# Covenant Promise Vs Unconditional Election



## mattbauer (Oct 13, 2005)

Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago. 

If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?

ANY input is much appreciated. I am not looking for a debate, i have no stance on this. Just looking for a little guidance! Grace and peace.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 13, 2005)

> Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both?



Not at all.

God has chosen to call a great many of His elect through Godly familie.

Isa 59:21 "And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore." 

Abraham was called to leave Ur, with his family.


----------



## mattbauer (Oct 13, 2005)

So is the term unconditional election really accurate then or how should we view this in light of that scripture?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
Act 2:39 For the *promise is for you and for your children* and for *all who are far off*, *everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."*

God calls individuals (Paul), families(Noah, Abraham), cities (Ninevah), and nations. 

It is His own sovereign pleasure. And there is no absolute formula for us to discern His ways. (cf. Esau)

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

Hello Matt,
The O.T. promises to children need to be read in the light of Gal 3:7 etc., not to mention Luke 8:20-21; 12:51-53.

There is great blessing being born into a Christian home, but there is *no* promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual (John 1:13; 3:6 ). See the thread on Isaiah 54.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## pastorway (Oct 14, 2005)




----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

> but there is no promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual



If that alone does not sound gnostic, I do not know what does.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

John 3:6. *'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'*

Does that sound gnostic too?

Martin


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

No, because it is a theological statement concerning regeneration.
Spirit is capitalized for a reason. To make a dichotomy between material and spiritual out of the promise of God, the 5th commandment contains a physical promise, as well as a spiritual one does it not ?


Deu 4:7 For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? 
Deu 4:8 And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? 
Deu 4:9 "Only take care, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things that your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. Make them known to your children and your children's children-- 
Deu 4:10 how on the day that you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to me, that I may let them hear my words, so that they may learn to fear me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children so.'


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

> but there is *no* promise to the physical children, but *only to the spiritual *



Look again at the quote above.

There IS a promise to both. That statement is in error.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

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



This promise for children seems to be a promise that extends to the next generation in general and not to every individual's child. If it was intended to be upon every individual's child we would have seen a line of succession that would have eventually made all nations completely full of worshippers of Christ.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > but there is *no* promise to the physical children, but *only to the spiritual *
> ...



I do not see how anyone, credo-baptist or paedo-baptist, could deny that there is no promise to the physical children per se, since not all physical children of believers are among the elect, and God's promises certainly do not fail.

To quote Herman Hoeksema, who is very much a paedo-baptist:

"It was not all Israel which was of Israel. They are not all children because they are called the seed of Abraham. No, the children of the flesh are not counted for the seed, but the children of the promise. The apostle therefore makes a distinction between the seed of the flesh and the seed of the promise. Not all are children of the promise. But the children of the promise have indeed very really received all the blessings of salvation . . . God does not promise salvation in Christ to every child of believers. No more than there is a general offer in the preaching to everyone who hears, no more is there such a general promise in God's covenant. This presentation must be totally rooted out. It lies wholly in the line of Pelagius and Arminius."


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

> This promise for children seems to be a promise that extends to the next generation in general and not to every individual's child. If it was intended to be upon every individual's child we would have seen a line of succession that would have eventually made all nations completely full of worshippers of Christ.



I am not saying it is categorically for ALL children of believers. (Jacob, Esau)

But, it is wrong to say that there is no promise to physical children of believers at all, only the spiritual ones. Which, by the verse in John are born from above not below. The promise IS to physical children. 

And, the current apostasy among Christian families may be God's discipline. That is also scriptural. 



Incidentally, John 3:6 is a good argument for creationism verses traducianism. But that is a different topic.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 14, 2005)

The Bible says:

_6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "œIn Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed._

Can it be any more clear? Physical seed means NOTHING. The children of promise receive the promises. The children of the FLESH "are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted as the seed."

Phillip


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > but there is no promise to the physical children, but only to the spiritual
> ...



It doesn't sound gnostic to me. It only sounds like it was worded poorly. Martin is not gnostic.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

I never said the promise is exclusively physical.

You are only quoting verses that are referring to the error that those who were born of Abraham thought that alone was enough to saved them.

I never said Martin was gnostic, but that the idea was gnostic.

I believe when God says the word will not depart from my children or theirs, that I can have real hope that He will elect some of them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

My hope is that he will regenerate them all because I love them. But I see no guarantee of this in the passages you have sighted.

There is no guarantee of salvation according to the flesh except that God has chosen some to salvation from the foundation of the world. In this we agree.


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> I never said the promise is exclusively physical.
> 
> You are only quoting verses that are referring to the error that those who were born of Abraham thought that alone was enough to saved them.
> ...



Mark, even granting that God in His sovereignty will often work in the context of families to bring in His elect, and that we can have a certain expectancy of our children being elect, I would still say that as regards the individual physical children, there is no "promise", properly speaking, as not _all_ physical seed are elect, as you have granted. A promise of God never fails. The children of the promise are indeed another class entirely from the seed of the flesh, and all children of the promise are saved.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

> A promise of God never fails.



Amen.

So, ALL the children of promise are saved. Which is another way of redundantly saying all God's elect are saved.

But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.



> VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, * the grace promised* is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, *to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto*, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.



Now, according to many of you arguing against "common grace", the grace here in the WCF can only be referring to salvation right ?

Argue one way or the other, but many threads on this board contradict each other.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mattbauer_
> Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.
> 
> If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? *Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both?* If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?
> ...



I believe the order you laid out made a parents faith to be more important than the election of God. If God chose a person and separated them (as he did Abraham) and then promised to save all his children following him, it wouldn't be dependent upon any faith at all, albeit faith would proceed by the life giving promise. God is capable of accomplishing such. 
After saying that let me encourage you to look into the Covenant of Redemption. It is a covenant made between the Father and the Son. The Father gave us who are redeemed to the Son from the foundation of the world. The Son has purchased all whom the Father gave to him. It is finished.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
> So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.



As stated above the Promise is to Spiritual and not Fleshly Isreal. God has and is taking the wild and grafting it in. I would say that more wild has been added the last 2000 years than those who are already in. Chrisitanity has come and gone in many nations. Look at Europe. Of Course it seems He leaves a remnant.

Is there not a difference between electing grace and that which is common grace.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Jie-Huli (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, * the grace promised* is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, *to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto*, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
> ...



The WCF here is assuredly referring to saving grace, not to any supposed "common grace". But is it not stating clearly that this grace is promised "to such as that grace belongs unto" (rather than to all the physical seed or who receive Baptism)? I am not sure where you see a contradiction.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

Everyone needs to look at the promise in the correct light. God did not make the statement and add a qualifier. It is direct and to the point: 

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 

*offspring*! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to disect the offspring. He did not command that we doubt until we see fruit. He did not command that we wait until baptism to hold fast the statement.

In regards to the Flood and Gods statement to Noah:

Gen 9:9 "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 
Gen 9:10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 
Gen 9:11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." 

The next time it rained, did Noah _doubt_ God? If it rained torrentially for three days, did Noah say, "It's happening again"? What is Gods command? Faith? 

Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 

Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. 
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 
Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 

Rom 14:23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. 

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Being faithful to Gods command does not dismantle Gods other decrees. It does not render us heretical. May God be true and every man a liar!

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

> Is there not a difference between electing grace and that which is common grace.



Not according to those who posted in the thread I started regarding common grace. To them the term grace should only be used when referring to God's saving act.

Which is interesting when you look at the WCF:


> VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, *the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time. *



Saving grace offered, exhibited and conferred, we baptize our infants.
But it is only realized within them if they are elect.

What does the WCF mean in that clause above by "promised" ?
And why is it in the context of physical descendants regarding the sacrament of Baptism ?

Because, the promise is TO physical believers and their children.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

Can't you just plainly state what you mean Scott? Does God always have to be speaking in your defense?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Can't you just plainly state what you mean Scott? Does God always have to be speaking in your defense?


----------



## Saiph (Oct 14, 2005)

> offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to disect the offspring. He did not command that we doubt until we see fruit. He did not command that we wait until baptism to hold fast the statement.



Scott, in his genius, has nailed, what I have been trying to say in my feeble attempts.

I believe this answers the young man's question who started the thread.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Everyone needs to look at the promise in the correct light. God did not make the statement and add a qualifier. It is direct and to the point:
> 
> Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
> ...



While I am in agreement that God has promised to be our God and the God to succeeding generations I still don't see that baptism and circumcision are equated in scripture as I have stated in other threads concerning Colosians 2:11,12.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

Hello Mark,
You wrote:-


> But who is the promise made to ? Believers and their seed.
> So, in general, God calls His elect from godly families. This is not new teaching.


It's not new, but it is wrong. It was not even true in the Old Testament as Judah, Eli, Samuel, David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Josiah could tell you. Much less is it true in the N.T. * 'For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion"' *(Rom 9:15; cf. Exod 33:19 ).


Scott wrote:-


> offspring! God did not elaborate on the statement. He did not direct the saints to dissect the offspring.


Well, actually He did, unless The Lord Jesus Christ is not God, John the Baptist is a liar and Paul is not a saint! 

John 8:39, 44. * "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.......You are of your father, the devil. *

Matt 3:9. *"And do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. *

Gal 3:7. *'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.' *

The Seed of Abraham is The Lord Jesus Christ, and those who are united to Him by faith (Gal 3:16, 29 ). Of course it is right and good and beneficial to teach one's children about the Lord (Deut 4:7-10 etc), but that didn't work for Samuel (1Sam 8:1-5 ). The most important thing we can do for our children is that which we do upon our knees. "We gave them life in the flesh; you, Lord, must give them life in the Spirit."

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Mark,
> You wrote:-
> 
> ...




Martin,

Are you saying that I have no hope in Christ having elected any of my children or the children of my fellow believers?




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



There is a Promise and children are included in it as much as those who are far off.


[Edited on 10-14-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Mark,
> You wrote:-
> 
> ...



Martin,
I have no problem reconciling those passages; you make it sound as if the paedobaptist disregards these passages. You quote them over and over again to the point of it being painful. We do not ignore these passages. Reconciling them is harmonized by utilizing the whole bible, the new testament defined by the old and non dispensationalizing any of Gods decree's and commands.

Exo 32:11 But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 
Exo 32:12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. 
Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.'" 

As Randy as well has pointed out, the promise and the statement 'seed' does not exclude. You make it sound as if that should dilineate our faith in tyha promise. Surely Calvin et. al. knew this as well and in their writings they do not derail the promises to the generations of Abraham.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

Scott. Look here. Is there a family and children following in the covenant of Promise. 

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph......


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

Randy,
The names show familial lineage........


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mattbauer_
> Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.
> 
> If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?
> ...



The first thing to deal with is the nature of the "promise" and how it works in relation to election. 

Election is unconditional. Election deals with what has been decreed from eternity and there is a set number known only to God. 

The promise is based on the 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". 

One of the key things to consider is that the CoG is how God has worked out what He has decreed in time and space,ie; His providence. (check out Matt's papers in APM regarding the Covenant of Redemption and Covenant of Grace and how they work together). 

So in relation to the Decrees, the promise is conditional for the elect and non-elect in the church. But the Spirit provides all that is needed to fulfill the conditions for the elect.


----------



## Dan.... (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mattbauer_
> Well, my first thread so here goes nothing. A question i have been wondering about since I first began to study the Bible a year ago.
> 
> If it is an unconditional elect, [that is not based upon anything we do to merit the salvation that God has bestowed upon us (elect)] then how can there be a covenant promise to the children of regenerate parents? Would this not make that Child's salvation conditional upon the parent's faith and make it contingent to the prior regeneration of one if not both? If so how do we differ on the decree of God. Being supralapsarian i do not see a difference in the order of the decrees, So when were they elected to salvation then the parents without anything being forseen by God?
> ...



Unconditional election and the promise "to you and to your children" are not contradictory. The relationship of the physical liniage to election is that of a means to an end. Consider Westminster on "The Eternal Decree":



> WCF III:
> VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, *so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto.* [76] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[77] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[78] and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation.[79] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[80]




Being born into a Christian home - wherein one is raised in a church wherein the gospel is preached; wherein one is diligently taught and admonished by his/her parents (or grandparents) concerning the law and the gospel - this is a means to an end for God's people. 

This does not mean that all children born into Christian homes who are daily admonished and who frequently hear the gospel preached will be saved. Nor does it mean that people who are not born into Christian homes have no hope. Only it means that the atmosphere of the Christian home will be a means of grace to elect child (and a means of further damnation to the non-elect).

God has chosen His children from all eternity, unconditionally, yes. But he also ordained the means by which He would outwardly and effectually call them to Himself.

I am personally blessed to have had grandparents and parents who were believers and who admonished me that I might look to their God to find refuge. I pray that my child also will look to Christ for refuge. In the promise I have hope, and eagerly await the day that my daughter "improves" her baptism and seeks refuge in the God of her fathers.



[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

"But as for me and my house, we *will* serve the LORD." 

No options!


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

Thank you Dan, Mark, Scott & Wayne. 

Some quotes to ponder:

"œIf anyone should ask, Why does God not convert all the children of the godly, since they cannot follow the holy example of their fathers without his mercy, we reply, that he will not bind or restrict his mercy to any single individuals included among the posterity of the righteous; but will reserve his election free to himself, that as he converts and saves some from the posterity of the wicked, so he will leave some of the posterity of the righteous in their natural corruption and misery which all deserve by nature, and this he does, that he may show that his own mercy is free, as well in choosing the posterity of the godly as the posterity of the wicked. Again: God does not convert all the posterity of the godly, because he has not bound himself to bestow mercy on all, or the same benefits on all the posterity of the godly." 

-Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, page 535. 

"Election and the Line of the Covenant "“ Not seldom it has been thought that election is of a sporadic nature so that one is elected from this family and another from that family, "one from a city and two from a generation" irrespective of family or city or generation. The fact, however, that the Lord has ever built up His Church from the seed of the Covenant teaches that as a rule predestination follows a definite course, proceeding along the line of the Covenant, so that as a rule those are elected who are participants in the Covenant. This is encouraging for the Covenant members, but, as we see from Scripture and experience that there are exceptions to this rule, it gives no ground for false assurances." 

William Heyns "Manual of Reformed Doctrine" page 44

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

Hi Randy,
You asked:-


> Are you saying that I have no hope in Christ having elected any of my children or the children of my fellow believers?



Where have I said that? There is every hope. *'The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.'*

What I say is that there is no ground to _presume_ that because you are a Christian, your children will be Christians too. *'That which is born of the flesh is flesh'* and our children are a constant reminder of that. You never have to teach a child to be selfish, untruthful or disobedient; they have that right from the womb. The only thing that you may presume about them is that they are *'brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin.'* 

However, if we follow the instructions of the Bible and teach and catechise our children, set them an example of godly living and pray for them constantly, then we have legitimate reason to hope that God will show them mercy and lead them to Himself.


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



I asked Mark above what the promise is and he didn't reply. The promise is that if they repent, trust in Christ for remission of sins and are baptized, they will be saved (v38 ). That promise certainly holds good, not just for our children, but for everbody else's. * 'As many as the Lord our God shall call.'*

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

Hello Scott,
You wrote:-


> Martin,
> I have no problem reconciling those passages; you make it sound as if the paedobaptist disregards these passages. You quote them over and over again to the point of it being painful. We do not ignore these passages.


Well, it seems to me that you do ignore these passages, and I can tell you that I shall go on repeating them until you deal with them. In this very post you have paid absolutely no attention to them and instead have trotted out the verses from Exodus 32.

You continued:-


> Reconciling them is harmonized by utilizing the whole bible, the new testament defined by the old and non dispensationalizing (sic) any of God's decrees and commands.


I agree that we must compare Scripture with Scripture and use the whole Bible, but we must interpret the OT in the clearer light of the New. Otherwise Paul is made a liar. Either Christ is the Seed of Abraham to whom the promises were made or He isn't. Which is it?

You quoted:-

Exo 32:13.* "Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, 'I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.'"*

Where do we find this seed of Abraham? In the physical seed? Is it that bunch of Christ-haters living in Israel at the moment, and persecuting the tiny community of believers there? Are they the orthodox Jews who inhabit parts of New York, London and elsewhere who also hate Christ? Maybe they are a little part of it. Maybe God will do a wonderful work upon the Jews. But they are not the seed of Abraham that God promised and Moses pleaded for. Not enough of them.

* 'After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits upon the thone, and to the Lamb"...........These are they who come out of the great tribulation and washed their clothes in the blood of the Lamb"' * (Rev 7:9-10, 14 ).

These are not the physical children of Abraham (though some are that as well), but the children of promise, saved by grace through faith. For as it is written: *'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham * (Gal 3:7 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin



[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

Martin,
Let me get this straight: Are you charging all paedobaptist, i.e. Calvin et. al. with total disregard for the passages you cite? Thats what it sounds like, we all ignoring those passages.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 14, 2005)

not ignoring, just mis-exegeting......

:bigsmile:


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> not ignoring, just mis-exegeting......
> 
> :bigsmile:



All paedobaptists? Thats bold of you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hi Randy,
> You asked:-
> 
> ...


----------



## pastorway (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



do you not believe the same of all Baptists?? 

If your interpretation of those verses makes you a paedo then all who use that hermenueitc and arrive at the false conclusions of paedobaptism are in error. 

It is just that simple.

Thankfully though, we have Christ in common so this in not a big deal!

Phillip the Pharmacated


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Martin,
> Let me get this straight: Are you charging all paedobaptists, i.e. Calvin et. al. with total disregard for the passages you cite? Thats what it sounds like, we all ignoring those passages.



Scott, I'm not discussing with Calvin (or al  ), I'm discussing with you. Stop running for cover to Calvin, be a Berean and use your God-given, Spirit-inspired mind to look at what the Scriptures say and interact with the ones I quoted. That's all I'm asking.

I have Calvin's commentaries at home. I can read what he thinks any time. I want to know what you think, please, and I want you to back it up with Scripture, not Calvin.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



True; touche!


----------



## mattbauer (Oct 14, 2005)

> Only it means that the atmosphere of the Christian home will be a means of grace to elect child (and a means of further damnation to the non-elect).



So what is the reason for infant baptism. I understand the paralell of circumcision to baptism and the reason for that. But what actually happens at infant baptism then? Is it apart from grace and rather a dedication in light of what you say? Or am i misunderstanding? I mean no offense of course.

Grace and peace.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

There is no ordinary possibility salvation outside of the Church (WCF XXV. ii). If we don't raise our children as Church members, telling them they're dirty pagans that need to repent, then don't cross your fingers to see them converted and remain true to the faith. If you raise your children as baptised Church members, teaching them the ways of the Lord and instructing them and patterning for them the ways of faith and repentence, the promise that Peter mentions is very much a reality for them, because they are born into the kingdom of God and given all the benefits over and beyond pagan children in the hope of salvation. Are they Christians or should they be called such? I don't think so. But they are part of the Church and given the promise and hope of salvation by faith in Christ alone, something pagan children don't have growing up (by ordinary possibility).


----------



## pastorway (Oct 14, 2005)

thank God that He saves people who are not born into Christian homes or raised in the church!!!!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> There is no ordinary possibility salvation outside of the Church (WCF XXV. ii). If we don't raise our children as Church members, telling them they're dirty pagans that need to repent, then don't cross your fingers to see them converted and remain true to the faith. If you raise your children as baptised Church members, teaching them the ways of the Lord and instructing them and patterning for them the ways of faith and repentence, the promise that Peter mentions is very much a reality for them, because they are born into the kingdom of God and given all the benefits over and beyond pagan children in the hope of salvation. Are they Christians or should they be called such? I don't think so. But they are part of the Church and given the promise and hope of salvation by faith in Christ alone, something pagan children don't have growing up (by ordinary possibility).



Gabe,
Our children are indeed _Christians_. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes _disciple_, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.

I know you know this:

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

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

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15
12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> thank God that He saves people who are not born into Christian homes or raised in the church!!!!



Amen Phillip!

You'd agree though that God does work within the family unit in a larger fashion-no?

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



I thought we were clarifying ourselves against the viewpoint of FV proponents? In that case, yes, my children would be Christians, members of the Church and kingdom of God.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Gabe,
> Our children are indeed _Christians_. They are part of the visible church and are disciples of Christ. The term Christian denotes _disciple_, not a validation of regeneration or conversion.



How or would you distinguish your articulation here to that of Douglas Wilson's explanation of a Christian "'Reformed Is Not Enough'"?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Daniel,
Given my age, would you quote Wilson for me please? :bigsmile:


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 14, 2005)

John 3:6. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.'

The division here is not flesh = human body Vs. Spirit/spirit. Rather, and we know this because rebirth is the subject (secret only the Holy Spirit sovreignly knows we might clearly add), the division is between the flesh that is the fallen Adam (all of us) & sin nature which seeks to work its way back to God Vs. the Spirit/spirit. The flesh, the fallen Adam, which is crucified with Christ. To cease sinning, that is vainly trying to attempt to "œplease" Him in ANY way, IS to slaughter the old Adam on the cross & simultaneously trust in Christ alone. And that is what it means to be crucified & suffer with Christ. The suffering is the old man dying to his way, the way of Cain. And indeed it is painful to the old Adam in us, so painful we act as the two thieves as we approach it.

Thus, this verse gives no support what-so-ever against promises to earthly children or any one for that matter, I.e., flesh = human body. If you are going to maintain this, though such grossly misses the passage, then you can NEVER offer the Gospel, which is promissory by its essential nature to ANY pagan. As a matter of fact you could not freely offer the Gospel to any one as Gospel, since all men are indeed flesh = human body. As a matter of fact you must blaspheme Christ & say, "œyou must work for or purchase the Gospel. (since you set it up to not be a free promise of grace)." Which of course is no Gospel at all & a damned sermon/message according to Paul.

L


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



"A Christian, in one sense, is anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church... according to the Bible, a Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective- it can be photographed and fingerprinted." 

(Pages 19 & 21)

He does not deny that, in another sense, one is must be or is a Christian in an inward sense, regenerated, converted etc. 

So I am asking if you hold to a two-fold sense of being a Christian, or only one sense of being a Christian? 

To be open and honest, this is my position: I would want to raise my children as Christians, believing that they are Christians, even though this may not turn out to be the case. But I would not hold to a two-fold sense of being a 'Christian.' In regards to the covenant/church yes (administration/essence; visible/invisible) but not the word Christian. 

http://www.apuritansmind.com/BookReviews/WilsonDouglasReformedNotEnough.htm#_ftnref17 



[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> http://www.christkirk.com/Literature/ReformedIsNotEnough.pdf



Thanks Gabe. I was looking for that the other day.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



My Children will be considered Christian until the day they apostasize from the church. Being a Christian does not validate one's position in the invisible church.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

You would be in 100% agreement with Wilson on this issue, Scott. (I also)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

. . . .But that doesn't mean I'm going to force wine and bread down my children's throat.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> . . . .But that doesn't mean I'm going to force wine and bread down my children's throat.



Absolutely not. The scriptures are clear on that issue. Paedocommunion is not even a consideration.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



With respect, you didn't quite answer my question: Do you agree with Wilson or not? It seems that you do. 

I agree with your first sentence here, but I am not sure what you mean by your second statement. 

Do you have a problem with Matt's criticism of Wilson on this point, or am I misunderstanding him as well?

[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Dan,
Matt would agree 100% w/ my statement. There is much more baggage attached to Wilsons position that would conflict with what I am saying. You agree that Christian = disciple, correct?


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Dan,
> Matt would agree 100% w/ my statement. There is much more baggage attached to Wilsons position that would conflict with what I am saying.



I realize that you do not find Wilson to be an orthodox theologian and I don't equate his ideas with yours. For someone to hold to what he does at this point does not make one a heretic; but I think it is confusing and unhelpful. As Matt points out, the danger is that it leads to moralism or nominalism (a la Medievalism). 

I just can't reconcile what you said with what Matt says in his book. Nor can I reconcile it with what the 3FU says about Christians. I have compiled it and I can post it elsewhere. 

This is the perspective that I am coming from:

*WCF, Chapter 14*

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

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



> You agree that Christian = disciple, correct?



Yes, but what kind of disciple? 12 disciples? No, Judas was a reprobate. A disciple, it seems to me, is a follower of Christ. I wouldn't believe that someone who doesn't have faith is a follower of Christ. Judas may have followed Christ around, but he didn't believe. 

Perhaps you can show me what you don't agree with about Wilson's position? That would be helpful.

[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

As an aside:

WCF 14. Article 2.

"trembling at the threatenings" 

Isaiah 66:2 "But on this one will I look: On him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, And who trembles at My word."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

> John 6:60 When many of *his disciples* heard it, they said, *"œThis is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"* 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that *his disciples were grumbling* about this, said to *them*, "œDo you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 *But there are some of you who do not believe."* (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "œThis is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
> 
> 66 After this *many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him*. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, "œDo you want to go away as well?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "œLord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." 70 Jesus answered them, "œDid I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil." 71 He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the Twelve, was going to betray him.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > John 6:60 When many of *his disciples* heard it, they said, *"œThis is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"* 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that *his disciples were grumbling* about this, said to *them*, "œDo you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 *But there are some of you who do not believe."* (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, "œThis is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."
> ...











> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

Looks like Scripture disagrees with that definition of disciple, though, that is what I'm saying.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Looks like Scripture disagrees with that definition of disciple, though, that is what I'm saying.



Yes, but do you see what I am saying? 'Disciple' is a fine word to use for Christian except for the fact that it can be understood in more than one sense, as you rightly pointed out. So I wouldn't agree with the word Christian to be equal with disciple, _unless_ you meant disciple in the sense that I gave it above. Therefore the term becomes unhelpful, at least for me, to define what a 'Christian' is.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)

So do you think it can be proven from Scripture that Christian = elect?


----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> So do you think it can be proven from Scripture that Christian = elect?



Not explicitly.

The word Christian, as Wilson points out, is not used very often in Scripture. But I do believe that the Church ought to define the word based on her understanding of scripture. 

[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2005)




----------



## Poimen (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_



Okay. So here is my challenge: how does the Church define a Christian? Not you or me, but the Church. And don't cite the Worstminster to me because it doesn't count!



[Edited on 10-15-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 14, 2005)

Randy,

You asked from another posting:



> Are you saying that I have no hope in Christ having elected any of my children or the children of my fellow believers?



You have much hope brother, meaning expectation and not wishful thinking. And the only way you CAN have biblical expectation, biblical hope, is if a promise is given upon which such faith/trust/hope can be laid and only God can do that. Note I do not say presumption but faith as in trust.

This verse is a good verse of course understood correctly and not incorrectly. "œThe effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." The righteous man spoken of in it is none other than the believer. That is the simultaneous sinner/just in Christ alone - Christ alone makes him righteous not himself. Thus, we are spoken of as righteous for Christ´s sake alone, not our works before or after conversion which are in and of themselves sin. As a matter of fact we must repent entirely and especially of our "œgood works" for NOTHING keeps us from grace more strongly than our "œgood works". Even blind and dead pagan´s recognize gross evil deeds, no it is our "œgood works" that hinder us from Christ and grace. The righteous man of faith is a humble man, not actively as in "œI´m humble", but humble passively having been acted upon by God to kill the man´s self righteous and seeking God by his works. You see the difference, if one is IN Christ, one"˜s old man, the "œgood works"œ machine, MUST die. If one thinks, even post "œcoming to the faith"œ, that one is righteous due to some change of himself, one is not of the real faith. I"˜m not saying we don"˜t struggle with it but the old man must be crucified with Christ. The righteous one is one resting in Christ alone plus nothing AT ALL.

So, the prayer that is effective is a prayer of faith (not a prayer of works or righteousness in that sense), being strong in grace, confident in the thrown of grace on account of Christ, the same who is righteous on account of Christ - not "œa righteous man by his deeds". Thus, this prayer does not "œmove God" as in "œI pray it and otherwise change God´s mind or move Him to mercy". Not at all that would make me effectively saying that I´m the real merciful one and higher than God, and that is truly Satanic. No, in faith, trust in Christ alone, I/you/we can pray such prayers and holding to the promise that God has INDEED said He has consideration for our seed, our children, He cannot see our children Whom HE GAVE TO US and not see us Whom His Son´s own blood has covered and redeemed. That hope, that expectation from the Voice of God Himself IS what gives you faith for your children. God has said this promise, don´t listen to "œhath God really said" interpretations of such verses. If one views otherwise one is really saying, in truth and reality, "˜I´m more merciful than God because I want my children saved but I don´t know about God´.

I offer you this much for now for encouragement: Even if you don´t baptize your children, hold to God´s promise for your children, don´t let ridiculous bendings and obvious additions to God´s word of promise rob you of hope He has spoken to you in His word. Trust in Him alone!

Your brother always,

Larry


----------



## mattbauer (Oct 14, 2005)

I would have to say that i agree with wilson on the subject thus far of definition of a christian in a two-fold sense, however not on a number of other things. But i do not believe this definition of christian to make you an fv advocate, maybe we should stray from this as i am seeing that it can cause quick division just over a definition. 

Just as there were Jews of the synagogue of satan so there should be covenant breaker children that are called christian in the objective sense. 

A non Covenant Member that does not believe is a heathen correct? However a covenant member in the objective sense that denies Christ is a covenant-breaker.


----------



## Dan.... (Oct 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mattbauer_
> 
> 
> > Only it means that the atmosphere of the Christian home will be a means of grace to elect child (and a means of further damnation to the non-elect).
> ...



This fits right along with the Christian home being a means of grace to the elect child.

We baptize our children, setting them apart as the Lord's possession. Baptism is a means of grace.
We discipline, admonish, and instruct our children with the scriptures. This is a means of grace.
We read the scriptures with our children. This is a means of grace.
Our children attend the preaching of the Word. This is a means of Grace.

Election is unconditional, yet God works through ordinary means (i.e. the means of grace) to draw His people to Himself. There is a difference between our children and the children of the world. Our children are in contact with the ordinary means of grace, as members of a Christian home and as members of the visible church, apart from which, "there is no ordinary possibilty of salvation" (WCF XXV:2).



> But what actually happens at infant baptism then?



First to quote the Confession: "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (WCF XXVIII:6).

At baptism (whether infant baptism or adult baptism) the Word is preached (the Word being the primary means of Grace). Those who are present ought to be reminded of their own baptism; that they too have been set apart as the Lord's.

We and are children, ought to "improve" our baptism. As Christian parents we are to instruct our children in this matter:



> WLC Q167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
> A167: 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;[1] 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;[2] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[3] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[4] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[5] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[6] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[7] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[8] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[9]
> 
> 1. Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 6:4, 6, 11
> ...




[Edited on 10-15-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 15, 2005)

I must admit that I haven't heard that we should consider an unregenerate a christian. And let's not start the argument about not being able to know who is and who isn't. A profession of faith and right conversation was at least needed. That is why Matthew Mead wrote the book 'The Almost Christian Discovered'.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I must admit that I haven't heard that we should consider an unregenerate a christian. And let's not start the argument about not being able to know who is and who isn't. A profession of faith and right conversation was at least needed. That is why Matthew Mead wrote the book 'The Almost Christian Discovered'.



Matthew Meads book is written for self evaluation; it is not an ecclesiatical tool.

The baptised infant may or may not be converted; he may be regenerate-he may be unregenerate. He is still a Christian. Adisciple is a Christian. A Christian is a disciple. A disciple may not be a member of the invisible church. A disciple IS a member of the visible church.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 15, 2005)

Gabriel wrote:-


> There is no ordinary possibility (sic) salvation outside of the Church (WCF XXV. ii).


First of all, it's XXVII.ii, secondly it's not written as Gabriel puts it and thirdly it's wrong anyway.


> If we don't raise our children as Church members, telling them they're dirty pagans that need to repent, then don't cross your fingers to see them converted and remain true to the faith. If you raise your children as baptised Church members, teaching them the ways of the Lord and instructing them and patterning for them the ways of faith and repentence, the promise that Peter mentions is very much a reality for them, because they are born into the kingdom of God and given all the benefits over and beyond pagan children in the hope of salvation.



I can think of no better way to raise a Pharisee in your home than this. There is a deadly danger, even in Baptist churches, that the children of believers will believe themselves to be converted because they are treated as Christians, called 'Covenant Kids' or somesuch nonsense and encouraged to think that if they lead outwardly moral lives and attend the ordinances, that will make them Christians.

For the eternal wellbeing of your children, I can only plead with anyone reading this not to be deceived by this specious nonsense! It is sending them to hell with a pocket-full of promises in their hands. Of course the children of believers have wonderful advantages. Of course it is important for them to sit under the word. But unless a child is born again by the Spirit of God, he cannot so much as see the kingdom of God, much less enter it.

Paul is a wonderful example of a 'covenant kid.' Born into a 'covenant' family, circumcised according to the law, taught the Scriptures from a child, trained in religion- gosh! He'd have been right at home here, wouldn't he? Persecuting true believers? 'Nuff said. 

And none of this availed him anything. We all know the word he uses to describe it all (Phil 3:8, KJV if you don't!). But Christ laid hold of him- *outside the Church, mark you!*- and brought him to Himself, taught not by men but by God (Gal 1:11-12 ).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



We are just going to have to disagree on this one Scott. Those dang inferences.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 15, 2005)

Specifically, what do we disagree on here Randy?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Gabriel wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, you're wrong, it is XXV. ii. Click here:

Secondly, you're wrong. It says, and I quote:



> II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] *out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation*.[6]



I said "there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside of the Church." Where was I wrong, Martin? What did I change?

Thirdly, of course you disagree. That's why you're a Baptist and anti-Presbyterian in ecclesiology and, on certain points, soteriology. That's the whole point.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 15, 2005)

This one's done.........


----------

