhere and draw the wierdest conclusions about what they think my opinions on related questions must be. Upon reading your post I realized that I wanted to piggyback on it to forestall that particular conclusion.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Rejoice that a covenant child has been sealed with God's promise according to his commandment! Rejoice for the growth of Christ's church!


----------

