# Blessings to Covenant Children



## jenney (Feb 26, 2007)

I hear frequently about the promises and blessings for children within the covenant and I have a few questions.

From a paedobaptist perspective:

Who are children in the covenant?
(I have heard "children of believers", "children of people who are in the visible church", "children who believe", "baptised children", "all of the above" and various mixtures of the above including whether a baptism within Rome would count)

Is being a child "in the covenant" the same as being a member of the "visible church"?

What are the blessings of being a child in the covenant?

What are the promises of God to these children?

I don't want to debate this (though I don't mind if you do) I am asking to find out what is meant by these terms. I might ask questions for clarification, however.

Thank you in advance,
jen


----------



## MW (Feb 26, 2007)

David sums it up in two remarkable affirmations of faith:

Ps. 22:9, 10, "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly."

Ps. 71:5, 6, "For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother’s bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 26, 2007)

jenney said:


> I hear frequently about the promises and blessings for children within the covenant and I have a few questions.
> 
> From a paedobaptist perspective:


Ooo! That's me. Just to give some more direct answers though Rev. Winzer is far my superior on such topics.



> *Who are children in the covenant?
> (I have heard "children of believers", "children of people who are in the visible church", "children who believe", "baptised children", "all of the above" and various mixtures of the above including whether a baptism within Rome would count)*



I would say "all of the above". There is some question about whether or not Roman Catholicism counts here.



> *Is being a child "in the covenant" the same as being a member of the "visible church"?*


Yes and not necessarily. Yes in the sense that the visible Church is the visible administration of the Covenant but not necessarily in the sense that there are those that are in the visible administration of the Covenant that are not truly joined to Christ and receive His Covenant mediation.



> *What are the blessings of being a child in the covenant?*


The preaching of the Word, the participation in the Sacraments as means of Grace toward their regeneration and conversion. To have parents that teach you the things of God and to learn "from the knee" how to honor and glorify Him. To have folly driven from your heart at a young age. I can't count the number of sinful habits that I've had to work on that I learned at a young age that are much harder to break when you're older. 

From a purely pragmatic standpoint,obviously, it's far superior to being in the household of Baal where you're being passed through fire to appease false Gods. 

From the Westminster Larger Catechism:


> Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?
> A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government;263 of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies;264 and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation,265 and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,266 and excluding none that will come unto him.267
> 
> Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
> ...





> *What are the promises of God to these children?*



They are really the same as the promise to you: "Child, if you believe upon Jesus Christ, you shall be saved!"

Consider the Heidelberg Cathecism:


> Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
> 
> Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto *this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.*
> 
> ...





> I don't want to debate this (though I don't mind if you do) I am asking to find out what is meant by these terms. I might ask questions for clarification, however.
> 
> Thank you in advance,
> jen


Happy to answer your questions.

Grace and Peace,

Rich


----------



## ReformedWretch (Feb 26, 2007)

Excellent questions Trevor!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 26, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Rich;
> 
> In another post you stated that you waited 9 months before getting your child baptized. During this time were you sinning by disobeying God's command to baptize your children? If not, why cannot I wait until my child is 12 or 13 years until he (in the Lord's will) can visibly speak of his faith in Christ.


I sometimes wonder if I was. I was prevented by Providence from baptizing her. If I was sinning, the elders of my Church did not rebuke me for waiting.

I think the material difference here isn't the amount of time that you're waiting but whether you believe they are proper recipients or not. It's the view of baptism that differs here.



> Too, what does being in the covenant benefit your child more than mine, who has Christian parents and who is raised up under Christian nurture? I am still not clear what additional properties this baptism procures (besides a simple obedience to Christ's command - if it be Christ's commnad). Can a child be a "Covenant Child" even if his parents are saved baptized who believe in Christian nurture?


Well, assuming you take the historically Reformed system as a whole, I would have to ask you why you aren't baptizing them if you agree with the WLC and Heidelberg here.

Again, the material difference is how you view baptism. Part of what both you and your children are "missing" here is the strength that a scriptural view of baptism gives that depends on God's promise and not on us who will (or profess).

I believe you children _are_ Covenant children because you are Christ's. I just believe you are being disobedient in witholding an identifying sign to them and the Church misses out when they don't consider them to be their responsibility, in a Covenantal sense, from the knee.



> Also, suppose apostates take their children to church. Are these children really covenant children even if their parents are goats in sheep's clothing?


Are they apostates or not? I'm not sure of the exact scenario here. Here's a real scenario: I know a few men who once attended our Church who are now excommunicated. Their children still attend Church with their mom because Dad has rejected the faith. Are you asking me to wonder if God has taken back His promise to them in their baptism? Are you asking me if we should put the wife and child out of the Church because Dad has rejected the faith?

Maybe there's another real scenario you can give me that I can respond to.



> They have to the the children of "beleivers" right? BUt this gets into the same baptistic difficulty - we don;'t really know who the Elect are in this life. They are sitting under the visible church and under the administration of the covenant signs and seals, are they not?


We only baptize those who are in the visible Church. If an unbeliever comes to the Church and wants his children baptized so they can "get religion" then baptism is not granted to those children. It is different for children of those who are under Church discipline who were baptized before the entire family repudiated the faith.



> If your kids and my kids are both in the covenant then what advantage does your children's baptism give to your children? If nothing, why baptize? If something, what is it that procure this blessing - the act of baptism? And how do we not fall into sacrementalism or coming to a Anglican position on baptism that it effects something spiritually by its very act?


I think I answered what the material difference is. To be blunt, it's like asking what the difference is between a son with your last name and a bastard who you won't give your name to. It is a blessing to be a member of the visible Church and to be identified as such. It's a blessing to be under Elder care (note that Elders have no authority over those _outside_ the membership of the Church). It's a blessing to understand the sacrament in a Reformed manner as a promise of something from God rather than as a sign of my response.



> By the way, brother, these are real questions and not merely baiting-type questions. I honor the family principle in Scripture and whole families often come to Christ en masse here in Indonesia. I want to honor God's Word over against ANY tradition including my baptistic one. I just feel compelled at this point to follow the more explicit NT examples of only baptizing disciples. There are many good men who are Presbyterian (you are one) and I have tried to come over several times but the lack of clear NT example always gets in the way - I even went to Reformed Theological Seminary for my education! So, I do not take the Presbyterian arguments lightly. In fact, I am rereading Hebrews yet again, trying to do so with a Presbyterian perspective.


I know you're not baiting me. I'm not trying to argue here. I bluntly used the bastard analogy because, in my view, it is equivalent. I recognize that sounds harsh but my answer was not meant to bait.

My worldview is geared a bit different as we have noted. Where you are looking for historical narrative (example) to confirm an exact example of the baptism of a child, I am convinced that didactic teaching makes it clear they're in there. Even if none of the examples of household baptism historically had no children it would always be an argument from silence to me. It wouldn't be enough for me to question the continuity of family solidarity in the Covenant.

I guess what I'm saying is that, if you're looking for that example, then I can't give it to you. I can only point out the inconsistency in having a heart of Covenant nurture and trying to shoe horn it into a Baptistic Covenant Theology.

I do consider you to be a dear brother in the Lord and I'm trying to answer your questions honestly, from a paedo perspective here. I appreciate the way in which you faithfully answered my questions and won't shy from any of yours.


----------



## jenney (Feb 27, 2007)

Rich,
Thank you for replying to each and every question! Whenever someone skips a question, it is inevitably the one that held primary importance to me.

I asked:
What are the blessings of being a child in the covenant?



Semper Fideles said:


> The preaching of the Word, the participation in the Sacraments as means of Grace toward their regeneration and conversion.


The sacraments are a means of Grace toward regeneration and conversion? Both sacraments? Does this mean you practice paedocommunion? I am not sure what else you might mean by "toward their regeneration and conversion" unless they are unconverted when they participate.

Could you clarify that?

I also asked:
What are the promises of God to these children?


Semper Fideles said:


> They are really the same as the promise to you: "Child, if you believe upon Jesus Christ, you shall be saved!"



Isn't that the same promise to everyone, though? We (credos) always accused of not seeing our children as any different from the Muslim kid next door, yet, this promise is for that kid, too: if he believes on Jesus Christ, will he not also be saved?

*So what promises are there for covenant children that aren't there for others?* I don't mean promises for the church itself (to be preserved through the ages, etc) but to the individual children.



> Consider the Heidelberg Cathecism:
> 
> Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee?
> 
> Answer: Thus: That Christ appointed this external washing with water, (a) adding thereto this promise, (b) that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, from all my sins, (c) as I am washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away.


I'm still confused (I'm sorry! I don't mean to be daft! I'm that way naturally!) because this says we are assured by baptism (that Christ's sacrifice is advantageous) because just as I am washed with water, so am I washed by His blood and Spirit the pollution of my soul, that is, all my sin.

Is that saying that baptism reminds me that Christ has washed away my sins just as the water has washed me?

How can this be if I do not trust in Him? and how can it remind me if I am unaware of the baptism at all?



> Happy to answer your questions.


Well, I am so glad because you are precisely who I had in mind when I asked the question in the first place. I knew you would give me thorough and considered answers.

I have one more that just came up. Is it okay if I mess with the thread a bit? It's my thread, so i guess I can tweak it if I want...

The apostasy issue in Hebrews 6:4-6
You see these as children who were part of the covenant (even if their credo parents neglected to baptise them) but who denied Christ. Is that right? And, as Calvinists, you would also say they were never converted at all because if they went out from us, they were never of us in the first place. Is that right?

Here's my question. There is a threat:



> For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.



What does the threat mean? Does it actually mean that a child raised in the church who denies Christ can never be brought to repentance? Does it mean there is no hope for that person?

Thanks for your time. The pieces are falling into place, slowly.

~jenney


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2007)

jenney said:


> Rich,
> Thank you for replying to each and every question! Whenever someone skips a question, it is inevitably the one that held primary importance to me.
> 
> I asked:
> ...



Yes both



> Does this mean you practice paedocommunion?


No.


> I am not sure what else you might mean by "toward their regeneration and conversion" unless they are unconverted when they participate.


One does not need to participate in the Lord's Supper to receive benefits from it. Christ's death and resurrection is shown forth during the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:26). It's actually a form of proclamation of the Gospel. For those that participate it is a means of spiritual nourishment. A professing child who has been admitted to the table upon examination (or even an adult for that matter) might receive grace unto salvation during this meal.

Regarding Baptism:


> Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us?
> A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;1068 by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;1069 by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;1070 by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;1071 by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;1072 and by endeavoring to live by faith,1073 to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,1074 as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;1075 and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.1076


Baptism is a means of grace for us to reflect upon what is offered up and promised in the sacrament. We reflect upon what and who it signifies and draw strength from the Object (Christ) that Baptism points to. Granted, the unregenerate cannot do these things but these are called means of Grace because they are roote in the Word, in the promise, which does have life to renew, revive, and convert.




> I also asked:
> What are the promises of God to these children?
> 
> Isn't that the same promise to everyone, though? We (credos) always accused of not seeing our children as any different from the Muslim kid next door, yet, this promise is for that kid, too: if he believes on Jesus Christ, will he not also be saved?


Well, yes, a Muslim child will believe if he is saved but a Muslim child is not brought constantly near the Word nor the means of Grace which are powerful and strong to save. It is not as if we're arguing that a Covenant child gets some sort of by on the whole belief thing but that he is given great advantage through his participation among these things. There is also an expectation that he should continue to walk in the things that he began in. I often hear even Baptists speak of their apostate children by saying: He wasn't raised to believe that. God, throughout the Scriptures, places the expectation upon parents to see to it that their children are nurtured that they might continue in the things of God.



> *So what promises are there for covenant children that aren't there for others?* I don't mean promises for the church itself (to be preserved through the ages, etc) but to the individual children.


Again, none. The issue here is that they are joined to that promise from the moment they begin forming their thoughts and speech.



> I'm still confused (I'm sorry! I don't mean to be daft! I'm that way naturally!) because this says we are assured by baptism (that Christ's sacrifice is advantageous) because just as I am washed with water, so am I washed by His blood and Spirit the pollution of my soul, that is, all my sin.
> 
> Is that saying that baptism reminds me that Christ has washed away my sins just as the water has washed me?


Exactly, if you believe. The point is that there is a marker there. We are prone to doubt but our baptism is meant to comfort and strengthen us. I remember that water was poured on me. I remember that God promised something to me in that. Satan is trying to tell me that I can't be saved. These visible Sacraments remind me that God _does_ save if I believe. The visible bread and wine sacramentally allow me to feed on Christ's body and blood for strength. 

Regarding my baptism, it is not merely a marker of "here is where I decided." That can be blown down like a house of straw by the enemy. It is an immovable marker set by God that says: I have promised!

Regarding the Lord's Supper, it is not merely a symbol where I just reflect on Christ's actions in the past but it is a means of spiritual nourishment.



> How can this be if I do not trust in Him? and how can it remind me if I am unaware of the baptism at all?


If you do not trust in Him then, like the adult baptized, you will have to answer for your sins. They are not forgiven. It can remind me because it happened. I don't have to remember the event of the Resurrection to believe it happened. 



> The apostasy issue in Hebrews 6:4-6
> You see these as children who were part of the covenant (even if their credo parents neglected to baptise them) but who denied Christ. Is that right?


Well, I suppose. It would be pretty hard to apply this to children per se. They're a little young to have firm evidence of their reprobation. If you ask me whether it concerns those who were baptized and participated visibly in the Church in the external admin of the Covenant I would say "Yes" but it's not specifically aimed at children or even adult converts. It's aimed at Christians young and old to tell them: "Believe!" 



> And, as Calvinists, you would also say they were never converted at all because if they went out from us, they were never of us in the first place. Is that right?


Right.



> What does the threat mean? Does it actually mean that a child raised in the church who denies Christ can never be brought to repentance? Does it mean there is no hope for that person?


It's not specifically addressed at children. It's a warning to the entire Church. The nature of final apostasy is a mystery. My view is that you can never really say, this side of glory, who ultimately will forsake the truth. 

Now, insofar as it is a valid warning to given even to children that they need to continue in the faith, it is for them as well as it is for the adult. The bottom line is that they are in and among great blessings. They hear the Word, the participate in the Sacraments but some, in spite of manna coming from heaven and seeing wonders worked among them, stubbornly disobey and rebel.

We have to be careful here not to bring election into a passage where the Word of God is warning us. We run the risk of using election in such a way that says "...that doesn't apply to me because I'm a believer, therefore I'm elect, therefore I can't fall away...." The threat then becomes hollow and it becomes so much spiritual sophistry on the part of the writer.

The fact is that the warning is real and is a means that God uses to preserve His people from falling away because, quite frankly, it scares the stuffing out of us. My heart is prone to wander and I need the scourging of love from a disciplining father. We'd like to think that our motivations are always going to be based solely on an affectionate disposition on our part toward God. We need both.

In some ways, it might be the very presumption of election that could blind an unregenerate Covenant member to justify their rebellion. "I'm safe, I'm in the covenant. There's plenty of time for disobedience later. I think I'll sow my wild oats for now. I'm elect so there's no looming threat."

Many think their deathbed will be the place to reverse this trend of apostasy but they slide away from these blessings subtley and, by the time they're at death's door, they have no desire to turn to God.

See here http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xii.ii.html



> 6. To renew them again into repentance, etc. Though this seems hard, yet there is no reason to charge God with cruelty when any one suffers only the punishment of his own defection; nor is this inconsistent with other parts of Scripture, where God’s mercy is offered to sinners as soon as they sigh for it, (Ezekiel 18:27 for repentance is required, which he never truly feels who has once wholly fallen away from the Gospel; for such are deprived, as they deserve, of God’s Spirit and given up to a reprobate mind, so that being the slaves of the devil they rush headlong into destruction. Thus it happens that they cease not to add sin to sin, until being wholly hardened they despise God, or like men in despair, express madly their hatred to him. The end of all apostates is, that they are either smitten with stupor, and fear nothing, or curse God their judge, because they cannot escape from him.
> 
> In short, the Apostle warns us, that repentance is not at the will of man, but that it is given by God to those only who have not wholly fallen away from the faith. It is a warning very necessary to us, lest by often delaying until tomorrow, we should alienate ourselves more and more from God. The ungodly indeed deceive themselves by such sayings as this, — that it will be sufficient for them to repent of their wicked life at their last breath. But when they come to die, the dire torments of conscience which they suffer, prove to them that the conversion of man is not an ordinary work. As then the Lord promises pardon to none but to those who repent of their iniquity, it is no wonder that they perish who either through despair or contempt, rush on in their obstinacy into destruction. But when any one rises up again after falling, we may hence conclude that he had not been guilty of defection, however grievously he may have sinned.



Blessings,

Rich


----------



## jenney (Feb 27, 2007)

Rich,
I think I have it. Thank you so much!



> One does not need to participate in the Lord's Supper to receive benefits from it. Christ's death and resurrection is shown forth during the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:26). It's actually a form of proclamation of the Gospel.


Yes, we would fully agree with this, though I would say that the fullness of benefit is obviously only there for those who are regenerate.



> For those that participate it is a means of spiritual nourishment. A professing child who has been admitted to the table upon examination (or even an adult for that matter) might receive grace unto salvation during this meal.


"admitted"= eating the bread and drinking the cup?
"might receive grace unto salvation"= be converted?
So this was a person who falsely professed (not necessarily knowingly) and the grace administered in the meal is unto his/her salvation. Is that what you are saying? In that case, was it a mistake for that person to be admitted in the first place? (assuming admitted is to participate, not simply observe)


Regarding Baptism:


> Q. 167. How is our baptism to be improved by us?


I agree with the answer to this question. And I agree that we continually improve our baptism as we are sanctified in His grace.



> Well, yes, a Muslim child will believe if he is saved but a Muslim child is not brought constantly near the Word nor the means of Grace which are powerful and strong to save.


Yes, exactly. And reformed baptists see God's sovereign placing of my particular blessings in my particular family unit as being a special privilege that my child is receiving. She will have more to answer for than that Muslim child, and our hope is obviously that she will be found a good and faithful servant on that day.



> It is not as if we're arguing that a Covenant child gets some sort of by on the whole belief thing but that he is given great advantage through his participation among these things.


This only differs from the reformed baptist perspective in that we don't allow them as great a participation as you do. We don't baptise them, and in fact hold out membership as something blessed to long for, not salvific, but a great blessing. We want them to want to join, but want it to be for the right reasons. It is a great advantage to be in the church. the Lord's Supper, fellowship with other believers on the Lord's Day, the oversight of the elders in shepherding our souls.



> God, throughout the Scriptures, places the expectation upon parents to see to it that their children are nurtured that they might continue in the things of God.


We would say this the same way only we wouldn't use the word "continue" unless we had a reason to believe s/he had commenced. 

We do train them to obey, but not because they are in the covenant. Everyone is expected to obey God's Law and, while the only people who can obey from the heart are the elect, I must still train them outwardly while speaking to their hearts about the need for true conversion, pointing out that they disobey because they are sinners just like Mama and aim them at the cross, the only place where we can see that sin dealt with. We place before them the need for salvation as part of that training, using the Law as a tutor showing them their need for Christ because they can't obey perfectly. I don't think we are that far apart except in our view of the covenant.

The nitty gritty:
So what promises are there for covenant children that aren't there for others? I don't mean promises for the church itself (to be preserved through the ages, etc) but to the individual children.


> Again, none. The issue here is that they are joined to that promise from the moment they begin forming their thoughts and speech.


Do you mean they are "joined" to the promise (that if they believe they will be saved) when they can think and speak? I'm not sure what that means, to be joined to the promise. It is a phrase I've only heard in conjunction with salvation (ie, the saved person is the one joined). Be identified with it?


The apostasy issue in Hebrews 6:4-6
You see these as children who were part of the covenant (even if their credo parents neglected to baptise them) but who denied Christ. Is that right?


> Well, I suppose. It would be pretty hard to apply this to children per se. They're a little young to have firm evidence of their reprobation.


I guess after the age of accountability! (haha, little sbc joke, there. None of the rb churches I've been in has ever used that phrase)



> If you ask me whether it concerns those who were baptized and participated visibly in the Church in the external admin of the Covenant I would say "Yes" but it's not specifically aimed at children or even adult converts. It's aimed at Christians young and old to tell them: "Believe!"


Is that different from what Reformed Baptists believe? I can't see how.



> What does the threat mean? Does it actually mean that a child raised in the church who denies Christ can never be brought to repentance? Does it mean there is no hope for that person?
> 
> 
> 
> > It's not specifically addressed at children.


Sorry, I shouldn't have used "child".
Let's say grown woman, baptised as an infant in a non-apostate church (to be safe here), professed as a pre-teen and was confirmed in the faith, took communion and then in the late teens renounced it all, worshiped idols, joined false religions, blasphemed, profaned the Sabbath, committed adultery and fornication, stole, lied and dishonored parents.

When it says, "it is impossible (v.4) to renew themselves to repentance (v.6)", is this the person of whom it is speaking?

I'm asking so much about this verse because people say that we (baptists) cannot answer those questions without either allowing for non-regenerate covenant members or denying the perseverance of the saints. They say we have false threats that don't apply to anyone because we believe OSAS. That isn't true. We don't believe they are meaningless threats and I don't see how a CoG perspective makes them meaningful.



> It's a warning to the entire Church. The nature of final apostasy is a mystery. My view is that you can never really say, this side of glory, who ultimately will forsake the truth.


We would agree with this.



> We have to be careful here not to bring election into a passage where the Word of God is warning us. We run the risk of using election in such a way that says "...that doesn't apply to me because I'm a believer, therefore I'm elect, therefore I can't fall away...." The threat then becomes hollow and it becomes so much spiritual sophistry on the part of the writer.
> 
> The fact is that the warning is real and is a means that God uses to preserve His people from falling away because, quite frankly, it scares the stuffing out of us. My heart is prone to wander and I need the scourging of love from a disciplining father. We'd like to think that our motivations are always going to be based solely on an affectionate disposition on our part toward God. We need both.


We would agree with all of this as well.

In fact, there is so much that I agree with, that I don't have much to reply to.

Thank you for your patient answers. I am seeing the issue more clearly as a result.

~jenney


----------



## jenney (Feb 27, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> my brain is fried.._otak goreng_



Ohhh, susah hati!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2007)

{knuckles cracking} Yikes


trevorjohnson said:


> Rich:
> 
> I tried to post this earlier - but my third world connection didn't come through for me.  It was all lost. Trust me...my earlier post would have converted you to my position.


Right...Indonesia is poor. Do you really expect me to believe that?



> I just finished a sermon in Indonesian so my brain is fried.._otak goreng_ in Indonesian I guess (it is taxing to write a sermon in English..10 times as exhausting in a new tongue)...


Tell me about it. Trying to communicate to Baptists is taxing! 



> ANALOGY OF REAL CHILDREN VERSUS BASTARD CHILDREN:
> 
> Interesting analogy, but I get your point (a good one too). BUT - if we give bastard children the family name they are still not in the family unless they have been adopted (Romans 8:15).


Not true. A bastard child typically is given rights by the society to sue his father to support him and take ownership of him. I realize, after saying that, that someone is going to press the analogy too far. My only point is that a birthright exists that is being denied.



> I am having trouble seeing how the situation of my son will be any different whether I baptize him or not. The only difference would be that I am either obeying or disobeying Christ's command (if it be a command...which is exactly my argument, it was never commanded).


Well, yeah. You either are or you are not obeying Christ's command. That's one of the fundamental differences. A big one I might add.



> *My situation is as follows: * I did not grow up in church. I am a foreigner, so to speak, who has become an Israelite. When I was 18, I was saved and baptized. Now, I have a 2 year old son. We are raising him up in Christian nurture and he is even repeating simple catechism questions. He sits under the administration of the visible church and is in the midsts of the covenant members. He is UNDER and AMONG the covenant blessings and would be considered a covenant child. The only difference is that, based on explicit NT example, I am waiting for him to cognitively express belief and repentance to Christ before I baptize him.
> 
> He is certainly under the care and nurture of Christians and the local believers whether water is or is not added. .....And many baptist children are raised in nurture and many baptist churches feel a deep sense of responsibility to train their unbaptized children up in the life of the church - though they are viewed as non-members until they express faith.
> 
> ...


Let me just say that it heartens me greatly when Baptists raise their children like this. I don't think it is my place to give "permission" to getting 90% there and say "no big deal about the disobedience in Baptism thing" but I'm still glad that you train your child. I'll be honest with you, you do better than 75% of the Presbyterians I've run across and probably 90% of the Presbyterian fathers. Where you miss the baptism, they miss the nurture and admonition and, I frankly believe, neglecting the latter is more deadly than neglecting the former.

First, as I already said, there is the difference of obedience to the command. I don't think I need to spell out "What's the big deal?" if you agree that there is a command. Of course, that's the point in dispute.

Second, the command is disobeyed because of a faulty view of the sacrament(s). I do believe that a proper view of Baptism (and the Lord's Supper for that matter) are gracious means. If we understand them properly then they become a source of strength for us. You're, in effect, removing a pillar of faith that ought to be undergirding yours and your child's faith. I recognize, for instance, that people can get saved in a Calvary Chapel. Their faith, nevertheless, is impoverished by a Gospel that confuses and gives them something of which to boast. I believe credo-Baptism, in its placing of the individual's faith at the fore of the sacrament's meaning, has a similar effect toward the impoverishment of faith.

Third, I mentioned Elder care previously. I do believe that Elders are given to the Church to strengthen and to build up the faith therein. This includes every single member. Now you can say that your son benefits from their care but you're not really placing him under their authority. You're not really recognizing him as a small lamb that needs to be shepherded and guarded. That guarding by Godly men, in fact, should be protection against what _you_ might do to harm the child spiritually. Those are hard words for Americans to hear but I am convinced we need to have men of faith that can go into a home and tell a man that he needs to do a better job of training one of their own. 

It's not merely an incidental care that "well some might be elect and some might be reprobate" but it leaves aside that question and points to duty. You see, I find an unhealthy focus on election in some Baptist corners. A Baptist minister I really like once said: "This is one of my few sons that seems to have a tender heart for the Lord." He said it with, what I consider to be, a strange acceptance of the fact that the others _lacked_ a heart for the Lord. These were young children too. This is one of those cases where, I believe, his lack of belief in a Covenant, and his attending responsiblilities, allowed him to accept this as if he had nothing to do with it.

Now this is not always the pit that Baptists fall into (and some Presbyterians do the same thing) but it is a common idea that election is some sort of indiscriminate thing divorced completely from the means of childrearing. I sense from some a strange idea that their children just sort of drift into election or reprobation apart from the means of nurture and admonishment.

Now you have admitted some Covenantal responsibility of a sorts but not in the sense that your child is in the Covenant. See, I can't figure out how to make heads or tails of a parent's responsibility before God with that schema. When I think of the apostasy of children I think of Psalm 78


> 5For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:
> 
> 6That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children:
> 
> ...



I can work within the constructs of normal Covenantal patterns and see the successes and failures of the Israelites and strengthen my resolve and dependence on God to teach these things to my children. I actually pray before my children: "Father, forgive me my sins and forgive me my failures as a parent. Please do not hold my failings as a parent against my children and, in spite of their sinful father, may they learn to trust in you."

So when you ask what the big difference is, I think the big difference is not precisely the water being poured on the head but it is a _mindset_ that baptizes and trains according to a consistent framework that sees my children as my spiritual inheritence within a gracious Covenant.



> God does seem to work through family lines, but we know that there is no power in a family bloodline (aside from Adam's sin nature being ours as well). God ordains that his Elect are usually born under Christian influence and having Christian parents seems to be a chief means by which God blesses some.
> 
> But what does baptism do? It seems that it symbolizes death to the old life and rebirth into the new from Romans 6:4. It is an outward sign of our salvation, the "seal" of which being the Holy Spirit (ephesians). But, why not then wait for some evidence that this new birth has happened?


Well, I don't believe that the Promise of God is something that is evidenced by us. It is something outside of us and doesn't need our evidence to be of effect.



> My child and any child can be told, "Salvation is promised to you if you will confess and believe." Whether a child is in or out of the covenant this promise is the same to all men. What more does baptism do?


It signifies and seals those promises to _that_ child. It is now a promise _specifically_ to him. It is no longer simply a universal promise but a very personal one. It also joins him to the Covenant body and all the benefits therein.



> Too, I recognize that as a Christian God has placed an expectation upon me and my church that we committ ourselves to making sure that my child is raised in an environment that is teaching and nurturing. This commitment is present with our without water added.


Sort of. Your child is not a member. Your child is not really under the spiritual authority of the Pastor. You and your wife are technically members of something that your child is an alien to because the Church bars his entry.



> Too, if baptized children are assumed to be regenerate as some assume (do you?) then these babies would be born in Christ and not born "in Adam."


I assume that everyone in the Church can respond to the things of God. I pray with them _as if_ they are tender to and not hostile to Christ. I do not teach my child to pray: "God I hate you because I am in the flesh! When you regenerate me then I'll tell you I love you."



> Here's some realistic scenarios:
> 
> The Reformation hit northern Europe like lightning. Outward gain could be had in many regions by "converting" in name only to this new sect called Lutheranism or Protestantism. The children, being children of "believers" (the WCF and Presbyterians assume that they are beleivers, just like the baptists assume so) are also baptized. These grow up unsaved, but attend church and insist that their children be baptized. Thus, generations of unregenerate people seem to be within the covenant and northern Europe embodies what is referred to as "Christendom" but in reality is largely pagan - though most are baptized.


I think the history of European Protestantism can be read in Psalm 78. Same thing for American Protestantism. I don't look at empirical examples to determine the reasons for apostasy, I look at God's Word that tells me why apostasy occurs. I can find no reason in the Scriptures, other than lack of proper training, for the reason why apostasy occurs. Certainly election is a first cause but that's like saying men go to Hell because of God's decree. True as far as it goes but it doesn't tell you who was proximately responsible.



> You and Paul M. made a good point on another thread that percentage-wise perhaps baptizing the children of believers would get a greater number of the elect in then baptizing every professor.
> 
> I think you called it a "calculus of election".
> 
> A good point (I truly believe this) and applicable for our age of easy-believism. But at least historically, whole populations that have been baptized have never shown any fruits under the "Christendom Model" of Christianity.


I think the main point there was as a defeater to the poor argument that only the elect ought to be baptized and, therefore, we should wait for professors. It's not an equivalent criticism of the paedo position because we don't baptize with that as our primary justification for the rite.



> Some questions:
> 
> What happens when a couple comes into the church, professes belief and has their babies baptized. Later, the parents turn out to be gross apostates. Are the babies still covenant children? Or did it just appear that way for a time and now they are no longer in the covenant?


Well, first of all, their parents are Covenant breakers. They might be ultimately restored obviously. If the children continue in the faith, they need not be re-baptized. The promise of their initial baptism was not contingent upon their parent's faith. Were that the case then the generation that died in the wilderness would have left nobody to carry on in Israel.



> What about their own children? Since the parents are in the chuch, then their children should be baptized in the church too?


I assume you're talking about a whole family that repudiates the faith. Let's say Mom and Dad baptize Johnny at age 1. They become Satan worshippers when he's 2 and he grows up completely apostate. If he came back to the Church repentant at age 30, he would not need to be re-baptized. If he's still a Satan worshipper then he's not in the visible Church and his children would not be baptized. Apostate Jews, for the record, are not in the Covenant of Grace. They are cut off visibly.



> Do baptisms ever become invalid?


Properly administered? No. God's promise is always there. There is a sense, in fact, that the child is under greater condemnation if he dies in unbelief. Unbelieving parents, in my estimation, do well to _not_ baptize their children if they never intend to raise their children in the Lord. Opinions may differ on this but if that child remains reprobate, all baptism does is bind the child to yet another thing that he has violated.



> If _the visible Sacraments are present to remind you that you can be saved if you will believe_, then why do it to those too young to remember. Isn't it a better reminder if it can be remembered? Especially if it occurs after one places their faith in Christ as a symbol of being dead and buried to the old life and being raised to new life.


I don't need to be present at all the things that I believe in and look to for strength. There's a bit of a "unless I see the nails" idea here that it's better that I see for myself rather than accept the fact of the promise in faith. Think of all the ways Scripture speaks of faith as seeing something afar off and commends it. I don't think the fact that adults get to experience their own baptism makes it any more or less significant for them. In fact, we believe that witnessing other's baptisms is a way to remind us of our own. That child, when his mind is mature and he understands what has been promised for him, will be witness to other's baptisms. In them he will see again the promise that was made to Him by God and will draw strength from it. I'll be honest with you, I've seen a ton of believer's baptisms and I was happy but they never did much for me because it seemed like it was more of a thing for that person and Jesus - they're special thing. In fact, this Church I attend never uses our Baptistry because everybody wants their own special place to be baptized so they go to the Marina or to the ocean. It's not an event for the Church at all. When I see a child or an adult baptized in Church and am reminded to hearken to my own (which, incidentally, was a believer's baptism) I am strengthened and moved in a profound way.



> Isn't the narrative tales of Moses and Abraham circumcisicing their children just as much narrative as Jesus and others baptising? Obviously there is a lot to be taught from all of these historical descriptions of events (though they are given as narratives and not as formulas). We can, for instance, learn that nothing hinders one from being baptized if they believe, or that the pharisees coming to John had to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, or that it appears the adults who were baptized HAD to believe and confes first (a normative teaching that even Presbyterians assert).


Certainly there are narratives there but the deeper meaning and responsibilites of the Covenant is expressed in the Law, the Proverbs, the Prophets, and the Psalms. It's hardly just a historical narrative that teaches us about the nature of Covenant.



> Rich, hopefully these questions are phrased clearly. I am tired and am becoming tired of the baptism threads. But hopefully, I have answered your questions and proposed some fair ones in return that are not merely strawmen or misrepresentations.


Good questions Brother. There have been a flurry of Baptism threads but, honestly, I think these have been the most fruitful discussions since I've been on the PB. You remember well, I'm sure, how Martin Marprelate and I used to go at it. I think some of us are finally beginning to understand each other. I sometimes am shocked that some actually were a bit confused on where we stood and I find myself shocked at some of yours (and others) views on your kids. It's been very tiring and worth the effort.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2007)

Jenney,

I haven't forgotten about you. I have to take a breather after that marathon post.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2007)

Jenney,

I'll try not to re-tread what I wrote to Trevor.


jenney said:


> Rich,
> "admitted"= eating the bread and drinking the cup?
> "might receive grace unto salvation"= be converted?
> So this was a person who falsely professed (not necessarily knowingly) and the grace administered in the meal is unto his/her salvation. Is that what you are saying? In that case, was it a mistake for that person to be admitted in the first place? (assuming admitted is to participate, not simply observe)


Probably, yes, a mistake but remember that we baptize adults all the time that end up being reprobate. I've even known men who were apologists who apostasized. What I'm saying is that the Sacraments can have a regenerating and converting effect upon visible saints who aren't in the invisible Church yet. That includes children, that includes grown adults. I don't think an uncoverted person can receive the full benefits until they are actually converted but, in the same manner the Word transforms, so do the Sacraments.

Incidentally, I hope some of the brethren who are better studied on this will step in and correct my wording if I have erred.



> Yes, exactly. And reformed baptists see God's sovereign placing of my particular blessings in my particular family unit as being a special privilege that my child is receiving. She will have more to answer for than that Muslim child, and our hope is obviously that she will be found a good and faithful servant on that day.


We all, obviously, pray and hope for mature faith. The difference is that I don't assume that being infantile means that a child has no faith whatsoever. Little children are a bit of a mystery because you can't see what's really inside of their head. I was thinking about this yesterday. Our youngest, Sophia, is 11 months and she's beginning to walk. You have several kids so you'll know what I mean when I say that it seems like all of the sudden she's just had this quantum leap in interaction and development. She used to be relatively quiet and didn't make too much noise. It's likely due to having two older siblings that are quite loud.

Anyhow, she was guiding herself around the couch yesterday and peering out at me and smiling and making this intonated baby sounds. They weren't merely grunts but they were infantile attempts at communication. I wondered, at that moment, what the concept in her mind "looked like" that she was thinking about. I know she knows me and my wife and her siblings even if she can't say our names or call us out by a certain title but we know that she "knows" us.

I frankly think that some Christians are very dissonant about development in this fashion. They believe the only kind of faith that can exist is a cognitive, speaking faith. They won't claim this about love, of course. If you asked me: "Does Sophia love you?" I would have to say that she does. She is extremely happy to see me and I soothe her like no other man would when she is hurt. Is it a fully developed love? No, she's an infant.

You see, I don't have to spend much time explaining that to you or to anyone with children. So we all live our lives and place expectations on maturity in all other intelectual and spiritual attributes BUT then Baptists step completely away from this organic reality and insist that the only kind of faith that is real is a faith that understands imputation.

Now, I'm not so sentimental that I think that all is well in the world because my two other children express tenderness towards us and towards God and that my work is done. Nevertheless, I don't assume _away_ their faith but I nurture and encourage what I assume is genuine. In other words, I don't rebuke my son or daughter about saying they love Jesus by saying: "How can you say that? You're only 3! You don't know what real love is."



> This only differs from the reformed baptist perspective in that we don't allow them as great a participation as you do. We don't baptise them, and in fact hold out membership as something blessed to long for, not salvific, but a great blessing. We want them to want to join, but want it to be for the right reasons. It is a great advantage to be in the church. the Lord's Supper, fellowship with other believers on the Lord's Day, the oversight of the elders in shepherding our souls.


But, you see, in my view, having your children long for membership is like making them long for you to identify them as your children. If you understood it in the way I did, then it wouldn't be equivalent. Again, you're assuming membership is something someone grows into and is a sign of their maturity. I'm saying that membership is like being planted in rich soil and is one of the things that nurtures and feeds that seed of faith that is being developed in the child.



> We would say this the same way only we wouldn't use the word "continue" unless we had a reason to believe s/he had commenced.


Read above concerning faith. I believe it is something that we want them to continue in. I believe it is something that we need to instill into our children as a duty - to train, from their youngest years, to say "The Lord is God, the Lord is One." This is why you have some baptists in the other thread who can only look at the Law, Proverbs, and Psalms as history and not a guide. 



> We do train them to obey, but not because they are in the covenant. Everyone is expected to obey God's Law and, while the only people who can obey from the heart are the elect, I must still train them outwardly while speaking to their hearts about the need for true conversion, pointing out that they disobey because they are sinners just like Mama and aim them at the cross, the only place where we can see that sin dealt with. We place before them the need for salvation as part of that training, using the Law as a tutor showing them their need for Christ because they can't obey perfectly. I don't think we are that far apart except in our view of the covenant.


But, you have to see, this is miles apart unfortunately. You keep taking principles that are normative for Covenant life and trying to come up with an eclectic principle for non-Covenant members just to avoid acknowledging they're in the Covenant. My children's obligation to serve and obey the Lord is not equivalent to the child of a Pagan. It's just that simple. Paul never commands pagan children to obey their parents, hearkening back to a promise made to the Covenant.



> Do you mean they are "joined" to the promise (that if they believe they will be saved) when they can think and speak? I'm not sure what that means, to be joined to the promise. It is a phrase I've only heard in conjunction with salvation (ie, the saved person is the one joined). Be identified with it?


It means the promise is for them. They are joined to the Church. It is a real promise, ministerially administered, where the child can hearken back and say: God will save me. I must believe in Him. We, of course, want to train our children to fall on their knees and ask God to save them but who of us doesn't pray this way: "Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief!"

It's one thing for their to be a general herald of the Gospel, it is another to know that God has signified and sealed a promise _to you_.




> The apostasy issue in Hebrews 6:4-6
> You see these as children who were part of the covenant (even if their credo parents neglected to baptise them) but who denied Christ. Is that right?
> 
> I guess after the age of accountability! (haha, little sbc joke, there. None of the rb churches I've been in has ever used that phrase)
> ...


Reformed Baptists don't believe there are any in the Covenant that can break the Covenant. Frankly, this disjunction creates as many problems for adults as children. By concluding that the New Covenant membership is perfect (all elect), they really cause a lot of "suspicion" about Covenant community. That is, who can know who's in Covenant with whom? If you're constantly eyeing your brother and sister to determine if they're elect then you're not enjoying one of the blessings of the Covenant - that we're in Covenant with one another. I know that sounds simple but it really is sad to hear Reformed Baptists take not only kids out of the Covenant but everybody in the visible Church as well in favor of some invisible idea that they're in Covenant with some people (they just don't know who).

Thus, the difference, for this passage is that Reformed Baptists would say that nobody really breaks the Covenant.



> Sorry, I shouldn't have used "child".
> Let's say grown woman, baptised as an infant in a non-apostate church (to be safe here), professed as a pre-teen and was confirmed in the faith, took communion and then in the late teens renounced it all, worshiped idols, joined false religions, blasphemed, profaned the Sabbath, committed adultery and fornication, stole, lied and dishonored parents.
> 
> When it says, "it is impossible (v.4) to renew themselves to repentance (v.6)", is this the person of whom it is speaking?



Well, if she's restored then "No." I honestly think that the actual nature of true apostasy is hidden from the sinful human heart. The threat here is that unbelief is a dangerous thing. The passage does not need to labor where the line is crossed. Our sinful hearts want that line so we can walk right up to it and dance in front of it without crossing over it. The warning to me is, frankly, remain in faith because even just a little unbelief is a dangerous thing.



> I'm asking so much about this verse because people say that we (baptists) cannot answer those questions without either allowing for non-regenerate covenant members or denying the perseverance of the saints. They say we have false threats that don't apply to anyone because we believe OSAS. That isn't true. We don't believe they are meaningless threats and I don't see how a CoG perspective makes them meaningful.


Well, I think I spelled out how they do. I kind of added a little as to why that "perfect membership" schema makes Body life a bit impoverished as well.



> Thank you for your patient answers. I am seeing the issue more clearly as a result.
> 
> ~jenney



No problem at all. I'm sorry if my answers are not complete. The quote thingy makes it hard to figure out what you were responding to so I hope I did an adquate job of addressing your concerns.


----------



## MW (Feb 27, 2007)

Rich, while you're taking another breather, shout yourself a treat for your patient and prudent answers, and put it on my virtual account.


----------



## jenney (Feb 28, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Ibu Jenney:
> Anda bisa berbicara dalam Bahasa Indonesia juga?



Keluargaku tinggal di dalam Sabah, Malaysia enam tahun yang lalu. Kami masih merindui kawan kawan di sana, tapi mereka tiada komputer (atau fon, atau pejabat pos...)  sekarang _saya_ susah hati!

Kami cakap behasa Melayu, tetapi, behasa kampung saja.

You can tell it's actually pretty different from Indonesian (pronouns, spellings, prefixes and suffixes are usually ignored--note saja instead of sehaja, tapi instead of tetapi, tiada instead of tidak ada, etc). I guess it is at least different enough that I was never able to read an Indonesian newspaper! Of course, the Malay spoken in Semenanjung Malaysia is probably much more formal than what we spoke in the kampung, but we're Sabahans at heart I guess! 

I wasn't sure if a colloqualism like "susah hati" was used where you are, but in Sabah it didn't just mean "sad"--it also meant "yeesh, that's rough!" and "aw, poor you!" A general remark of sympathy.

All this makes me want a dish of ikan bilis digoreng dengan sos cili.

   

I'm going to write my kakak now and then put the bungsu to bed. Saya mesti pun tidur.

selamat tidur!

***as you were, gentlemen***
~jenney


----------



## jenney (Feb 28, 2007)

Rich,
Thanks! I think I have most of my questions answered now.



> The difference is that I don't assume that being infantile means that a child has no faith whatsoever.


I don't either. Elect infants have faith. Why would the gift of God be constrained only to those who can express it?



> I don't rebuke my son or daughter about saying they love Jesus by saying: "How can you say that? You're only 3! You don't know what real love is."


Well, if I ever heard anyone say anything like that to a child, I would just want to poke him in the eye with a sharp stick.



> But, you see, in my view, having your children long for membership is like making them long for you to identify them as your children. If you understood it in the way I did, then it wouldn't be equivalent.


Yes, I totally see why this would be a tragedy in your mind.



> Again, you're assuming membership is something someone grows into and is a sign of their maturity.


No, I'm saying that I think it is for believers. If the person doesn't even claim to believe, then I don't think it is appropriate for him/her to join in the Lord's Supper.



> You keep taking principles that are normative for Covenant life and trying to come up with an eclectic principle for non-Covenant members just to avoid acknowledging they're in the Covenant.


This actually made me laugh (not at you! It isn't silly or foolish to me at all!) It seemed funny that it is so culturally different that you have us "Trying to come up with" some principle, when we just live comfortably with it and the covenant thing doesn't enter into it. It is smooth and consistent to me, just a different worldview, if you will!



> Paul never commands pagan children to obey their parents, hearkening back to a promise made to the Covenant.


Paul doesn't need to, because the Law of God is binding for all people, not just the people of God. Everyone is guilty of dishonoring his parents whether in the covenant or not.



> By concluding that the New Covenant membership is perfect (all elect), they really cause a lot of "suspicion" about Covenant community.


Okay, truth be told, I laughed again. Still not thinking this was foolish or anything, just that it is _so far_ from the reality that I know with the brethren in my church I can't imagine it. Eyeing one another to determine if their elect? I just never, just never. We talk about our Lord and what He is doing in us, in the lives of our families, in the world; we pray together, we study together, we eat and drink and laugh together; we cry with one another, we comfort and encourage and support one another in our faith. I guess you would say that we don't live out the logical conclusion of our confession, acting covenantal but without really meaning it, like an arminian who prays for another's salvation isn't really very arminian.

with regards to the baptised but fallen woman:


> Well, if she's restored then "No."


Oh, good, because that was me! I actually lay in bed last night thinking, "if the presbyterians on the PB know that I was baptised but then lived like a godless pagan, will they say my repentance isn't valid because it is impossible for someone like that to ever come to true repentance?" I was ready to confess my past, apologize to all of you for my accidental deception and resign from this place! But I thought I'd ask first.



> I'm sorry if my answers are not complete. The quote thingy makes it hard to figure out what you were responding to so I hope I did an adquate job of addressing your concerns.


No, your answers are great and I feel like I get it reasonably well. Things that seem obviously inconsistent to you folks don't to me, but Dawn (5solasmom) has a book that is for sure going to convince me that I'm all wrong. And the spouse and I are okay with that. We're so far convinced of the credo view but we don't hold to it with a tight squeeze the way we would to, say, the deity of Christ (where our minds are truly *closed*--by God's grace.)

Thanks for the boundless effort and energy poured into the discussion. I really really appreciate it. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye but I appreciate your ability to be gracious and not question either my faith or my intelligence (no need for that, it's pretty questionable on its own!) in answering.

Thanks a million. You can go on with Trevor if you guys want and i won't consider my thread hijacked. I just don't have a whole lot to ask anymore!

All the best to you and your family,
jenney


----------



## Davidius (Feb 28, 2007)

Jenney,

Just to clarify, we aren't Paedocommunionists. Nobody said anything about allowing people who haven't made a profession of faith to come to the Lord's table. As in the Old Testament with Circumcision and the Passover meal, we also have one sacrament which brings the children of believers into the visible Church and one of which those who have professed faith may partake.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 28, 2007)

Trevor,

I'll certainly be praying for you in your efforts to help the people in Indonesia. I'm thankful that this medium puts me in contact with such brothers such as yourself.

In Christ's Love,

Rich


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 2, 2007)

jenney said:


> Dawn (5solasmom) has a book that is for sure going to convince me that I'm all wrong.






It's on it's way btw! LOL 

And sent to help you understand wacky paedo stuff...which it seems to me you've been able to do (quicker than I did btw ).


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 2, 2007)

OK that cheers emoticon has me  . I don't even drink beer. 

It's late...I'm goofy...need sleep...


----------



## jenney (Mar 5, 2007)

5solasmom said:


> OK that cheers emoticon has me  . I don't even drink beer.



I've always heard that you presbyterians love to talk about Christian liberty with beer on your breath...

~jenney

p.s. got the book. Thank You!

I'm on chapter three with about nine pages of notes so far and lots of bookmarks in my Bible. It's slow going, but I can just about articulate the paedo position at this point and where we would differ (and why). We don't fit his model of baptists _at all_, however! lol.

He gives this list (in prose) of what it means to be "dispensational" and I went through it: no, no, no, no. All no's. Guess I'm not dispensational. Then I went through his list of "covenantal" and said yes, yes, yes, yes. All yeses. Guess I'm covenantal. But then he said that baptists are dispensational by definition, so I guess he left something off one of his lists (baptism, it would seem!) and that something is the precise thing that defines who is actually dispensational. It doesn't matter how you see salvation, covenants, the OT-NT distinction, hermeneutic interpretation of the NT, etc. All that really defines you as dispensational is baptism. At least by his definition. And that is all that defines you as Reformed by his definition, too. 

What's rough about all that is that if I tell someone that I am "non-reformed and dispensational" that usually communicates to them that I am arminian and premil, pretrib. Which I'm not. What do I say? "Hi, I'm Jenney and I'm a non-reformed Five-Pointer and amillennial dispensationalist who believes the Law of God still applies to us today and that the Jews before Christ had to be saved the same way people do today and--hey! Where did everybody go? I'm not done introducing myself!!!" 

**end of p.s. i'll save the rest for a pm!**


----------



## 5solasmom (Mar 6, 2007)

Hmm. I didn't "get" that from it (baptists are "automatically dispensational"). Jeff didn't either, but maybe we just weren't paying that close attention.  

The impression we got was that there is a hermanuetical inconsistency if someone considers themselves "covenantal" but not paedo as well. I never saw it as "that therefore means they are dispensational", rather we understood it as more like "covenantal but inconsistent on some key points". I wouldn't say RB's are "dispensational".


----------

